<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_14_2210235</id>
	<title>"Loud Commercial" Legislation Proposed In US Congress</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1260790320000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.eff.org/" rel="nofollow">Hackajar</a> writes <i>"Have you ever caught yourself running for the volume control when a TV commercial comes on?  Congresswoman Anna Eshoo (D-CA) has, and is submitting legislation that would require TV commercials in the US to <a href="http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Congress-Would-you-please-apf-3289350473.html?x=0&amp;.v=2">stay at volume levels similar to the programming they are associated with</a>. From the article: 'Right now, the government doesn't have much say in the volume of TV ads. It's been <a href="http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/backgroundnoise.html">getting complaints</a> ever since televisions began proliferating in the 1950s. But the FCC concluded in 1984 there was no fair way to write regulations controlling the "apparent loudness" of commercials.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hackajar writes " Have you ever caught yourself running for the volume control when a TV commercial comes on ?
Congresswoman Anna Eshoo ( D-CA ) has , and is submitting legislation that would require TV commercials in the US to stay at volume levels similar to the programming they are associated with .
From the article : 'Right now , the government does n't have much say in the volume of TV ads .
It 's been getting complaints ever since televisions began proliferating in the 1950s .
But the FCC concluded in 1984 there was no fair way to write regulations controlling the " apparent loudness " of commercials .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hackajar writes "Have you ever caught yourself running for the volume control when a TV commercial comes on?
Congresswoman Anna Eshoo (D-CA) has, and is submitting legislation that would require TV commercials in the US to stay at volume levels similar to the programming they are associated with.
From the article: 'Right now, the government doesn't have much say in the volume of TV ads.
It's been getting complaints ever since televisions began proliferating in the 1950s.
But the FCC concluded in 1984 there was no fair way to write regulations controlling the "apparent loudness" of commercials.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30443970</id>
	<title>Re:Install your own compressor</title>
	<author>Sandbags</author>
	<datestamp>1260891900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, you'd rather everyone who can't afford or does not currently need a new TV be subject to loud commercials, and make the rest of us pay, even if its $1 (about $50 million a year, not including absorbedc costs of redesign, and no a compression filter is not the same price as a vChip so it certainly will NOT be that cheap), for this blocking technology, vs. a simple, and damned near free system call "pass a law once".</p><p>Look, technically the "volume" is not increased.  Your TV Volume has a "max" point.  Spoken voice and most music occupy the 50-80\% gain in multiple frequencies, spead wide across the spectrum.  In Commercials, instead of the voice being recorded at 50\%, it's recorded at 90\% and thus that spoken voice in the commercial is in fact creating nearly double the DECIBLES (ok, actually that's a curve of squares, but it's double the energy), which IS measurable very directly and easily, and can easily be compared vs a program's audio.  Also, noone said we'd be measuring any particular range/ranges here, simply that the commercial must not exceed the average peak of the program.  If the average peak of the program is a gun slinger high action movie with lots of bangs, a loud commercial might not be all that noticible to a listening device, but if it;s a late night talk show, then spoken voice in a commercial having double the gain would ping instantly.</p><p>Make it simple.  Use the fines to fund the process.  Use viewer complaints to find and target advertisers, and recorded playback at the station (which they already keep per FCC rules for a limited time) to prove the abuse.  Make the fines VERY heavy and they'll simply stop doing it.  Since this law requires nothing more than a hotline or website to be set up (which could simply be a "call your local boradcaster or cable company and they'll fill out a form for you), and that would only be used for a short time for a small number of complaints (and placing some of the cost on the broadcaster might simply make them refuse to PLAY that comercial, or require an authorization for them to noise balance it at cost to the advertiser submitting the feed), then this will be a soon forgotten problem, with no ongoing cost to americans.</p><p>You propose redesigns of over 5,000 unique TV models, changes to manufacturing, stocking and sales issues with older non-compliant TVs, and a disposal issue for used sets, and a consumer cost, for something most of us won't see for 5-10 years?  All to replace a simple law that costs little to nothing, uses the existing powers of an existing agency for enforcement, the power of consumers for enforcement, and would overnight see an end to these poor practices?  Fuck you sir.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , you 'd rather everyone who ca n't afford or does not currently need a new TV be subject to loud commercials , and make the rest of us pay , even if its $ 1 ( about $ 50 million a year , not including absorbedc costs of redesign , and no a compression filter is not the same price as a vChip so it certainly will NOT be that cheap ) , for this blocking technology , vs. a simple , and damned near free system call " pass a law once " .Look , technically the " volume " is not increased .
Your TV Volume has a " max " point .
Spoken voice and most music occupy the 50-80 \ % gain in multiple frequencies , spead wide across the spectrum .
In Commercials , instead of the voice being recorded at 50 \ % , it 's recorded at 90 \ % and thus that spoken voice in the commercial is in fact creating nearly double the DECIBLES ( ok , actually that 's a curve of squares , but it 's double the energy ) , which IS measurable very directly and easily , and can easily be compared vs a program 's audio .
Also , noone said we 'd be measuring any particular range/ranges here , simply that the commercial must not exceed the average peak of the program .
If the average peak of the program is a gun slinger high action movie with lots of bangs , a loud commercial might not be all that noticible to a listening device , but if it ; s a late night talk show , then spoken voice in a commercial having double the gain would ping instantly.Make it simple .
Use the fines to fund the process .
Use viewer complaints to find and target advertisers , and recorded playback at the station ( which they already keep per FCC rules for a limited time ) to prove the abuse .
Make the fines VERY heavy and they 'll simply stop doing it .
Since this law requires nothing more than a hotline or website to be set up ( which could simply be a " call your local boradcaster or cable company and they 'll fill out a form for you ) , and that would only be used for a short time for a small number of complaints ( and placing some of the cost on the broadcaster might simply make them refuse to PLAY that comercial , or require an authorization for them to noise balance it at cost to the advertiser submitting the feed ) , then this will be a soon forgotten problem , with no ongoing cost to americans.You propose redesigns of over 5,000 unique TV models , changes to manufacturing , stocking and sales issues with older non-compliant TVs , and a disposal issue for used sets , and a consumer cost , for something most of us wo n't see for 5-10 years ?
All to replace a simple law that costs little to nothing , uses the existing powers of an existing agency for enforcement , the power of consumers for enforcement , and would overnight see an end to these poor practices ?
Fuck you sir .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, you'd rather everyone who can't afford or does not currently need a new TV be subject to loud commercials, and make the rest of us pay, even if its $1 (about $50 million a year, not including absorbedc costs of redesign, and no a compression filter is not the same price as a vChip so it certainly will NOT be that cheap), for this blocking technology, vs. a simple, and damned near free system call "pass a law once".Look, technically the "volume" is not increased.
Your TV Volume has a "max" point.
Spoken voice and most music occupy the 50-80\% gain in multiple frequencies, spead wide across the spectrum.
In Commercials, instead of the voice being recorded at 50\%, it's recorded at 90\% and thus that spoken voice in the commercial is in fact creating nearly double the DECIBLES (ok, actually that's a curve of squares, but it's double the energy), which IS measurable very directly and easily, and can easily be compared vs a program's audio.
Also, noone said we'd be measuring any particular range/ranges here, simply that the commercial must not exceed the average peak of the program.
If the average peak of the program is a gun slinger high action movie with lots of bangs, a loud commercial might not be all that noticible to a listening device, but if it;s a late night talk show, then spoken voice in a commercial having double the gain would ping instantly.Make it simple.
Use the fines to fund the process.
Use viewer complaints to find and target advertisers, and recorded playback at the station (which they already keep per FCC rules for a limited time) to prove the abuse.
Make the fines VERY heavy and they'll simply stop doing it.
Since this law requires nothing more than a hotline or website to be set up (which could simply be a "call your local boradcaster or cable company and they'll fill out a form for you), and that would only be used for a short time for a small number of complaints (and placing some of the cost on the broadcaster might simply make them refuse to PLAY that comercial, or require an authorization for them to noise balance it at cost to the advertiser submitting the feed), then this will be a soon forgotten problem, with no ongoing cost to americans.You propose redesigns of over 5,000 unique TV models, changes to manufacturing, stocking and sales issues with older non-compliant TVs, and a disposal issue for used sets, and a consumer cost, for something most of us won't see for 5-10 years?
All to replace a simple law that costs little to nothing, uses the existing powers of an existing agency for enforcement, the power of consumers for enforcement, and would overnight see an end to these poor practices?
Fuck you sir.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30439268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437826</id>
	<title>I Like Loud Commercials</title>
	<author>Maltheus</author>
	<datestamp>1260796380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Loud commercials are the perfect reminder that I've forgotten to fast forward the DVR. Commercials that employ this behavior are really just shooting themselves in the foot (not to mention the station's foot).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Loud commercials are the perfect reminder that I 've forgotten to fast forward the DVR .
Commercials that employ this behavior are really just shooting themselves in the foot ( not to mention the station 's foot ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Loud commercials are the perfect reminder that I've forgotten to fast forward the DVR.
Commercials that employ this behavior are really just shooting themselves in the foot (not to mention the station's foot).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437416</id>
	<title>Bad idea.</title>
	<author>girlintraining</author>
	<datestamp>1260794640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay, first, thanks for recognizing the problem. But there's no way to legislate such technical detail because volume is subjective, not objective. Do you measure the peaks? The frequency spread? What about people who have hearing problems? They have a different idea of what 'loud' is. The problem is something called "audio compression" -- which results in a higher apparent volume. TV shows use a wider dynamic range than commercials -- commercials can be heard even at very low volume levels because they occupy a very narrow frequency range.</p><p>Legislate commercials to have a lower volume level and they'll come up with other insidious ways of annoying you (ie, capturing your attention)... Like shaky-cam and that annoying slow-zoom rotating text crap. Seriously... Go to the heart of the problem: Make invasive advertising illegal and give multi-million dollar fines to anyone who distributes such content. Also... bring back Congress issuing Letters of Mark. I'll take one for the executives of Fox, kthx.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , first , thanks for recognizing the problem .
But there 's no way to legislate such technical detail because volume is subjective , not objective .
Do you measure the peaks ?
The frequency spread ?
What about people who have hearing problems ?
They have a different idea of what 'loud ' is .
The problem is something called " audio compression " -- which results in a higher apparent volume .
TV shows use a wider dynamic range than commercials -- commercials can be heard even at very low volume levels because they occupy a very narrow frequency range.Legislate commercials to have a lower volume level and they 'll come up with other insidious ways of annoying you ( ie , capturing your attention ) ... Like shaky-cam and that annoying slow-zoom rotating text crap .
Seriously... Go to the heart of the problem : Make invasive advertising illegal and give multi-million dollar fines to anyone who distributes such content .
Also... bring back Congress issuing Letters of Mark .
I 'll take one for the executives of Fox , kthx .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, first, thanks for recognizing the problem.
But there's no way to legislate such technical detail because volume is subjective, not objective.
Do you measure the peaks?
The frequency spread?
What about people who have hearing problems?
They have a different idea of what 'loud' is.
The problem is something called "audio compression" -- which results in a higher apparent volume.
TV shows use a wider dynamic range than commercials -- commercials can be heard even at very low volume levels because they occupy a very narrow frequency range.Legislate commercials to have a lower volume level and they'll come up with other insidious ways of annoying you (ie, capturing your attention)... Like shaky-cam and that annoying slow-zoom rotating text crap.
Seriously... Go to the heart of the problem: Make invasive advertising illegal and give multi-million dollar fines to anyone who distributes such content.
Also... bring back Congress issuing Letters of Mark.
I'll take one for the executives of Fox, kthx.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438450</id>
	<title>Re:I'd much rather...</title>
	<author>jimbolauski</author>
	<datestamp>1260799200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>BILLY MAYS HERE! FROM BEYOND THE GRAVE!<br>
IF YOU HATE LOUD COMMERCIALS YOUR GOING TO LOVE THIS!<br>
THE COMMERCIAL KILLER! <br>
<br>
<br>
Stupid Filter it won't let me shout the whole time, if I stream my tv through<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. the filter will fix the loud commercials. <p><div class="quote"><p>Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>BILLY MAYS HERE !
FROM BEYOND THE GRAVE !
IF YOU HATE LOUD COMMERCIALS YOUR GOING TO LOVE THIS !
THE COMMERCIAL KILLER !
Stupid Filter it wo n't let me shout the whole time , if I stream my tv through / .
the filter will fix the loud commercials .
Filter error : Do n't use so many caps .
It 's like YELLING .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BILLY MAYS HERE!
FROM BEYOND THE GRAVE!
IF YOU HATE LOUD COMMERCIALS YOUR GOING TO LOVE THIS!
THE COMMERCIAL KILLER!
Stupid Filter it won't let me shout the whole time, if I stream my tv through /.
the filter will fix the loud commercials.
Filter error: Don't use so many caps.
It's like YELLING.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438800</id>
	<title>The best part will be...</title>
	<author>ender8282</author>
	<datestamp>1260801000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>no more horribly loud "Come visit California Ads'!</htmltext>
<tokenext>no more horribly loud " Come visit California Ads ' !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no more horribly loud "Come visit California Ads'!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30439268</id>
	<title>Install your own compressor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260803640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I work in pro audio.<p>
Years ago I got an Alesis Nanocompressor for my parents and installed it inline between the audio outputs of the cable box and the TV.  Now the blasted commercials bother them no more.</p><p>
Cost: $50 used plus some audio adapter cables.</p><p>
Yes I know some TVs have built in compressors.  Guess what, they don't work worth a damn.</p><p>
Commercials are what drove me to dump cable/broadcast TV forever... not just the volume but the increasing ratio of ads to program per hour.  Way too many commercials and they're even showing them in sidebars during the program.  I ceased watching TV since 2000 and I do not miss it.</p><p>
If the government wants to help, they can mandate decent quality compressors in new TVs that are enabled by default.  It won't cost any more than those V-chips or the digital TV receivers.</p><p>
The FCC has been hearing for DECADES about obnoxiously loud commercials, and now they want to help...?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I work in pro audio .
Years ago I got an Alesis Nanocompressor for my parents and installed it inline between the audio outputs of the cable box and the TV .
Now the blasted commercials bother them no more .
Cost : $ 50 used plus some audio adapter cables .
Yes I know some TVs have built in compressors .
Guess what , they do n't work worth a damn .
Commercials are what drove me to dump cable/broadcast TV forever... not just the volume but the increasing ratio of ads to program per hour .
Way too many commercials and they 're even showing them in sidebars during the program .
I ceased watching TV since 2000 and I do not miss it .
If the government wants to help , they can mandate decent quality compressors in new TVs that are enabled by default .
It wo n't cost any more than those V-chips or the digital TV receivers .
The FCC has been hearing for DECADES about obnoxiously loud commercials , and now they want to help... ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work in pro audio.
Years ago I got an Alesis Nanocompressor for my parents and installed it inline between the audio outputs of the cable box and the TV.
Now the blasted commercials bother them no more.
Cost: $50 used plus some audio adapter cables.
Yes I know some TVs have built in compressors.
Guess what, they don't work worth a damn.
Commercials are what drove me to dump cable/broadcast TV forever... not just the volume but the increasing ratio of ads to program per hour.
Way too many commercials and they're even showing them in sidebars during the program.
I ceased watching TV since 2000 and I do not miss it.
If the government wants to help, they can mandate decent quality compressors in new TVs that are enabled by default.
It won't cost any more than those V-chips or the digital TV receivers.
The FCC has been hearing for DECADES about obnoxiously loud commercials, and now they want to help...?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438418</id>
	<title>Re:How about...</title>
	<author>Cryacin</author>
	<datestamp>1260799020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the advertising executive for that commercial gets a 24 volt shock?</p></div><p>You know that most of the world is already in an energy crisis, right?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the advertising executive for that commercial gets a 24 volt shock ? You know that most of the world is already in an energy crisis , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the advertising executive for that commercial gets a 24 volt shock?You know that most of the world is already in an energy crisis, right?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30445754</id>
	<title>Brilliant!</title>
	<author>Ohmaar</author>
	<datestamp>1260898800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fantastic! We need to encourage more legislation like this. If we can just keep them busy with this trivial nonsense, maybe they'll have less time to devote to actually destroying civilization as we know it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fantastic !
We need to encourage more legislation like this .
If we can just keep them busy with this trivial nonsense , maybe they 'll have less time to devote to actually destroying civilization as we know it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fantastic!
We need to encourage more legislation like this.
If we can just keep them busy with this trivial nonsense, maybe they'll have less time to devote to actually destroying civilization as we know it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30444094</id>
	<title>Replaygain?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260892500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can't they just use replaygain to eliminate the problem?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't they just use replaygain to eliminate the problem ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't they just use replaygain to eliminate the problem?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438182</id>
	<title>do vote with your wallet!</title>
	<author>drDugan</author>
	<datestamp>1260798000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I got rid of my TV feed service years ago.  The content is mostly (like 90\%+) mindless drivel, and the ads are insidious.  When I'm in a room with a TV, and I hear how loud the ads are, I laugh, and ask them to mute it.</p><p>We now have free, on demand movies with most cable services, we have Netflix, Hulu, Tivo, Cablebox DVR, Joost, Miro, Mythtv, Apple TV, Roku, Boxee, PS3 streaming, we have Itunes, and to top all that off, there is an expanding vibrant black market - all getting around the mess of broadcast TV ad delivery.  Plus: (<b>...plug</b>...) there are lots of decent open licensed content that you can find, and that market is growing.&lt;/plug&gt;</p><p>I say let the dinosaur-age broadcasters keep shoving awful ads and crap programming down the TV feed.  Why write laws to try and help them provide a better service?  Anyone with half a mind left would have dropped it already, and younger minds will see it for what it is: mindless distraction to suck the life out of you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I got rid of my TV feed service years ago .
The content is mostly ( like 90 \ % + ) mindless drivel , and the ads are insidious .
When I 'm in a room with a TV , and I hear how loud the ads are , I laugh , and ask them to mute it.We now have free , on demand movies with most cable services , we have Netflix , Hulu , Tivo , Cablebox DVR , Joost , Miro , Mythtv , Apple TV , Roku , Boxee , PS3 streaming , we have Itunes , and to top all that off , there is an expanding vibrant black market - all getting around the mess of broadcast TV ad delivery .
Plus : ( ...plug... ) there are lots of decent open licensed content that you can find , and that market is growing.I say let the dinosaur-age broadcasters keep shoving awful ads and crap programming down the TV feed .
Why write laws to try and help them provide a better service ?
Anyone with half a mind left would have dropped it already , and younger minds will see it for what it is : mindless distraction to suck the life out of you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I got rid of my TV feed service years ago.
The content is mostly (like 90\%+) mindless drivel, and the ads are insidious.
When I'm in a room with a TV, and I hear how loud the ads are, I laugh, and ask them to mute it.We now have free, on demand movies with most cable services, we have Netflix, Hulu, Tivo, Cablebox DVR, Joost, Miro, Mythtv, Apple TV, Roku, Boxee, PS3 streaming, we have Itunes, and to top all that off, there is an expanding vibrant black market - all getting around the mess of broadcast TV ad delivery.
Plus: (...plug...) there are lots of decent open licensed content that you can find, and that market is growing.I say let the dinosaur-age broadcasters keep shoving awful ads and crap programming down the TV feed.
Why write laws to try and help them provide a better service?
Anyone with half a mind left would have dropped it already, and younger minds will see it for what it is: mindless distraction to suck the life out of you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30439606</id>
	<title>Re:Whoring for votes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260805740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Congress' time would be better spent doing something about <i>unavoidable</i> forms of advertising instead</p></div><p>Its a good thing the founding fathers went to so much effort so that congress could "do something" about every little inconvenience in life.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Congress ' time would be better spent doing something about unavoidable forms of advertising insteadIts a good thing the founding fathers went to so much effort so that congress could " do something " about every little inconvenience in life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Congress' time would be better spent doing something about unavoidable forms of advertising insteadIts a good thing the founding fathers went to so much effort so that congress could "do something" about every little inconvenience in life.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438090</id>
	<title>Re:That's a BENEFIT of his algorithmn</title>
	<author>wooferhound</author>
	<datestamp>1260797460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Some commercials are silent<br>
it makes you look at the TV to see what is wrong with it . . .</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some commercials are silent it makes you look at the TV to see what is wrong with it .
. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some commercials are silent
it makes you look at the TV to see what is wrong with it .
. .</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437650</id>
	<title>Political ads</title>
	<author>ewg</author>
	<datestamp>1260795540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What? No exemption for campaign commercials?!</htmltext>
<tokenext>What ?
No exemption for campaign commercials ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What?
No exemption for campaign commercials?
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30445094</id>
	<title>Solution</title>
	<author>pckl300</author>
	<datestamp>1260896580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Get the AdBlock Plus people on the job. You won't hear another commercial, and could care less how damn loud they are.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Get the AdBlock Plus people on the job .
You wo n't hear another commercial , and could care less how damn loud they are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get the AdBlock Plus people on the job.
You won't hear another commercial, and could care less how damn loud they are.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30444408</id>
	<title>Just hit mute</title>
	<author>chud67</author>
	<datestamp>1260894060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since my father had his stroke, he can't stand the loud TV commercials.  He now watches TV with the remote in his hand, and hits mute as soon as it goes to commercial.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since my father had his stroke , he ca n't stand the loud TV commercials .
He now watches TV with the remote in his hand , and hits mute as soon as it goes to commercial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since my father had his stroke, he can't stand the loud TV commercials.
He now watches TV with the remote in his hand, and hits mute as soon as it goes to commercial.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30441478</id>
	<title>Re:Bad idea.</title>
	<author>rastos1</author>
	<datestamp>1260868320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Do you measure the peaks? The frequency spread?</p></div></blockquote><p>

Ah as an engineer you are attempting to overengineer the problem. Let the commercial producers keep the current parameters of the commercials and regulate networks to uniformly change the volume of commercials by 30\% down. Problem solved.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you measure the peaks ?
The frequency spread ?
Ah as an engineer you are attempting to overengineer the problem .
Let the commercial producers keep the current parameters of the commercials and regulate networks to uniformly change the volume of commercials by 30 \ % down .
Problem solved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you measure the peaks?
The frequency spread?
Ah as an engineer you are attempting to overengineer the problem.
Let the commercial producers keep the current parameters of the commercials and regulate networks to uniformly change the volume of commercials by 30\% down.
Problem solved.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30440152</id>
	<title>Simple....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260810060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Make it simple, build a filter into the tv to limit the loudness....</p><p>jeezus, why must we make a mountain out of a molehill with everything...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Make it simple , build a filter into the tv to limit the loudness....jeezus , why must we make a mountain out of a molehill with everything.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Make it simple, build a filter into the tv to limit the loudness....jeezus, why must we make a mountain out of a molehill with everything...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30440028</id>
	<title>Why submit  ourselves any longer?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260809100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm boycotting commercial television and cable and get my content from the net. While I miss live sports I don't miss all the other garbage. The news and opinion shows have lost all credibility and I hold the media largely responsible for electing the gang of incompetants who call themselves the U.S. government by their slanted news and opinions. Enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm boycotting commercial television and cable and get my content from the net .
While I miss live sports I do n't miss all the other garbage .
The news and opinion shows have lost all credibility and I hold the media largely responsible for electing the gang of incompetants who call themselves the U.S. government by their slanted news and opinions .
Enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm boycotting commercial television and cable and get my content from the net.
While I miss live sports I don't miss all the other garbage.
The news and opinion shows have lost all credibility and I hold the media largely responsible for electing the gang of incompetants who call themselves the U.S. government by their slanted news and opinions.
Enough.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437602</id>
	<title>I resent the implication!</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1260795360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Everybody knows the television broadcasters never turn up the volume for the commercials -- that would be unethical! They turn down the volume for the actual programs instead.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everybody knows the television broadcasters never turn up the volume for the commercials -- that would be unethical !
They turn down the volume for the actual programs instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everybody knows the television broadcasters never turn up the volume for the commercials -- that would be unethical!
They turn down the volume for the actual programs instead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437274</id>
	<title>I'd much rather...</title>
	<author>The Living Fractal</author>
	<datestamp>1260794100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hate loud commercials too, but this is just too much government IMHO.  I'd much rather just have intelligent TVs or receivers that turned the volume down upon detecting a commercial...based on the settings *I* want, not what the government thinks is best for me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate loud commercials too , but this is just too much government IMHO .
I 'd much rather just have intelligent TVs or receivers that turned the volume down upon detecting a commercial...based on the settings * I * want , not what the government thinks is best for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate loud commercials too, but this is just too much government IMHO.
I'd much rather just have intelligent TVs or receivers that turned the volume down upon detecting a commercial...based on the settings *I* want, not what the government thinks is best for me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438360</id>
	<title>Waste of Time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260798720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah this sounds like a worth while cause.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah this sounds like a worth while cause .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah this sounds like a worth while cause.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438422</id>
	<title>In Soviet Russia, the TV turns you down!</title>
	<author>macraig</author>
	<datestamp>1260799020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On a more serious note after the hook, I read somewhere that the Soviet Union had prohibited this many years ago, as well as prohibiting advertising to children, which is something we still haven't gotten right here in the USA.  (I'm still a bit on the fence about the latter, since an argument to allow it might be made using an immunological analogy.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On a more serious note after the hook , I read somewhere that the Soviet Union had prohibited this many years ago , as well as prohibiting advertising to children , which is something we still have n't gotten right here in the USA .
( I 'm still a bit on the fence about the latter , since an argument to allow it might be made using an immunological analogy .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On a more serious note after the hook, I read somewhere that the Soviet Union had prohibited this many years ago, as well as prohibiting advertising to children, which is something we still haven't gotten right here in the USA.
(I'm still a bit on the fence about the latter, since an argument to allow it might be made using an immunological analogy.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437950</id>
	<title>Re:Bad idea.</title>
	<author>frank\_adrian314159</author>
	<datestamp>1260796860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Take the average of the audio energy in the base program (divided into 32-64 frequency bands across the ten octaves above 20Hz).  Weight the energy using the Fletcher-Munson curve for the overall average energy level.  If the time-average of the audio in the commercial sums to more than the time-average energy in the base program by more than 10\%, auto-file a violation report.  Fine as needed.  You can do it automatically.</p><p>In fact, by expanding (if you need to, look up "compression") the audio range and decreasing the volume, you can automatically adjust the volume to within a comfortable range.  It's really not much of a trick to do either.</p><p>I tend to think the legislation would be better because it would be a global solution to a global annoyance with very little downside.  If you have to depend on your commercial being LOUD to get people to notice, you have something wrong.  Really, all you need to do is make the people in your commercial more naked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Take the average of the audio energy in the base program ( divided into 32-64 frequency bands across the ten octaves above 20Hz ) .
Weight the energy using the Fletcher-Munson curve for the overall average energy level .
If the time-average of the audio in the commercial sums to more than the time-average energy in the base program by more than 10 \ % , auto-file a violation report .
Fine as needed .
You can do it automatically.In fact , by expanding ( if you need to , look up " compression " ) the audio range and decreasing the volume , you can automatically adjust the volume to within a comfortable range .
It 's really not much of a trick to do either.I tend to think the legislation would be better because it would be a global solution to a global annoyance with very little downside .
If you have to depend on your commercial being LOUD to get people to notice , you have something wrong .
Really , all you need to do is make the people in your commercial more naked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take the average of the audio energy in the base program (divided into 32-64 frequency bands across the ten octaves above 20Hz).
Weight the energy using the Fletcher-Munson curve for the overall average energy level.
If the time-average of the audio in the commercial sums to more than the time-average energy in the base program by more than 10\%, auto-file a violation report.
Fine as needed.
You can do it automatically.In fact, by expanding (if you need to, look up "compression") the audio range and decreasing the volume, you can automatically adjust the volume to within a comfortable range.
It's really not much of a trick to do either.I tend to think the legislation would be better because it would be a global solution to a global annoyance with very little downside.
If you have to depend on your commercial being LOUD to get people to notice, you have something wrong.
Really, all you need to do is make the people in your commercial more naked.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437468</id>
	<title>Re:No fair way to write regulations?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260794820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The last 30 seconds is an intense, but silent, stare down between two actors, or maybe the soft music of a peaceful scene...you'r algorithm fails kind sir! FAILS!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The last 30 seconds is an intense , but silent , stare down between two actors , or maybe the soft music of a peaceful scene...you'r algorithm fails kind sir !
FAILS !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The last 30 seconds is an intense, but silent, stare down between two actors, or maybe the soft music of a peaceful scene...you'r algorithm fails kind sir!
FAILS!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437974</id>
	<title>Re:Legislate better volume controls</title>
	<author>rudy\_wayne</author>
	<datestamp>1260796980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There should be 2 volumes you can set on the TV.
<br> <br>
1. Existing TV volume<br>
2. Decibel limit<br>
<br> <br>
Once the decibel limit is reached the tv set compensates by turning itself down in real time.
<br> <br>
Legislate that every TV sold has number 2 on the basis of health and safety. Stiff fines for not complying or trying to circumvent.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Unfortunately, you are just as clueless as the polictians trying to pass laws to address this "problem".  So you established a decibel limit of "X".  The typical TV program will hit this limit occasionaly, but not very often.   The typical commercial will be at<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.0000001 below X <b>*ALL THE TIME*</b>.  That's the key.  Because of compression, commercials can sound louder that programs while never exceeding a particular decibel level.
<br> <br>
This is nothing new.  People have been complaining for decades that commercials are "louder than the programs" and each time the broadcasters say "look at the levels -- the commercials never exceed the same maximum level as the programs".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There should be 2 volumes you can set on the TV .
1. Existing TV volume 2 .
Decibel limit Once the decibel limit is reached the tv set compensates by turning itself down in real time .
Legislate that every TV sold has number 2 on the basis of health and safety .
Stiff fines for not complying or trying to circumvent .
Unfortunately , you are just as clueless as the polictians trying to pass laws to address this " problem " .
So you established a decibel limit of " X " .
The typical TV program will hit this limit occasionaly , but not very often .
The typical commercial will be at .0000001 below X * ALL THE TIME * .
That 's the key .
Because of compression , commercials can sound louder that programs while never exceeding a particular decibel level .
This is nothing new .
People have been complaining for decades that commercials are " louder than the programs " and each time the broadcasters say " look at the levels -- the commercials never exceed the same maximum level as the programs " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There should be 2 volumes you can set on the TV.
1. Existing TV volume
2.
Decibel limit
 
Once the decibel limit is reached the tv set compensates by turning itself down in real time.
Legislate that every TV sold has number 2 on the basis of health and safety.
Stiff fines for not complying or trying to circumvent.
Unfortunately, you are just as clueless as the polictians trying to pass laws to address this "problem".
So you established a decibel limit of "X".
The typical TV program will hit this limit occasionaly, but not very often.
The typical commercial will be at .0000001 below X *ALL THE TIME*.
That's the key.
Because of compression, commercials can sound louder that programs while never exceeding a particular decibel level.
This is nothing new.
People have been complaining for decades that commercials are "louder than the programs" and each time the broadcasters say "look at the levels -- the commercials never exceed the same maximum level as the programs".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437794</id>
	<title>You people are freaking crybabies.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260796200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You people are freaking crybabies. Who cares how loud the commercials are? Get a life.</p><p>You wouldn't understand freedom if it knocked you upside the head.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You people are freaking crybabies .
Who cares how loud the commercials are ?
Get a life.You would n't understand freedom if it knocked you upside the head .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You people are freaking crybabies.
Who cares how loud the commercials are?
Get a life.You wouldn't understand freedom if it knocked you upside the head.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30441676</id>
	<title>Re:How about certain noises?</title>
	<author>fridaynightsmoke</author>
	<datestamp>1260870660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How about banning radio stations from broadcasting commercials with car crash sounds, police sirens, and screeching tires during the morning and afternoon drive times? </p></div><p>Indeed, sir, although ironically the one thing that immediately makes me stop paying attention to the radio (and any commercials on it) is the sound of a siren (or similar 'oh shit' motoring noise) while I am driving. If advertisers realised this the false siren problem might kill itself off.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about banning radio stations from broadcasting commercials with car crash sounds , police sirens , and screeching tires during the morning and afternoon drive times ?
Indeed , sir , although ironically the one thing that immediately makes me stop paying attention to the radio ( and any commercials on it ) is the sound of a siren ( or similar 'oh shit ' motoring noise ) while I am driving .
If advertisers realised this the false siren problem might kill itself off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about banning radio stations from broadcasting commercials with car crash sounds, police sirens, and screeching tires during the morning and afternoon drive times?
Indeed, sir, although ironically the one thing that immediately makes me stop paying attention to the radio (and any commercials on it) is the sound of a siren (or similar 'oh shit' motoring noise) while I am driving.
If advertisers realised this the false siren problem might kill itself off.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438186</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30443584</id>
	<title>Re:How about certain noises?</title>
	<author>jack2000</author>
	<datestamp>1260890160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I second this, also babies should be banned from appearing in commercials outright!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I second this , also babies should be banned from appearing in commercials outright !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I second this, also babies should be banned from appearing in commercials outright!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30440202</id>
	<title>Clipping is part of the problem</title>
	<author>wiredlogic</author>
	<datestamp>1260810540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Part of the problem is that the advertisers take a cue from the CD loudness wars and introduce intentional clipping in their audio track. This has the effect of building more energy into the signal which enhances perceived loudness. Another plus (for them) is that a speaker can't actually stop its excursion in one direction when it gets to the clipped part of the waveform. The inertia of the moving element takes it further before the magnetics can pull it back for the return trip. This effectively allows them to turn your speakers "up to 11" for free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Part of the problem is that the advertisers take a cue from the CD loudness wars and introduce intentional clipping in their audio track .
This has the effect of building more energy into the signal which enhances perceived loudness .
Another plus ( for them ) is that a speaker ca n't actually stop its excursion in one direction when it gets to the clipped part of the waveform .
The inertia of the moving element takes it further before the magnetics can pull it back for the return trip .
This effectively allows them to turn your speakers " up to 11 " for free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Part of the problem is that the advertisers take a cue from the CD loudness wars and introduce intentional clipping in their audio track.
This has the effect of building more energy into the signal which enhances perceived loudness.
Another plus (for them) is that a speaker can't actually stop its excursion in one direction when it gets to the clipped part of the waveform.
The inertia of the moving element takes it further before the magnetics can pull it back for the return trip.
This effectively allows them to turn your speakers "up to 11" for free.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30439222</id>
	<title>Re:No fair way to write regulations?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260803400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Then you get a 30 second long commercial with 10 seconds of loudness after 20 seconds of silence.  That'll probably grab your attention...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then you get a 30 second long commercial with 10 seconds of loudness after 20 seconds of silence .
That 'll probably grab your attention.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then you get a 30 second long commercial with 10 seconds of loudness after 20 seconds of silence.
That'll probably grab your attention...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30441024</id>
	<title>Simple code to find ads</title>
	<author>w0mprat</author>
	<datestamp>1260818640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The simplest-piece-of-code-I-ever-wrote-that-did-a-kick-ass-thing, was a few lines to scan a test file for comercial breaks. Usual TV volume is about 70-80\% of peak with longer spells of quiet, and the adverts are heavily compressed and really don't have any quiet periods. Algorithimically that is easy to find and mark. From there you can cut, skip or mute as desired.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The simplest-piece-of-code-I-ever-wrote-that-did-a-kick-ass-thing , was a few lines to scan a test file for comercial breaks .
Usual TV volume is about 70-80 \ % of peak with longer spells of quiet , and the adverts are heavily compressed and really do n't have any quiet periods .
Algorithimically that is easy to find and mark .
From there you can cut , skip or mute as desired .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The simplest-piece-of-code-I-ever-wrote-that-did-a-kick-ass-thing, was a few lines to scan a test file for comercial breaks.
Usual TV volume is about 70-80\% of peak with longer spells of quiet, and the adverts are heavily compressed and really don't have any quiet periods.
Algorithimically that is easy to find and mark.
From there you can cut, skip or mute as desired.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438358</id>
	<title>Local ads are the best for this</title>
	<author>ZackSchil</author>
	<datestamp>1260798720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love when a local ad comes on, trying to be loud like the big boys, but somewhere along the way, something has gone wrong, so the result is just distorted, clipped noise that barely sounds like speech at all.</p><p>WE-OME TO FU-IL-UND W-RE WE ALW-S H-E THE B-ST PR-ES ON ALL - -ND US- VEHICLES!!!!</p><p>The only problem is if it's late at night, the humor of the failure is often not enough to overcome the anger.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love when a local ad comes on , trying to be loud like the big boys , but somewhere along the way , something has gone wrong , so the result is just distorted , clipped noise that barely sounds like speech at all.WE-OME TO FU-IL-UND W-RE WE ALW-S H-E THE B-ST PR-ES ON ALL - -ND US- VEHICLES ! ! !
! The only problem is if it 's late at night , the humor of the failure is often not enough to overcome the anger .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love when a local ad comes on, trying to be loud like the big boys, but somewhere along the way, something has gone wrong, so the result is just distorted, clipped noise that barely sounds like speech at all.WE-OME TO FU-IL-UND W-RE WE ALW-S H-E THE B-ST PR-ES ON ALL - -ND US- VEHICLES!!!
!The only problem is if it's late at night, the humor of the failure is often not enough to overcome the anger.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438004</id>
	<title>Re:No fair way to write regulations?</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1260797160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They'll just pay TV programs to make a really loud final 30 seconds before each commercial.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 'll just pay TV programs to make a really loud final 30 seconds before each commercial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They'll just pay TV programs to make a really loud final 30 seconds before each commercial.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30440068</id>
	<title>Re:Range compression</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1260809460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's fixed by using the volume difference as a cue for automatic commercial skip.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's fixed by using the volume difference as a cue for automatic commercial skip .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's fixed by using the volume difference as a cue for automatic commercial skip.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30441114</id>
	<title>Re:Range compression</title>
	<author>unitron</author>
	<datestamp>1260819720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't mean phonograph records, do you?</p><p>Audio can be compressed going onto one of those just like it can be going onto a tape or into an Analog/Digital Converter.</p><p>Back in the mid '70s promo copies of 45s sent to radio stations had one side that was monaural and EQ'ed and compressed and limited for play on AM stations and typical AM radios, and the other side was stereo and not as "hot" and intended for FM stations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't mean phonograph records , do you ? Audio can be compressed going onto one of those just like it can be going onto a tape or into an Analog/Digital Converter.Back in the mid '70s promo copies of 45s sent to radio stations had one side that was monaural and EQ'ed and compressed and limited for play on AM stations and typical AM radios , and the other side was stereo and not as " hot " and intended for FM stations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't mean phonograph records, do you?Audio can be compressed going onto one of those just like it can be going onto a tape or into an Analog/Digital Converter.Back in the mid '70s promo copies of 45s sent to radio stations had one side that was monaural and EQ'ed and compressed and limited for play on AM stations and typical AM radios, and the other side was stereo and not as "hot" and intended for FM stations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437392</id>
	<title>Compression</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260794520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The apparent volume level is very hard to regulate when the sound sources are so very different. One apparent solution could be to put an - even more - aggressive compression to the broadcast sound, but that would just piss me off. Overly compressed sound sounds like a turd sandwich, but would however even out volume levels. This is by the way more of a client-side solution, which I just right now realize is no solution at all to this problem.... Yes, requiring the networks to even out sound volumes at the source would be a good idea... as long as they do not compress the sound more than they do now!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The apparent volume level is very hard to regulate when the sound sources are so very different .
One apparent solution could be to put an - even more - aggressive compression to the broadcast sound , but that would just piss me off .
Overly compressed sound sounds like a turd sandwich , but would however even out volume levels .
This is by the way more of a client-side solution , which I just right now realize is no solution at all to this problem.... Yes , requiring the networks to even out sound volumes at the source would be a good idea... as long as they do not compress the sound more than they do now !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The apparent volume level is very hard to regulate when the sound sources are so very different.
One apparent solution could be to put an - even more - aggressive compression to the broadcast sound, but that would just piss me off.
Overly compressed sound sounds like a turd sandwich, but would however even out volume levels.
This is by the way more of a client-side solution, which I just right now realize is no solution at all to this problem.... Yes, requiring the networks to even out sound volumes at the source would be a good idea... as long as they do not compress the sound more than they do now!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438028</id>
	<title>The only form of life lower than a lawyer...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260797220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...is an advertiser. There are actually lawyers I like, but I have never met a single marketing or advertising person that I didn't have an urge to strangle. It's their mission in life to lie to and get in the way of as many people as possible. At least lawyers are specific in their targeting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...is an advertiser .
There are actually lawyers I like , but I have never met a single marketing or advertising person that I did n't have an urge to strangle .
It 's their mission in life to lie to and get in the way of as many people as possible .
At least lawyers are specific in their targeting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...is an advertiser.
There are actually lawyers I like, but I have never met a single marketing or advertising person that I didn't have an urge to strangle.
It's their mission in life to lie to and get in the way of as many people as possible.
At least lawyers are specific in their targeting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30443612</id>
	<title>Congress?</title>
	<author>MBGMorden</author>
	<datestamp>1260890280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like a good idea, but why does this need an act of Congress?  It sounds like something the FCC has the power to regulate without Congressional input.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like a good idea , but why does this need an act of Congress ?
It sounds like something the FCC has the power to regulate without Congressional input .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like a good idea, but why does this need an act of Congress?
It sounds like something the FCC has the power to regulate without Congressional input.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437472</id>
	<title>Shitty Options</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1260794820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many TVs have the ability to auto-level stuff.</p><p>But if you've got audio running to a receiver, the receiver has to do it (and likely doesn't).</p><p>At best, you've got dynamic range compression modes, which kill off the sound quality for normal programming.</p><p>Even if we have a magical loudness law that everyone magically decides to abide by, the latest tactic I've seen is far more annoying.</p><p>Commercials now exploit surround sound to the extreme.  The soundstage is either panning back and forth and around, or the ad is done in such a way that billy is on my left and molly is on my right and mom is shaking and baking that chicken directly inside my fucking subwoofer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many TVs have the ability to auto-level stuff.But if you 've got audio running to a receiver , the receiver has to do it ( and likely does n't ) .At best , you 've got dynamic range compression modes , which kill off the sound quality for normal programming.Even if we have a magical loudness law that everyone magically decides to abide by , the latest tactic I 've seen is far more annoying.Commercials now exploit surround sound to the extreme .
The soundstage is either panning back and forth and around , or the ad is done in such a way that billy is on my left and molly is on my right and mom is shaking and baking that chicken directly inside my fucking subwoofer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many TVs have the ability to auto-level stuff.But if you've got audio running to a receiver, the receiver has to do it (and likely doesn't).At best, you've got dynamic range compression modes, which kill off the sound quality for normal programming.Even if we have a magical loudness law that everyone magically decides to abide by, the latest tactic I've seen is far more annoying.Commercials now exploit surround sound to the extreme.
The soundstage is either panning back and forth and around, or the ad is done in such a way that billy is on my left and molly is on my right and mom is shaking and baking that chicken directly inside my fucking subwoofer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437574</id>
	<title>That's a BENEFIT of his algorithmn</title>
	<author>jeko</author>
	<datestamp>1260795240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sometimes the commercials stay quiet altogether? That's not a failure, that's a "happy accident."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometimes the commercials stay quiet altogether ?
That 's not a failure , that 's a " happy accident .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sometimes the commercials stay quiet altogether?
That's not a failure, that's a "happy accident.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30439864</id>
	<title>Re:Bad idea.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260807600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Allow me to chime in with my idea.</p><p>Let them blast off advertising at any volume they wish. Let it be as "invasive" as their marketing departments can concoct. Freedom!</p><p>Well, except for one thing. Require that any advertisement block on TV is preceded and followed by a brief (short enough to be unnoticeable by human eye) visual signal. The signal should have strictly defined form, that is designed specifically so that it can be easily detected by automatic sensors, and be distinctive from any "normal" visual. Prohibit any use of such, or sufficiently similar, visual frames within advertising itself.</p><p>Now TV manufacturers can add circuits to reduce volume, or even completely shut off the screen, during those ads, and viewers can buy such TVs and utilize their features as they see fit. Freedom!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Allow me to chime in with my idea.Let them blast off advertising at any volume they wish .
Let it be as " invasive " as their marketing departments can concoct .
Freedom ! Well , except for one thing .
Require that any advertisement block on TV is preceded and followed by a brief ( short enough to be unnoticeable by human eye ) visual signal .
The signal should have strictly defined form , that is designed specifically so that it can be easily detected by automatic sensors , and be distinctive from any " normal " visual .
Prohibit any use of such , or sufficiently similar , visual frames within advertising itself.Now TV manufacturers can add circuits to reduce volume , or even completely shut off the screen , during those ads , and viewers can buy such TVs and utilize their features as they see fit .
Freedom !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Allow me to chime in with my idea.Let them blast off advertising at any volume they wish.
Let it be as "invasive" as their marketing departments can concoct.
Freedom!Well, except for one thing.
Require that any advertisement block on TV is preceded and followed by a brief (short enough to be unnoticeable by human eye) visual signal.
The signal should have strictly defined form, that is designed specifically so that it can be easily detected by automatic sensors, and be distinctive from any "normal" visual.
Prohibit any use of such, or sufficiently similar, visual frames within advertising itself.Now TV manufacturers can add circuits to reduce volume, or even completely shut off the screen, during those ads, and viewers can buy such TVs and utilize their features as they see fit.
Freedom!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30440742</id>
	<title>Re:Whoring for votes</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1260815460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>No one needs television, and its one practical use -- news -- is much better satisfied by literally every other medium by which news is available.</p></div></blockquote><p>Yes, because every event in the world can be adequately described by a grainy B&amp;W still photo, and a few lines of text.  The destruction of the World Trade Center, for one.  No doubt you got the gist of it on the radio...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No one needs television , and its one practical use -- news -- is much better satisfied by literally every other medium by which news is available.Yes , because every event in the world can be adequately described by a grainy B&amp;W still photo , and a few lines of text .
The destruction of the World Trade Center , for one .
No doubt you got the gist of it on the radio.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one needs television, and its one practical use -- news -- is much better satisfied by literally every other medium by which news is available.Yes, because every event in the world can be adequately described by a grainy B&amp;W still photo, and a few lines of text.
The destruction of the World Trade Center, for one.
No doubt you got the gist of it on the radio...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438038</id>
	<title>Archy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260797280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don`t watch TV. EVER.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I don ` t watch TV .
EVER .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don`t watch TV.
EVER.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30440290</id>
	<title>Re:No fair way to write regulations?</title>
	<author>TheGratefulNet</author>
	<datestamp>1260811620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>no, you don't want AVERAGE.  they'll just PLAY GAMES then to work around it.  an arms race will ensue.</p><p>you want short periods of time where the volume can't exceed 'annoyance level'.  we know what that is.  we can test for it and come up with a pretty good idea of what can describe it.</p><p>but not via averages unless they are over a 1  second period (at most).</p><p>the government is all over our lives; might as well do something USEFUL with all the busybody'ness they have.  have them fix commercials.  let them chew on that for a while.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>no , you do n't want AVERAGE .
they 'll just PLAY GAMES then to work around it .
an arms race will ensue.you want short periods of time where the volume ca n't exceed 'annoyance level' .
we know what that is .
we can test for it and come up with a pretty good idea of what can describe it.but not via averages unless they are over a 1 second period ( at most ) .the government is all over our lives ; might as well do something USEFUL with all the busybody'ness they have .
have them fix commercials .
let them chew on that for a while .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no, you don't want AVERAGE.
they'll just PLAY GAMES then to work around it.
an arms race will ensue.you want short periods of time where the volume can't exceed 'annoyance level'.
we know what that is.
we can test for it and come up with a pretty good idea of what can describe it.but not via averages unless they are over a 1  second period (at most).the government is all over our lives; might as well do something USEFUL with all the busybody'ness they have.
have them fix commercials.
let them chew on that for a while.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437482</id>
	<title>Re:Ok, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260794880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey it might turn out to be like the Movie Ratings where the industry will self regulate just to keep the Government out of the picture.While I initially saw this and sighed because I am one of those people who hate having to raise the volume on a show and then getting hit with the full volume of the commercial. It's not too big of a deal for me these days since I hardly watch TV and I do try to hulu whichever shows I end up missing but it is just an annoyance of advertising. I'd rather see the FCC put their full weight behind net neutrality and have congress figure out how to keep people in their homes so they can have TV commercials to complain about, then to actually have this is an issue. I realize that it's possible for the FCC and congress to do both but time wasted is still time wasted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey it might turn out to be like the Movie Ratings where the industry will self regulate just to keep the Government out of the picture.While I initially saw this and sighed because I am one of those people who hate having to raise the volume on a show and then getting hit with the full volume of the commercial .
It 's not too big of a deal for me these days since I hardly watch TV and I do try to hulu whichever shows I end up missing but it is just an annoyance of advertising .
I 'd rather see the FCC put their full weight behind net neutrality and have congress figure out how to keep people in their homes so they can have TV commercials to complain about , then to actually have this is an issue .
I realize that it 's possible for the FCC and congress to do both but time wasted is still time wasted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey it might turn out to be like the Movie Ratings where the industry will self regulate just to keep the Government out of the picture.While I initially saw this and sighed because I am one of those people who hate having to raise the volume on a show and then getting hit with the full volume of the commercial.
It's not too big of a deal for me these days since I hardly watch TV and I do try to hulu whichever shows I end up missing but it is just an annoyance of advertising.
I'd rather see the FCC put their full weight behind net neutrality and have congress figure out how to keep people in their homes so they can have TV commercials to complain about, then to actually have this is an issue.
I realize that it's possible for the FCC and congress to do both but time wasted is still time wasted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438306</id>
	<title>Re:Shitty Options</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1260798540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>or the ad is done in such a way that billy is on my left and molly is on my right and mom is shaking and baking that chicken directly inside my fucking subwoofer.</p></div><p>Billy: WHAT IS FOR DINNER TONIGHT MOM?

</p><p>Mom: WHY GREAT TASTING BRAND X SHAKE-N-BAKE CHICKEN OF COURSE!</p><p>Molly: OH GOODY, JUST WHAT WE WANTED!</p><p>&lt;Mom shakes and bakes the chicken in the subwoofer&gt;</p><p>Subwoofer: SCRIBBBEEE...SHABOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM!</p><p>NARRATOR: MMMMMMM! CAN YOU SMELL THAT? REMEMBER, BRAND X SHAKE-N-BAKE CHICKEN FOR YOUR NEXT MEAL!</p><p>Subwoofer: SHABABOOOM!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>or the ad is done in such a way that billy is on my left and molly is on my right and mom is shaking and baking that chicken directly inside my fucking subwoofer.Billy : WHAT IS FOR DINNER TONIGHT MOM ?
Mom : WHY GREAT TASTING BRAND X SHAKE-N-BAKE CHICKEN OF COURSE ! Molly : OH GOODY , JUST WHAT WE WANTED ! Subwoofer : SCRIBBBEEE...SHABOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM ! NARRATOR : MMMMMMM !
CAN YOU SMELL THAT ?
REMEMBER , BRAND X SHAKE-N-BAKE CHICKEN FOR YOUR NEXT MEAL ! Subwoofer : SHABABOOOM !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or the ad is done in such a way that billy is on my left and molly is on my right and mom is shaking and baking that chicken directly inside my fucking subwoofer.Billy: WHAT IS FOR DINNER TONIGHT MOM?
Mom: WHY GREAT TASTING BRAND X SHAKE-N-BAKE CHICKEN OF COURSE!Molly: OH GOODY, JUST WHAT WE WANTED!Subwoofer: SCRIBBBEEE...SHABOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM!NARRATOR: MMMMMMM!
CAN YOU SMELL THAT?
REMEMBER, BRAND X SHAKE-N-BAKE CHICKEN FOR YOUR NEXT MEAL!Subwoofer: SHABABOOOM!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30441966</id>
	<title>Re:Whoring for votes</title>
	<author>gmhowell</author>
	<datestamp>1260874200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is nothing more than a politician looking to score some easy votes by attacking something that everyone dislikes but which, since it actually harms no one, won't matter much if the bill disappears in committee and is never seen again. Congress' time would be better spent doing something about <i>unavoidable</i> forms of advertising instead of making a fuss about one of the few entirely avoidable forms.</p></div><p>Oh, God forbid a Congressman panders for votes by doing something the people want! How dare they?!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is nothing more than a politician looking to score some easy votes by attacking something that everyone dislikes but which , since it actually harms no one , wo n't matter much if the bill disappears in committee and is never seen again .
Congress ' time would be better spent doing something about unavoidable forms of advertising instead of making a fuss about one of the few entirely avoidable forms.Oh , God forbid a Congressman panders for votes by doing something the people want !
How dare they ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is nothing more than a politician looking to score some easy votes by attacking something that everyone dislikes but which, since it actually harms no one, won't matter much if the bill disappears in committee and is never seen again.
Congress' time would be better spent doing something about unavoidable forms of advertising instead of making a fuss about one of the few entirely avoidable forms.Oh, God forbid a Congressman panders for votes by doing something the people want!
How dare they?
!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30450832</id>
	<title>Re:Whoring for votes</title>
	<author>nsteinme</author>
	<datestamp>1260875520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>seems like you're under-exaggerating the difference between "whoring for votes" and "spending their time better on something else". the war on child porn, the war on drugs, and the war on terror are all examples of what i would consider legitimate "whoring for votes."</htmltext>
<tokenext>seems like you 're under-exaggerating the difference between " whoring for votes " and " spending their time better on something else " .
the war on child porn , the war on drugs , and the war on terror are all examples of what i would consider legitimate " whoring for votes .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>seems like you're under-exaggerating the difference between "whoring for votes" and "spending their time better on something else".
the war on child porn, the war on drugs, and the war on terror are all examples of what i would consider legitimate "whoring for votes.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30440446</id>
	<title>"Higher cost" excuse</title>
	<author>emaname</author>
	<datestamp>1260813000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If regulation becomes likely, the advertisers will say, "If you force us to control the volume of our commercials, we'll have to increase the cost of our products to offset the extra effort it will take to comply."<br> <br>
I not only mute commercials immediately, I leave the room or look someplace else. In addition to the annoying increase in volume, they are using bright flashing or strobe lighting effects, jamming about 5 different, still images into a second, fast motion to slow motion or the reverse, focusing on someone's nostril hair while they talk about some personal problem, tinting the sky (the PGA's favorite effect), etc, etc.<br> <br>

So other groups that should be called out on this are the producers and directors of the commercials. They go to school and learn about all the COOL effects that can be used and then they can't wait to use them all in a single commercial. These rookie techniques remind me of the "blink" tag or GIF animations during the early days of the net.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If regulation becomes likely , the advertisers will say , " If you force us to control the volume of our commercials , we 'll have to increase the cost of our products to offset the extra effort it will take to comply .
" I not only mute commercials immediately , I leave the room or look someplace else .
In addition to the annoying increase in volume , they are using bright flashing or strobe lighting effects , jamming about 5 different , still images into a second , fast motion to slow motion or the reverse , focusing on someone 's nostril hair while they talk about some personal problem , tinting the sky ( the PGA 's favorite effect ) , etc , etc .
So other groups that should be called out on this are the producers and directors of the commercials .
They go to school and learn about all the COOL effects that can be used and then they ca n't wait to use them all in a single commercial .
These rookie techniques remind me of the " blink " tag or GIF animations during the early days of the net .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If regulation becomes likely, the advertisers will say, "If you force us to control the volume of our commercials, we'll have to increase the cost of our products to offset the extra effort it will take to comply.
" 
I not only mute commercials immediately, I leave the room or look someplace else.
In addition to the annoying increase in volume, they are using bright flashing or strobe lighting effects, jamming about 5 different, still images into a second, fast motion to slow motion or the reverse, focusing on someone's nostril hair while they talk about some personal problem, tinting the sky (the PGA's favorite effect), etc, etc.
So other groups that should be called out on this are the producers and directors of the commercials.
They go to school and learn about all the COOL effects that can be used and then they can't wait to use them all in a single commercial.
These rookie techniques remind me of the "blink" tag or GIF animations during the early days of the net.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30442096</id>
	<title>When all commercials are louder than the average..</title>
	<author>knarf</author>
	<datestamp>1260876300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...they can be filtered out very easily by muting the sound and dimming/blurring the screen while they run. For those lost souls who still watch television this might be a means to at least escape part of the annoyance.</p><p>The better solution is of course to get rid of TV and get your news and entertainment from the 'net. Filtering out commercial drivel becomes easier as well.</p><p>Oh, and for those who think that I am obliged to watch commercial sh*t to 'pay' for all that 'free' content on the 'net I'd like to say 'Ascend Thine'...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...they can be filtered out very easily by muting the sound and dimming/blurring the screen while they run .
For those lost souls who still watch television this might be a means to at least escape part of the annoyance.The better solution is of course to get rid of TV and get your news and entertainment from the 'net .
Filtering out commercial drivel becomes easier as well.Oh , and for those who think that I am obliged to watch commercial sh * t to 'pay ' for all that 'free ' content on the 'net I 'd like to say 'Ascend Thine'.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...they can be filtered out very easily by muting the sound and dimming/blurring the screen while they run.
For those lost souls who still watch television this might be a means to at least escape part of the annoyance.The better solution is of course to get rid of TV and get your news and entertainment from the 'net.
Filtering out commercial drivel becomes easier as well.Oh, and for those who think that I am obliged to watch commercial sh*t to 'pay' for all that 'free' content on the 'net I'd like to say 'Ascend Thine'...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437376</id>
	<title>Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260794460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With all that's going on in the world, this is what we are paying our legislators to address?  When are the next elections again?  Come on people, we have to be able to do better than this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With all that 's going on in the world , this is what we are paying our legislators to address ?
When are the next elections again ?
Come on people , we have to be able to do better than this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With all that's going on in the world, this is what we are paying our legislators to address?
When are the next elections again?
Come on people, we have to be able to do better than this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30439304</id>
	<title>Re:No fair way to write regulations?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260803940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Then surely a TV station or broadcast network could make commercials stay at the same gain as the programming.</p></div><p>Are you kidding? Most broadcast TV stations \_still\_ haven't figured out how to broadcast ATSC correctly. (Is it 4:3? is it 16:9? is it 16:9 pushed in to 4:3? ewwwwww)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then surely a TV station or broadcast network could make commercials stay at the same gain as the programming.Are you kidding ?
Most broadcast TV stations \ _still \ _ have n't figured out how to broadcast ATSC correctly .
( Is it 4 : 3 ?
is it 16 : 9 ?
is it 16 : 9 pushed in to 4 : 3 ?
ewwwwww )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then surely a TV station or broadcast network could make commercials stay at the same gain as the programming.Are you kidding?
Most broadcast TV stations \_still\_ haven't figured out how to broadcast ATSC correctly.
(Is it 4:3?
is it 16:9?
is it 16:9 pushed in to 4:3?
ewwwwww)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30440680</id>
	<title>Huh?</title>
	<author>SlappyBastard</author>
	<datestamp>1260815040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sorry, I was having trouble reading because of the loud commercials.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , I was having trouble reading because of the loud commercials .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, I was having trouble reading because of the loud commercials.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437316</id>
	<title>Does each channel control their commercials?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260794280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It seems that if each channel is already broadcasting whatever commercial they decide (and aren't just allowing some 3rd party time to broadcast over the channel for commercials), they could simply normalize the audio to be in tune with their shows prior to airing. They'd just need to process the commercials they receive one time before sticking them in rotation, and tada, no more screaming commercials... or am I misunderstanding how this works? Presently I can only imagine this is due to laziness on part of the channel, and a twisted sense of greed on part of the offending commercials.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems that if each channel is already broadcasting whatever commercial they decide ( and are n't just allowing some 3rd party time to broadcast over the channel for commercials ) , they could simply normalize the audio to be in tune with their shows prior to airing .
They 'd just need to process the commercials they receive one time before sticking them in rotation , and tada , no more screaming commercials... or am I misunderstanding how this works ?
Presently I can only imagine this is due to laziness on part of the channel , and a twisted sense of greed on part of the offending commercials .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems that if each channel is already broadcasting whatever commercial they decide (and aren't just allowing some 3rd party time to broadcast over the channel for commercials), they could simply normalize the audio to be in tune with their shows prior to airing.
They'd just need to process the commercials they receive one time before sticking them in rotation, and tada, no more screaming commercials... or am I misunderstanding how this works?
Presently I can only imagine this is due to laziness on part of the channel, and a twisted sense of greed on part of the offending commercials.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438602</id>
	<title>Re:No fair way to write regulations?</title>
	<author>bill\_beeman</author>
	<datestamp>1260799980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>multisync above hit on one of the major problems, but it is more than simple compression of commercials.</p><p>First, there are significant psycho-acoustic effects...material delivered in an urgent tone of voice is perceived as louder than material delivered in a relaxed pace.<br>Second, almost all material you hear has had significant processing...more than simple compression.<br>Third, we've been trying to develop a means of metering audio levels that allow the metered level to actually correspond to perceived loudness for as long as I've been in broadcast engineering, with no success.  We can meter peak levels easily, average power levels with some difficulty, and perceived loudness not at all.</p><p>If you wanted to ban all audio processing you could get closer, but still not have a way to account for the psychological part of the equation.  The advertiser may have an incentive to make his or her stuff louder, but you don't really sell product by irritating the potential customer.  And the broadcaster has no reason to jack up commercials.  Some of the apparent increase in this has come in recent years as the master control operations for both cable, satellite, and terrestrial broadcast has become more automated.  If the automation is well done you decrease some classes of errors, but there is seldom a trained ear paying attention any more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>multisync above hit on one of the major problems , but it is more than simple compression of commercials.First , there are significant psycho-acoustic effects...material delivered in an urgent tone of voice is perceived as louder than material delivered in a relaxed pace.Second , almost all material you hear has had significant processing...more than simple compression.Third , we 've been trying to develop a means of metering audio levels that allow the metered level to actually correspond to perceived loudness for as long as I 've been in broadcast engineering , with no success .
We can meter peak levels easily , average power levels with some difficulty , and perceived loudness not at all.If you wanted to ban all audio processing you could get closer , but still not have a way to account for the psychological part of the equation .
The advertiser may have an incentive to make his or her stuff louder , but you do n't really sell product by irritating the potential customer .
And the broadcaster has no reason to jack up commercials .
Some of the apparent increase in this has come in recent years as the master control operations for both cable , satellite , and terrestrial broadcast has become more automated .
If the automation is well done you decrease some classes of errors , but there is seldom a trained ear paying attention any more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>multisync above hit on one of the major problems, but it is more than simple compression of commercials.First, there are significant psycho-acoustic effects...material delivered in an urgent tone of voice is perceived as louder than material delivered in a relaxed pace.Second, almost all material you hear has had significant processing...more than simple compression.Third, we've been trying to develop a means of metering audio levels that allow the metered level to actually correspond to perceived loudness for as long as I've been in broadcast engineering, with no success.
We can meter peak levels easily, average power levels with some difficulty, and perceived loudness not at all.If you wanted to ban all audio processing you could get closer, but still not have a way to account for the psychological part of the equation.
The advertiser may have an incentive to make his or her stuff louder, but you don't really sell product by irritating the potential customer.
And the broadcaster has no reason to jack up commercials.
Some of the apparent increase in this has come in recent years as the master control operations for both cable, satellite, and terrestrial broadcast has become more automated.
If the automation is well done you decrease some classes of errors, but there is seldom a trained ear paying attention any more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30446344</id>
	<title>nannystate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260900780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>doesn't need an "abouttime" tag; needs a "nannystate" tag<br>please be consistent<br>if you don't like those loud commercials, turn off your TV or whatever</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>does n't need an " abouttime " tag ; needs a " nannystate " tagplease be consistentif you do n't like those loud commercials , turn off your TV or whatever</tokentext>
<sentencetext>doesn't need an "abouttime" tag; needs a "nannystate" tagplease be consistentif you don't like those loud commercials, turn off your TV or whatever</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437702</id>
	<title>Re:No fair way to write regulations?</title>
	<author>jjoelc</author>
	<datestamp>1260795780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what are stations supposed to do if the last 30 seconds of the program were silence (or almost...) Run the commercial without sound? Wouldn't it suck if the last 30 seconds of the show were a gunfight (in dolby surround, no less!)</p><p>There is a LOT more to it than just gain. If it was just gain, then we would already be there.</p><p>How about going from an HD 5.1 surround mix program to a stereo (or even mono x2) commercial? Or the opposite way?</p><p>I am an engineer at a TV station, and while there are a lot of products out there to try and control volume levels... None of them work all that well, and none of them work near as well as an employee who is paying attention to something more than just the meters.</p><p>Digital has (oddly enough) taken away a lot of the control that stations used to have over things like audio and video levels. The attitude seems to be "It's digital, all of that is automatic now"  Station Automation only makes this situation worse. Even if there were still a "knob to twiddle" there wouldn't be anyone there to twiddle it.</p><p>It also doesn't help that your stereotypical TV Chief Engineer is "the old guy who has been doing this for 40+ years". They have spent their entire lives learning and practicing TV. And next to none of it applies anymore. Most of them were convinced to stick it out through the DTV transition, but I am expecting a very large number of them to go ahead and retire now that it has passed. Perhaps the younger crowd of engineers, who all grew up on computers and with digital everything will do better... or maybe they just grew up with the attitude "it's digital... what are you going to do?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what are stations supposed to do if the last 30 seconds of the program were silence ( or almost... ) Run the commercial without sound ?
Would n't it suck if the last 30 seconds of the show were a gunfight ( in dolby surround , no less !
) There is a LOT more to it than just gain .
If it was just gain , then we would already be there.How about going from an HD 5.1 surround mix program to a stereo ( or even mono x2 ) commercial ?
Or the opposite way ? I am an engineer at a TV station , and while there are a lot of products out there to try and control volume levels... None of them work all that well , and none of them work near as well as an employee who is paying attention to something more than just the meters.Digital has ( oddly enough ) taken away a lot of the control that stations used to have over things like audio and video levels .
The attitude seems to be " It 's digital , all of that is automatic now " Station Automation only makes this situation worse .
Even if there were still a " knob to twiddle " there would n't be anyone there to twiddle it.It also does n't help that your stereotypical TV Chief Engineer is " the old guy who has been doing this for 40 + years " .
They have spent their entire lives learning and practicing TV .
And next to none of it applies anymore .
Most of them were convinced to stick it out through the DTV transition , but I am expecting a very large number of them to go ahead and retire now that it has passed .
Perhaps the younger crowd of engineers , who all grew up on computers and with digital everything will do better... or maybe they just grew up with the attitude " it 's digital... what are you going to do ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what are stations supposed to do if the last 30 seconds of the program were silence (or almost...) Run the commercial without sound?
Wouldn't it suck if the last 30 seconds of the show were a gunfight (in dolby surround, no less!
)There is a LOT more to it than just gain.
If it was just gain, then we would already be there.How about going from an HD 5.1 surround mix program to a stereo (or even mono x2) commercial?
Or the opposite way?I am an engineer at a TV station, and while there are a lot of products out there to try and control volume levels... None of them work all that well, and none of them work near as well as an employee who is paying attention to something more than just the meters.Digital has (oddly enough) taken away a lot of the control that stations used to have over things like audio and video levels.
The attitude seems to be "It's digital, all of that is automatic now"  Station Automation only makes this situation worse.
Even if there were still a "knob to twiddle" there wouldn't be anyone there to twiddle it.It also doesn't help that your stereotypical TV Chief Engineer is "the old guy who has been doing this for 40+ years".
They have spent their entire lives learning and practicing TV.
And next to none of it applies anymore.
Most of them were convinced to stick it out through the DTV transition, but I am expecting a very large number of them to go ahead and retire now that it has passed.
Perhaps the younger crowd of engineers, who all grew up on computers and with digital everything will do better... or maybe they just grew up with the attitude "it's digital... what are you going to do?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437622</id>
	<title>Whoring for votes</title>
	<author>Angst Badger</author>
	<datestamp>1260795420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am by no means opposed to regulating advertising; if anything, there is not nearly enough regulation of advertising. That said, unlike intrusive junk mail in all its forms -- postal, spam, telemarketing -- television advertising isn't attached to anything vital and is therefore easy to avoid: turn off the TV. No one <i>needs</i> television, and its one practical use -- news -- is much better satisfied by literally every other medium by which news is available. It's just a source of entertainment, and it is almost completely paid for by advertising. If you want to watch TV, the terrible hardship you must endure is hitting the mute button when the ads come up, you poor thing.</p><p>This is nothing more than a politician looking to score some easy votes by attacking something that everyone dislikes but which, since it actually harms no one, won't matter much if the bill disappears in committee and is never seen again. Congress' time would be better spent doing something about <i>unavoidable</i> forms of advertising instead of making a fuss about one of the few entirely avoidable forms.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am by no means opposed to regulating advertising ; if anything , there is not nearly enough regulation of advertising .
That said , unlike intrusive junk mail in all its forms -- postal , spam , telemarketing -- television advertising is n't attached to anything vital and is therefore easy to avoid : turn off the TV .
No one needs television , and its one practical use -- news -- is much better satisfied by literally every other medium by which news is available .
It 's just a source of entertainment , and it is almost completely paid for by advertising .
If you want to watch TV , the terrible hardship you must endure is hitting the mute button when the ads come up , you poor thing.This is nothing more than a politician looking to score some easy votes by attacking something that everyone dislikes but which , since it actually harms no one , wo n't matter much if the bill disappears in committee and is never seen again .
Congress ' time would be better spent doing something about unavoidable forms of advertising instead of making a fuss about one of the few entirely avoidable forms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am by no means opposed to regulating advertising; if anything, there is not nearly enough regulation of advertising.
That said, unlike intrusive junk mail in all its forms -- postal, spam, telemarketing -- television advertising isn't attached to anything vital and is therefore easy to avoid: turn off the TV.
No one needs television, and its one practical use -- news -- is much better satisfied by literally every other medium by which news is available.
It's just a source of entertainment, and it is almost completely paid for by advertising.
If you want to watch TV, the terrible hardship you must endure is hitting the mute button when the ads come up, you poor thing.This is nothing more than a politician looking to score some easy votes by attacking something that everyone dislikes but which, since it actually harms no one, won't matter much if the bill disappears in committee and is never seen again.
Congress' time would be better spent doing something about unavoidable forms of advertising instead of making a fuss about one of the few entirely avoidable forms.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30441994</id>
	<title>The real problem</title>
	<author>SmallFurryCreature</author>
	<datestamp>1260874680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real problem isn't the sound level/compression whatever, that is just a symptom. The real problem is to many ads. We as people are becoming better at tuning them out and so the advertisers think only of their own ad and try to think of a method to become impossible to notice. It is a constant arms race and that is a REAL problem, because arms races are done between enemies. Do you as a merchant really want your customers to think of you as the enemy? Does the TV network want people to fight their audience?
</p><p>I barely watch TV anymore, simply because the ads have gone out of control. For the Americans, I grew up in Holland were we had ONE tv network (if you wanted to watch another channel, you tuned into the neighboring country) and no ads on Sunday and other Christian holidays. During the weeks ads were only between programs. Now we got 30 or so channels and are blasted by ads. And I watch fewer ads then ever. Progress? I think not.
</p><p>There used to be booze and cigs ads before the movies, I don't drink or smoke but they were intresting to watch. Didn't work since I didn't buy but at least I didn't resent every second of watching them. Then they banned them, now we got ads so horrible I actually walked out of the movie and demanded my money back.
</p><p>In the fight for our eyeballs, advertisers are actually loosing eyeballs and rather then agree one some set of guidelines to stop this, they race each other to the bottom. Right now the ads on Discovery and such in Holland are for SMS. It can't pay much (I pray to god that it doesn't because I don't want to live in a world where there are millions of people who fall for these obvious scams "sms your name, his name to see if you will be together for ever <i>This is part of a subscription plan which will charge you 4.95 per sms for the rest of your life, three times a day</i>") but they still blast every 15 minutes. What is Discovery thinking? I can just download the shows you know. I don't even dare to drive a car, because if I did, people might think I watched a car ad (about 50 IQ points BELOW a SMS ad).
</p><p>Why not instead make quality TV, then charge a premium for a 30 second slot every half hour. Captive audience who is sure to pay attention. But no, commerical break is when people have become trained to go to the toilet or have a quickie and advertisers are determined to give us even less reason to watch...
</p><p>If McDonalds was an advertising company, they would try to boost dropping sales by injecting extra lard and making the que's double long. Because the best way to get more customers is to be extra horrible to them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real problem is n't the sound level/compression whatever , that is just a symptom .
The real problem is to many ads .
We as people are becoming better at tuning them out and so the advertisers think only of their own ad and try to think of a method to become impossible to notice .
It is a constant arms race and that is a REAL problem , because arms races are done between enemies .
Do you as a merchant really want your customers to think of you as the enemy ?
Does the TV network want people to fight their audience ?
I barely watch TV anymore , simply because the ads have gone out of control .
For the Americans , I grew up in Holland were we had ONE tv network ( if you wanted to watch another channel , you tuned into the neighboring country ) and no ads on Sunday and other Christian holidays .
During the weeks ads were only between programs .
Now we got 30 or so channels and are blasted by ads .
And I watch fewer ads then ever .
Progress ? I think not .
There used to be booze and cigs ads before the movies , I do n't drink or smoke but they were intresting to watch .
Did n't work since I did n't buy but at least I did n't resent every second of watching them .
Then they banned them , now we got ads so horrible I actually walked out of the movie and demanded my money back .
In the fight for our eyeballs , advertisers are actually loosing eyeballs and rather then agree one some set of guidelines to stop this , they race each other to the bottom .
Right now the ads on Discovery and such in Holland are for SMS .
It ca n't pay much ( I pray to god that it does n't because I do n't want to live in a world where there are millions of people who fall for these obvious scams " sms your name , his name to see if you will be together for ever This is part of a subscription plan which will charge you 4.95 per sms for the rest of your life , three times a day " ) but they still blast every 15 minutes .
What is Discovery thinking ?
I can just download the shows you know .
I do n't even dare to drive a car , because if I did , people might think I watched a car ad ( about 50 IQ points BELOW a SMS ad ) .
Why not instead make quality TV , then charge a premium for a 30 second slot every half hour .
Captive audience who is sure to pay attention .
But no , commerical break is when people have become trained to go to the toilet or have a quickie and advertisers are determined to give us even less reason to watch.. . If McDonalds was an advertising company , they would try to boost dropping sales by injecting extra lard and making the que 's double long .
Because the best way to get more customers is to be extra horrible to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real problem isn't the sound level/compression whatever, that is just a symptom.
The real problem is to many ads.
We as people are becoming better at tuning them out and so the advertisers think only of their own ad and try to think of a method to become impossible to notice.
It is a constant arms race and that is a REAL problem, because arms races are done between enemies.
Do you as a merchant really want your customers to think of you as the enemy?
Does the TV network want people to fight their audience?
I barely watch TV anymore, simply because the ads have gone out of control.
For the Americans, I grew up in Holland were we had ONE tv network (if you wanted to watch another channel, you tuned into the neighboring country) and no ads on Sunday and other Christian holidays.
During the weeks ads were only between programs.
Now we got 30 or so channels and are blasted by ads.
And I watch fewer ads then ever.
Progress? I think not.
There used to be booze and cigs ads before the movies, I don't drink or smoke but they were intresting to watch.
Didn't work since I didn't buy but at least I didn't resent every second of watching them.
Then they banned them, now we got ads so horrible I actually walked out of the movie and demanded my money back.
In the fight for our eyeballs, advertisers are actually loosing eyeballs and rather then agree one some set of guidelines to stop this, they race each other to the bottom.
Right now the ads on Discovery and such in Holland are for SMS.
It can't pay much (I pray to god that it doesn't because I don't want to live in a world where there are millions of people who fall for these obvious scams "sms your name, his name to see if you will be together for ever This is part of a subscription plan which will charge you 4.95 per sms for the rest of your life, three times a day") but they still blast every 15 minutes.
What is Discovery thinking?
I can just download the shows you know.
I don't even dare to drive a car, because if I did, people might think I watched a car ad (about 50 IQ points BELOW a SMS ad).
Why not instead make quality TV, then charge a premium for a 30 second slot every half hour.
Captive audience who is sure to pay attention.
But no, commerical break is when people have become trained to go to the toilet or have a quickie and advertisers are determined to give us even less reason to watch...
If McDonalds was an advertising company, they would try to boost dropping sales by injecting extra lard and making the que's double long.
Because the best way to get more customers is to be extra horrible to them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437818</id>
	<title>Re:No fair way to write regulations?</title>
	<author>Junior J. Junior III</author>
	<datestamp>1260796260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, they COULD do that, but then their customers would stop paying for them.  The viewing public is the product, always remember.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , they COULD do that , but then their customers would stop paying for them .
The viewing public is the product , always remember .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, they COULD do that, but then their customers would stop paying for them.
The viewing public is the product, always remember.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437488</id>
	<title>Volume and Loudness are different things</title>
	<author>mcsporran</author>
	<datestamp>1260794880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've seen this here in Oz, smarmy TV spokesdrones telling us that the volume is no higher during the ads, this is true, as they are discussing the peak value in decibels.</p><p>What they don't mention is the loudness (the amount of sound)  has been cranked right up, which is why they are too "loud"</p><p>When we want to discuss loudness, they always come back with irrelevant facts about volume.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've seen this here in Oz , smarmy TV spokesdrones telling us that the volume is no higher during the ads , this is true , as they are discussing the peak value in decibels.What they do n't mention is the loudness ( the amount of sound ) has been cranked right up , which is why they are too " loud " When we want to discuss loudness , they always come back with irrelevant facts about volume .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've seen this here in Oz, smarmy TV spokesdrones telling us that the volume is no higher during the ads, this is true, as they are discussing the peak value in decibels.What they don't mention is the loudness (the amount of sound)  has been cranked right up, which is why they are too "loud"When we want to discuss loudness, they always come back with irrelevant facts about volume.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437418</id>
	<title>Re:I'd much rather...</title>
	<author>Kryptonian Jor-El</author>
	<datestamp>1260794640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>So you'd rather have to pay more for your TV then to just force the networks to stop being assholes? <br> <br>
If *you* want loud commercials, then turn your TV up louder. I'm tired of the networks jacking the commercial sound up, its bullshit and I shouldn't have to be responsible for fixing it. If I have the movie or TV show at 70 dB, I want the commercials at 70 dB as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So you 'd rather have to pay more for your TV then to just force the networks to stop being assholes ?
If * you * want loud commercials , then turn your TV up louder .
I 'm tired of the networks jacking the commercial sound up , its bullshit and I should n't have to be responsible for fixing it .
If I have the movie or TV show at 70 dB , I want the commercials at 70 dB as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you'd rather have to pay more for your TV then to just force the networks to stop being assholes?
If *you* want loud commercials, then turn your TV up louder.
I'm tired of the networks jacking the commercial sound up, its bullshit and I shouldn't have to be responsible for fixing it.
If I have the movie or TV show at 70 dB, I want the commercials at 70 dB as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30442982</id>
	<title>FX has to be the worst offender</title>
	<author>beerdini</author>
	<datestamp>1260886560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was reading something on this topic a few months ago and the way that I remember it is that under the current laws the volume of the commercials cannot exceed the highest decibel level of the program it is with.  There is no restriction on what portion of the program the "loud" commercials are aired with, they can't be louder than the loudest part of the show.  So if you are watching a movie that ends in a loud explosion at the end, you get to hear Billy Mays yelling at you every commercial break.

I'm on satellite TV and have an older pre-digital conversion television, and I have to say that FX is one of the worst offenders of this.  Most channels that I watch I can comfortably have the volume set at just under the 50\% marker at a level of 22-25.  If I watch anything on FX I need to turn the volume up to at least 30 to make the program hearable at the same level as the other channels, but when a commercial comes on I need to drop the volume back down otherwise it is insanely loud.  Its almost like FX airs the show at the lowest decibel of their commercials, then air their commercials at the normal level.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was reading something on this topic a few months ago and the way that I remember it is that under the current laws the volume of the commercials can not exceed the highest decibel level of the program it is with .
There is no restriction on what portion of the program the " loud " commercials are aired with , they ca n't be louder than the loudest part of the show .
So if you are watching a movie that ends in a loud explosion at the end , you get to hear Billy Mays yelling at you every commercial break .
I 'm on satellite TV and have an older pre-digital conversion television , and I have to say that FX is one of the worst offenders of this .
Most channels that I watch I can comfortably have the volume set at just under the 50 \ % marker at a level of 22-25 .
If I watch anything on FX I need to turn the volume up to at least 30 to make the program hearable at the same level as the other channels , but when a commercial comes on I need to drop the volume back down otherwise it is insanely loud .
Its almost like FX airs the show at the lowest decibel of their commercials , then air their commercials at the normal level .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was reading something on this topic a few months ago and the way that I remember it is that under the current laws the volume of the commercials cannot exceed the highest decibel level of the program it is with.
There is no restriction on what portion of the program the "loud" commercials are aired with, they can't be louder than the loudest part of the show.
So if you are watching a movie that ends in a loud explosion at the end, you get to hear Billy Mays yelling at you every commercial break.
I'm on satellite TV and have an older pre-digital conversion television, and I have to say that FX is one of the worst offenders of this.
Most channels that I watch I can comfortably have the volume set at just under the 50\% marker at a level of 22-25.
If I watch anything on FX I need to turn the volume up to at least 30 to make the program hearable at the same level as the other channels, but when a commercial comes on I need to drop the volume back down otherwise it is insanely loud.
Its almost like FX airs the show at the lowest decibel of their commercials, then air their commercials at the normal level.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30448690</id>
	<title>Re:No fair way to write regulations?</title>
	<author>sorak</author>
	<datestamp>1260909480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You take the average gain of the last 30 seconds of a program before it goes to commercial, and don't allow the commercials to be any louder than that.</p><p>If I can make karaoke and techno music automatically crossfade with my meager skills(link below)</p><p> <a href="http://www.facebook.com/v/203775860215" title="facebook.com">http://www.facebook.com/v/203775860215</a> [facebook.com] </p><p>Then surely a TV station or broadcast network could make commercials stay at the same gain as the programming.</p></div><p>I think you have a point, but I keep hearing a lot of "The broadcaster can never make it work. The advertiser screws the whole thing up with audio compression!"...Well, if there is no legal way for the broadcaster to air the ultra compressed unholy demon ad, then they will have to call the advertiser and say "I'm sorry, we cannot legally air your ad". I suspect that the advertiser would respond by creating a version that the network CAN legally air.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You take the average gain of the last 30 seconds of a program before it goes to commercial , and do n't allow the commercials to be any louder than that.If I can make karaoke and techno music automatically crossfade with my meager skills ( link below ) http : //www.facebook.com/v/203775860215 [ facebook.com ] Then surely a TV station or broadcast network could make commercials stay at the same gain as the programming.I think you have a point , but I keep hearing a lot of " The broadcaster can never make it work .
The advertiser screws the whole thing up with audio compression !
" ...Well , if there is no legal way for the broadcaster to air the ultra compressed unholy demon ad , then they will have to call the advertiser and say " I 'm sorry , we can not legally air your ad " .
I suspect that the advertiser would respond by creating a version that the network CAN legally air .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You take the average gain of the last 30 seconds of a program before it goes to commercial, and don't allow the commercials to be any louder than that.If I can make karaoke and techno music automatically crossfade with my meager skills(link below) http://www.facebook.com/v/203775860215 [facebook.com] Then surely a TV station or broadcast network could make commercials stay at the same gain as the programming.I think you have a point, but I keep hearing a lot of "The broadcaster can never make it work.
The advertiser screws the whole thing up with audio compression!
"...Well, if there is no legal way for the broadcaster to air the ultra compressed unholy demon ad, then they will have to call the advertiser and say "I'm sorry, we cannot legally air your ad".
I suspect that the advertiser would respond by creating a version that the network CAN legally air.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438354</id>
	<title>Re:Not that simple</title>
	<author>catmistake</author>
	<datestamp>1260798720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>well... you're right and you're wrong. The first sentence of your post is almost entirely incorrect. The commercials sound louder because <i>they really are louder</i>. Yes, yes, advertisers use compression and adding gain in an attempt to thwart the limiters built into most new TVs. However, at the same time, yes, the grunt in the network's production hole has actually set the actual gain of the commercials up to 10-25dB higher volume pressure than the program you are watching. They do this because advertisers have requested it, and advertisers pay for them to exist. And we know that the networks are doing this <i>because they have admitted to doing so</i>. Every story I've seen on it details this fact.</htmltext>
<tokenext>well... you 're right and you 're wrong .
The first sentence of your post is almost entirely incorrect .
The commercials sound louder because they really are louder .
Yes , yes , advertisers use compression and adding gain in an attempt to thwart the limiters built into most new TVs .
However , at the same time , yes , the grunt in the network 's production hole has actually set the actual gain of the commercials up to 10-25dB higher volume pressure than the program you are watching .
They do this because advertisers have requested it , and advertisers pay for them to exist .
And we know that the networks are doing this because they have admitted to doing so .
Every story I 've seen on it details this fact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>well... you're right and you're wrong.
The first sentence of your post is almost entirely incorrect.
The commercials sound louder because they really are louder.
Yes, yes, advertisers use compression and adding gain in an attempt to thwart the limiters built into most new TVs.
However, at the same time, yes, the grunt in the network's production hole has actually set the actual gain of the commercials up to 10-25dB higher volume pressure than the program you are watching.
They do this because advertisers have requested it, and advertisers pay for them to exist.
And we know that the networks are doing this because they have admitted to doing so.
Every story I've seen on it details this fact.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437756</id>
	<title>Re:No fair way to write regulations?</title>
	<author>whiplashx</author>
	<datestamp>1260796020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It doesn't really work that way because TV shows and movies have a lot of sound in the high and low ranges, while commercials have more in the mid ranges. A decibel of sound in the high or low ranges can seem quite while a decibel in the mid ranges can seem loud, depending on the TV and the listener.</p><p>Further, if a TV show was extremely quiet, the commercial would be forced to be quiet...</p><p>-Thomas</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't really work that way because TV shows and movies have a lot of sound in the high and low ranges , while commercials have more in the mid ranges .
A decibel of sound in the high or low ranges can seem quite while a decibel in the mid ranges can seem loud , depending on the TV and the listener.Further , if a TV show was extremely quiet , the commercial would be forced to be quiet...-Thomas</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't really work that way because TV shows and movies have a lot of sound in the high and low ranges, while commercials have more in the mid ranges.
A decibel of sound in the high or low ranges can seem quite while a decibel in the mid ranges can seem loud, depending on the TV and the listener.Further, if a TV show was extremely quiet, the commercial would be forced to be quiet...-Thomas</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30439678</id>
	<title>I'm A Techie</title>
	<author>smpoole7</author>
	<datestamp>1260806220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... in radio, and here's the thing. Yes, we use processing (compression/limiting) to make ourselves as loud as possible without overdriving the transmitter (the technical term is "overmodulation," and it's illegal because it causes interference).<br><br>But we routinely receive pre-packaged audio that is ALREADY processed. When we "re-process" it, it sometimes makes it sound louder. (Certainly less dynamic range, and typically more distorted.) Commercials are by far the most common offenders. Some of these are even EQ'd so that the bass is severely cut, coupled with an annoying peak in the response from 2-3KHz, where the ear is most sensitive. Any rational, cost-effective metering will show it to have the same "level" as our normal program audio, but it WILL be harsher and louder-sounding.<br><br>However, I'll defend our processing (we use Omnia processors at our stations -- www.omniaaudio.com); it does a remarkably good job with 90-95\% of our audio, including some of these badly-produced commercial and satellite feeds.<br><br>The problem doesn't afflict standard broadcast radio and TV stations nearly as much as it does cable and satellite channels, probably because these smaller providers can't afford (or don't want to pay) to put top-notch processing on 20-100 different channels.<br><br>(In fact, I called one of our satellite providers a while back, complaining about varying levels, and their engineer admitted to me that the didn't have any processing on their airchain. They expected OUR processing to "clean it up.")<br><br>The proposals here to divide things into spectra and measure it that way?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... well, we already do that. We use the Omnia processors (www.omniaaudio.com) ourselves; others (such as Optimods -- www.orban.com) do as well. But it's very expensive.<br><br>And finally, yes, this is all subjective, anyway, as others have pointed out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... in radio , and here 's the thing .
Yes , we use processing ( compression/limiting ) to make ourselves as loud as possible without overdriving the transmitter ( the technical term is " overmodulation , " and it 's illegal because it causes interference ) .But we routinely receive pre-packaged audio that is ALREADY processed .
When we " re-process " it , it sometimes makes it sound louder .
( Certainly less dynamic range , and typically more distorted .
) Commercials are by far the most common offenders .
Some of these are even EQ 'd so that the bass is severely cut , coupled with an annoying peak in the response from 2-3KHz , where the ear is most sensitive .
Any rational , cost-effective metering will show it to have the same " level " as our normal program audio , but it WILL be harsher and louder-sounding.However , I 'll defend our processing ( we use Omnia processors at our stations -- www.omniaaudio.com ) ; it does a remarkably good job with 90-95 \ % of our audio , including some of these badly-produced commercial and satellite feeds.The problem does n't afflict standard broadcast radio and TV stations nearly as much as it does cable and satellite channels , probably because these smaller providers ca n't afford ( or do n't want to pay ) to put top-notch processing on 20-100 different channels .
( In fact , I called one of our satellite providers a while back , complaining about varying levels , and their engineer admitted to me that the did n't have any processing on their airchain .
They expected OUR processing to " clean it up .
" ) The proposals here to divide things into spectra and measure it that way ?
... well , we already do that .
We use the Omnia processors ( www.omniaaudio.com ) ourselves ; others ( such as Optimods -- www.orban.com ) do as well .
But it 's very expensive.And finally , yes , this is all subjective , anyway , as others have pointed out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... in radio, and here's the thing.
Yes, we use processing (compression/limiting) to make ourselves as loud as possible without overdriving the transmitter (the technical term is "overmodulation," and it's illegal because it causes interference).But we routinely receive pre-packaged audio that is ALREADY processed.
When we "re-process" it, it sometimes makes it sound louder.
(Certainly less dynamic range, and typically more distorted.
) Commercials are by far the most common offenders.
Some of these are even EQ'd so that the bass is severely cut, coupled with an annoying peak in the response from 2-3KHz, where the ear is most sensitive.
Any rational, cost-effective metering will show it to have the same "level" as our normal program audio, but it WILL be harsher and louder-sounding.However, I'll defend our processing (we use Omnia processors at our stations -- www.omniaaudio.com); it does a remarkably good job with 90-95\% of our audio, including some of these badly-produced commercial and satellite feeds.The problem doesn't afflict standard broadcast radio and TV stations nearly as much as it does cable and satellite channels, probably because these smaller providers can't afford (or don't want to pay) to put top-notch processing on 20-100 different channels.
(In fact, I called one of our satellite providers a while back, complaining about varying levels, and their engineer admitted to me that the didn't have any processing on their airchain.
They expected OUR processing to "clean it up.
")The proposals here to divide things into spectra and measure it that way?
... well, we already do that.
We use the Omnia processors (www.omniaaudio.com) ourselves; others (such as Optimods -- www.orban.com) do as well.
But it's very expensive.And finally, yes, this is all subjective, anyway, as others have pointed out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30439664</id>
	<title>Please kill this legislation.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260806160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In modern times we use mpeg stream format differences to extract commercials from programming. Characterising loudness can help in cases when this is not reliable.  Using both methods in tandom has the potential to significantly improve commercial detecting software systems.</p><p>The only thing better than not having to fast-foward commercials is for them to be automatically removed.</p><p>Any legislation making it harder to detect commercials is bad legislation.  I hope you will send letters to your members of congress expressing your opposition to any such legislation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In modern times we use mpeg stream format differences to extract commercials from programming .
Characterising loudness can help in cases when this is not reliable .
Using both methods in tandom has the potential to significantly improve commercial detecting software systems.The only thing better than not having to fast-foward commercials is for them to be automatically removed.Any legislation making it harder to detect commercials is bad legislation .
I hope you will send letters to your members of congress expressing your opposition to any such legislation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In modern times we use mpeg stream format differences to extract commercials from programming.
Characterising loudness can help in cases when this is not reliable.
Using both methods in tandom has the potential to significantly improve commercial detecting software systems.The only thing better than not having to fast-foward commercials is for them to be automatically removed.Any legislation making it harder to detect commercials is bad legislation.
I hope you will send letters to your members of congress expressing your opposition to any such legislation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30449728</id>
	<title>Re:Bad idea.</title>
	<author>nsteinme</author>
	<datestamp>1260871380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The majority of your post is good, however the first part is quite wrong.<p><div class="quote"><p>But there's no way to legislate such technical detail</p></div><p>The metric you seek is anything that measures the average, absolute value of the sound signal amplitude (average loudness). Among other equally apt solutions offered in this thread, as frank\_adrian314159 says in reply to you, average sound energy would be a good choice.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>because volume is subjective, not objective.</p></div><p>hrm yeah, just like how a hot fart smells is subjective. weird how most people still know it smells bad.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>What about people who have hearing problems?</p></div><p>So there's no point in regulating profanity on TV because deaf people can't hear it? (CC aside)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The problem is something called "audio compression"</p></div><p>Basically from this point on I agree with you. Another example of annoying-ass advertising is the "secondary event" shit at the bottom of the screen. Very distracting.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The majority of your post is good , however the first part is quite wrong.But there 's no way to legislate such technical detailThe metric you seek is anything that measures the average , absolute value of the sound signal amplitude ( average loudness ) .
Among other equally apt solutions offered in this thread , as frank \ _adrian314159 says in reply to you , average sound energy would be a good choice.because volume is subjective , not objective.hrm yeah , just like how a hot fart smells is subjective .
weird how most people still know it smells bad.What about people who have hearing problems ? So there 's no point in regulating profanity on TV because deaf people ca n't hear it ?
( CC aside ) The problem is something called " audio compression " Basically from this point on I agree with you .
Another example of annoying-ass advertising is the " secondary event " shit at the bottom of the screen .
Very distracting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The majority of your post is good, however the first part is quite wrong.But there's no way to legislate such technical detailThe metric you seek is anything that measures the average, absolute value of the sound signal amplitude (average loudness).
Among other equally apt solutions offered in this thread, as frank\_adrian314159 says in reply to you, average sound energy would be a good choice.because volume is subjective, not objective.hrm yeah, just like how a hot fart smells is subjective.
weird how most people still know it smells bad.What about people who have hearing problems?So there's no point in regulating profanity on TV because deaf people can't hear it?
(CC aside)The problem is something called "audio compression"Basically from this point on I agree with you.
Another example of annoying-ass advertising is the "secondary event" shit at the bottom of the screen.
Very distracting.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30441136</id>
	<title>Simple</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260820020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its very simple.  The FCC just requires that commercials be broadcast with the same sound levels as the programming.  Anyone not complying loses their license, and may not be broadcast/rebroadcast via cable or satellite or Internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its very simple .
The FCC just requires that commercials be broadcast with the same sound levels as the programming .
Anyone not complying loses their license , and may not be broadcast/rebroadcast via cable or satellite or Internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its very simple.
The FCC just requires that commercials be broadcast with the same sound levels as the programming.
Anyone not complying loses their license, and may not be broadcast/rebroadcast via cable or satellite or Internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438576</id>
	<title>Re:No fair way to write regulations?</title>
	<author>Angst Badger</author>
	<datestamp>1260799860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You take the average gain of the last 30 seconds of a program before it goes to commercial, and don't allow the commercials to be any louder than that.</p></div><p>I suspect that you'd discover that those last 30 seconds would just get a lot louder. Let's try to remember that the networks exist to sell advertising, not to produce the shows; the shows are just how they lure people into seeing the ads. TV isn't about art, or even entertainment, it's about selling ads. It's odd how often people seem to forget this basic fact and come to harbor bizarre beliefs about news programs keeping them informed and dramas being about art and social issues.</p><p>If anyone finds a way to make the ads ignorable, TV will just go away.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You take the average gain of the last 30 seconds of a program before it goes to commercial , and do n't allow the commercials to be any louder than that.I suspect that you 'd discover that those last 30 seconds would just get a lot louder .
Let 's try to remember that the networks exist to sell advertising , not to produce the shows ; the shows are just how they lure people into seeing the ads .
TV is n't about art , or even entertainment , it 's about selling ads .
It 's odd how often people seem to forget this basic fact and come to harbor bizarre beliefs about news programs keeping them informed and dramas being about art and social issues.If anyone finds a way to make the ads ignorable , TV will just go away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You take the average gain of the last 30 seconds of a program before it goes to commercial, and don't allow the commercials to be any louder than that.I suspect that you'd discover that those last 30 seconds would just get a lot louder.
Let's try to remember that the networks exist to sell advertising, not to produce the shows; the shows are just how they lure people into seeing the ads.
TV isn't about art, or even entertainment, it's about selling ads.
It's odd how often people seem to forget this basic fact and come to harbor bizarre beliefs about news programs keeping them informed and dramas being about art and social issues.If anyone finds a way to make the ads ignorable, TV will just go away.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438260</id>
	<title>These are the pressing issues of our time</title>
	<author>dirkdodgers</author>
	<datestamp>1260798300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This Christmas season I thank God we have brave representatives like Anna Eshoo willing speak truth to power on the pressing issues of our time.</p><p>After recently championing regulation of light-bulb-screwing-in, environmental-windshield-tinting, and now this, I feel that through the courageous efforts of our government, the dream of Dr. King is finally being realized. This is the change we were waiting for, my friends. This is change we can believe in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This Christmas season I thank God we have brave representatives like Anna Eshoo willing speak truth to power on the pressing issues of our time.After recently championing regulation of light-bulb-screwing-in , environmental-windshield-tinting , and now this , I feel that through the courageous efforts of our government , the dream of Dr. King is finally being realized .
This is the change we were waiting for , my friends .
This is change we can believe in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This Christmas season I thank God we have brave representatives like Anna Eshoo willing speak truth to power on the pressing issues of our time.After recently championing regulation of light-bulb-screwing-in, environmental-windshield-tinting, and now this, I feel that through the courageous efforts of our government, the dream of Dr. King is finally being realized.
This is the change we were waiting for, my friends.
This is change we can believe in.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437662</id>
	<title>Re:No fair way to write regulations?</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1260795600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You take the average gain of the last 30 seconds of a program before it goes to commercial, and don't allow the commercials to be any louder than that.</p><p>If I can make karaoke and techno music automatically crossfade with my meager skills Then surely a TV station or broadcast network could make commercials stay at the same gain as the programming.</p></div><p>You do not under-estimate their skill, but rather their willingness to bother to do so.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You take the average gain of the last 30 seconds of a program before it goes to commercial , and do n't allow the commercials to be any louder than that.If I can make karaoke and techno music automatically crossfade with my meager skills Then surely a TV station or broadcast network could make commercials stay at the same gain as the programming.You do not under-estimate their skill , but rather their willingness to bother to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You take the average gain of the last 30 seconds of a program before it goes to commercial, and don't allow the commercials to be any louder than that.If I can make karaoke and techno music automatically crossfade with my meager skills Then surely a TV station or broadcast network could make commercials stay at the same gain as the programming.You do not under-estimate their skill, but rather their willingness to bother to do so.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438400</id>
	<title>Most receivers have built in 'night mode'</title>
	<author>sixbathrooms</author>
	<datestamp>1260798840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>that will compress the dynamic range of loudness, so you don't have to sit there and jack with the volume control while watching a movie when it goes from dialogue to exploding helicopters. This also works for commercials.</htmltext>
<tokenext>that will compress the dynamic range of loudness , so you do n't have to sit there and jack with the volume control while watching a movie when it goes from dialogue to exploding helicopters .
This also works for commercials .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that will compress the dynamic range of loudness, so you don't have to sit there and jack with the volume control while watching a movie when it goes from dialogue to exploding helicopters.
This also works for commercials.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30440230</id>
	<title>Dolby Volume FTW</title>
	<author>Therefore I am</author>
	<datestamp>1260810780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>

Dolby have an ~$4 dollar solution for this problem. "Dolby Volume" processors are currently fielded in about 12 to 14 Consumer devices - High end A/V receivers, a few laptops and 4 Toshiba LCD Television receivers.

Look forward to the day when Dolby Volume is incorporated into a great many more devices, to include built in audio in PC motherboards. Not only will our viewing be more pleasant but surfing the net at a fixed volume will actually be possible.

Support Dolby by visiting their web site for the demo and asking your equipment suppliers for this essential feature in an increasingly louder world. . .

<a href="http://www.dolby.com/consumer/understand/volume/dolby-volume.html" title="dolby.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.dolby.com/consumer/understand/volume/dolby-volume.html</a> [dolby.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dolby have an ~ $ 4 dollar solution for this problem .
" Dolby Volume " processors are currently fielded in about 12 to 14 Consumer devices - High end A/V receivers , a few laptops and 4 Toshiba LCD Television receivers .
Look forward to the day when Dolby Volume is incorporated into a great many more devices , to include built in audio in PC motherboards .
Not only will our viewing be more pleasant but surfing the net at a fixed volume will actually be possible .
Support Dolby by visiting their web site for the demo and asking your equipment suppliers for this essential feature in an increasingly louder world .
. .
http : //www.dolby.com/consumer/understand/volume/dolby-volume.html [ dolby.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

Dolby have an ~$4 dollar solution for this problem.
"Dolby Volume" processors are currently fielded in about 12 to 14 Consumer devices - High end A/V receivers, a few laptops and 4 Toshiba LCD Television receivers.
Look forward to the day when Dolby Volume is incorporated into a great many more devices, to include built in audio in PC motherboards.
Not only will our viewing be more pleasant but surfing the net at a fixed volume will actually be possible.
Support Dolby by visiting their web site for the demo and asking your equipment suppliers for this essential feature in an increasingly louder world.
. .
http://www.dolby.com/consumer/understand/volume/dolby-volume.html [dolby.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438270</id>
	<title>ALL CAPS PEOPLE WATCH OUT</title>
	<author>140Mandak262Jamuna</author>
	<datestamp>1260798360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are next.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are next .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are next.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30440600</id>
	<title>It should be law if the media wont do it themslvs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260814320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suffer from aspergers syndrome and some of the things that i am hypersensitive to are light and sound</p><p>watching tv for me means having to monitor the sound pretty carefully, when i as a viewer shouldnt have to, it should be the broadcasters responsibility, and not somethign that should have to be set by law</p><p>but i guess since the media has ignored people like me for 50 years because they think or believe that by raising the sound level they can sell crap to people, they will continue to ignore us.</p><p>in my own way i protest, i refuse to buy anything that is advertised on tv.......</p><p>theres warnings on games for people who may suffer fits from rapid colour changes etc, which is good</p><p>but there seems to be no acknowledgment for those of us who are exposed to discomfort by this the most common form of media</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suffer from aspergers syndrome and some of the things that i am hypersensitive to are light and soundwatching tv for me means having to monitor the sound pretty carefully , when i as a viewer shouldnt have to , it should be the broadcasters responsibility , and not somethign that should have to be set by lawbut i guess since the media has ignored people like me for 50 years because they think or believe that by raising the sound level they can sell crap to people , they will continue to ignore us.in my own way i protest , i refuse to buy anything that is advertised on tv.......theres warnings on games for people who may suffer fits from rapid colour changes etc , which is goodbut there seems to be no acknowledgment for those of us who are exposed to discomfort by this the most common form of media</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suffer from aspergers syndrome and some of the things that i am hypersensitive to are light and soundwatching tv for me means having to monitor the sound pretty carefully, when i as a viewer shouldnt have to, it should be the broadcasters responsibility, and not somethign that should have to be set by lawbut i guess since the media has ignored people like me for 50 years because they think or believe that by raising the sound level they can sell crap to people, they will continue to ignore us.in my own way i protest, i refuse to buy anything that is advertised on tv.......theres warnings on games for people who may suffer fits from rapid colour changes etc, which is goodbut there seems to be no acknowledgment for those of us who are exposed to discomfort by this the most common form of media</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30447216</id>
	<title>Re:Bad idea.</title>
	<author>cynyr</author>
	<datestamp>1260903420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>just make them broadcast at the same level, you know like line level. let the local machine/DSP handle fixing the sound. I agree about the invasive advertising. I would just like to be able to watch action movies when people are in bed with out spending the entire time messing with the volume. With all the space on blu-ray why isn't there a normalized audio track.</htmltext>
<tokenext>just make them broadcast at the same level , you know like line level .
let the local machine/DSP handle fixing the sound .
I agree about the invasive advertising .
I would just like to be able to watch action movies when people are in bed with out spending the entire time messing with the volume .
With all the space on blu-ray why is n't there a normalized audio track .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>just make them broadcast at the same level, you know like line level.
let the local machine/DSP handle fixing the sound.
I agree about the invasive advertising.
I would just like to be able to watch action movies when people are in bed with out spending the entire time messing with the volume.
With all the space on blu-ray why isn't there a normalized audio track.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30439136</id>
	<title>Missing The Point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260802860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The point is that most television advertising is stupid as f*ck, degrading, and a generally an insult to most people's intelligence<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... loud or soft</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The point is that most television advertising is stupid as f * ck , degrading , and a generally an insult to most people 's intelligence .... loud or soft</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The point is that most television advertising is stupid as f*ck, degrading, and a generally an insult to most people's intelligence .... loud or soft</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437772</id>
	<title>Re:Range compression</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260796080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i think the fact we can easily hear the difference means that it can be easily classified by sound engineers.</p><p>you'll find that tv companies have compliance document for independant producers technical specs, and in there they will say what is the "average" audio level (generally dialog) and what is the peak (i.e. kaboom!). Its not rocket science.</p><p>DRC is not a problem, its only when you apply post DRC gain to raise the average level up that it gets annoying.</p><p>stuff like that made me cancel my satellite subscription and now i don't own a tv. everything is available on torrents sans the crap that these companies put out (and seriously? if you pay a monthly subscription for tv you shouldn't have to watch damn adverts in the middle of the sodding shows you paid for. paying for the priviledge of watching adverts? feck off)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i think the fact we can easily hear the difference means that it can be easily classified by sound engineers.you 'll find that tv companies have compliance document for independant producers technical specs , and in there they will say what is the " average " audio level ( generally dialog ) and what is the peak ( i.e .
kaboom ! ) . Its not rocket science.DRC is not a problem , its only when you apply post DRC gain to raise the average level up that it gets annoying.stuff like that made me cancel my satellite subscription and now i do n't own a tv .
everything is available on torrents sans the crap that these companies put out ( and seriously ?
if you pay a monthly subscription for tv you should n't have to watch damn adverts in the middle of the sodding shows you paid for .
paying for the priviledge of watching adverts ?
feck off )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i think the fact we can easily hear the difference means that it can be easily classified by sound engineers.you'll find that tv companies have compliance document for independant producers technical specs, and in there they will say what is the "average" audio level (generally dialog) and what is the peak (i.e.
kaboom!). Its not rocket science.DRC is not a problem, its only when you apply post DRC gain to raise the average level up that it gets annoying.stuff like that made me cancel my satellite subscription and now i don't own a tv.
everything is available on torrents sans the crap that these companies put out (and seriously?
if you pay a monthly subscription for tv you shouldn't have to watch damn adverts in the middle of the sodding shows you paid for.
paying for the priviledge of watching adverts?
feck off)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30439032</id>
	<title>Seems simple</title>
	<author>asretfroodle</author>
	<datestamp>1260802260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just limit the maximum level of advertisements to the average level of the preceding show.</p><p>It shouldn't harm the ads' dynamic range too much, since they effectively run at one level now - maximum.</p><p>It also seems relatively simple for broadcasters to enforce.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just limit the maximum level of advertisements to the average level of the preceding show.It should n't harm the ads ' dynamic range too much , since they effectively run at one level now - maximum.It also seems relatively simple for broadcasters to enforce .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just limit the maximum level of advertisements to the average level of the preceding show.It shouldn't harm the ads' dynamic range too much, since they effectively run at one level now - maximum.It also seems relatively simple for broadcasters to enforce.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437852</id>
	<title>Re:No fair way to write regulations?</title>
	<author>corbettw</author>
	<datestamp>1260796500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought you were going to point out that the lack of fairness in the law has never stopped Congress before. So I guess I'll have to do it for you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought you were going to point out that the lack of fairness in the law has never stopped Congress before .
So I guess I 'll have to do it for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought you were going to point out that the lack of fairness in the law has never stopped Congress before.
So I guess I'll have to do it for you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30441654</id>
	<title>Loudness and Volume</title>
	<author>Samarian Hillbilly</author>
	<datestamp>1260870480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>are not the same.  Volume measures pure energy levels (in Db) whereas loudness is based on psychoaccoustics.  In particular the Fletcher-Munson curve http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fletcher-Munson, which details the perceived response of humans to different frequencies at different volume levels. The supreme court was either ignorant or corrupt when they said that it is not possible to measure "perceived loudness".  Measuring devices for this have existed for quite a while.  There is a similar problem with songs prepared for radio play. In order to attract attention producers boost the loudness of the cuts, leading to an overall lowering of quality (namely dynamic range) for pop songs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>are not the same .
Volume measures pure energy levels ( in Db ) whereas loudness is based on psychoaccoustics .
In particular the Fletcher-Munson curve http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fletcher-Munson , which details the perceived response of humans to different frequencies at different volume levels .
The supreme court was either ignorant or corrupt when they said that it is not possible to measure " perceived loudness " .
Measuring devices for this have existed for quite a while .
There is a similar problem with songs prepared for radio play .
In order to attract attention producers boost the loudness of the cuts , leading to an overall lowering of quality ( namely dynamic range ) for pop songs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>are not the same.
Volume measures pure energy levels (in Db) whereas loudness is based on psychoaccoustics.
In particular the Fletcher-Munson curve http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fletcher-Munson, which details the perceived response of humans to different frequencies at different volume levels.
The supreme court was either ignorant or corrupt when they said that it is not possible to measure "perceived loudness".
Measuring devices for this have existed for quite a while.
There is a similar problem with songs prepared for radio play.
In order to attract attention producers boost the loudness of the cuts, leading to an overall lowering of quality (namely dynamic range) for pop songs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30472268</id>
	<title>Mute button?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261058040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just mute it or fast forward them with DVR.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just mute it or fast forward them with DVR .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just mute it or fast forward them with DVR.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30439200</id>
	<title>Re:Whoring for votes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260803340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who are you to say that entertainment isn't a huge and important part of our daily lives? I don't even watch T.V. anymore, but to say I don't need a certain level of entertainment to stay reasonably happy is a lie. Some people are fine with T.V. being their chunk of happiness in a day, and you have no right to say what can and cannot harm these people. I agree that Congress's time could be better spent, but compared to some of the other legislation going on, this is pro-consumer and pro-individual legislative gold. Oh, and I'm not just an Obama humper... I hate the puppet and the game he's a part of as much as the next intellectual citizen.</p><p>Also, I remember a fairly important document written by our forefathers that mentioned something about the pursuit of happiness, so the people arguably have a right to a pleasant T.V. experience.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who are you to say that entertainment is n't a huge and important part of our daily lives ?
I do n't even watch T.V .
anymore , but to say I do n't need a certain level of entertainment to stay reasonably happy is a lie .
Some people are fine with T.V .
being their chunk of happiness in a day , and you have no right to say what can and can not harm these people .
I agree that Congress 's time could be better spent , but compared to some of the other legislation going on , this is pro-consumer and pro-individual legislative gold .
Oh , and I 'm not just an Obama humper... I hate the puppet and the game he 's a part of as much as the next intellectual citizen.Also , I remember a fairly important document written by our forefathers that mentioned something about the pursuit of happiness , so the people arguably have a right to a pleasant T.V .
experience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who are you to say that entertainment isn't a huge and important part of our daily lives?
I don't even watch T.V.
anymore, but to say I don't need a certain level of entertainment to stay reasonably happy is a lie.
Some people are fine with T.V.
being their chunk of happiness in a day, and you have no right to say what can and cannot harm these people.
I agree that Congress's time could be better spent, but compared to some of the other legislation going on, this is pro-consumer and pro-individual legislative gold.
Oh, and I'm not just an Obama humper... I hate the puppet and the game he's a part of as much as the next intellectual citizen.Also, I remember a fairly important document written by our forefathers that mentioned something about the pursuit of happiness, so the people arguably have a right to a pleasant T.V.
experience.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437442</id>
	<title>Re:Ok, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260794700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree. If enough people were that concerned about the volume of commercials, they wouldn't watch the shows and the problem would fix itself. No need to legislate something that can be dealt with by the nature of the market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
If enough people were that concerned about the volume of commercials , they would n't watch the shows and the problem would fix itself .
No need to legislate something that can be dealt with by the nature of the market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
If enough people were that concerned about the volume of commercials, they wouldn't watch the shows and the problem would fix itself.
No need to legislate something that can be dealt with by the nature of the market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30439848</id>
	<title>WTF? Neither/Nor!</title>
	<author>SuperJames\_74</author>
	<datestamp>1260807480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>WTF??? This is neither "news" nor "for nerds"...</htmltext>
<tokenext>WTF ? ? ?
This is neither " news " nor " for nerds " .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WTF???
This is neither "news" nor "for nerds"...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437862</id>
	<title>If the federal government can regulate that...</title>
	<author>dirkdodgers</author>
	<datestamp>1260796500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the federal government can regulate that television commercials not be slightly louder than adjoining programming, then what can't the federal government regulate?</p><p>The type of lightbulbs we can use?</p><p>Oh, wait, we've already crossed that bridge. Alright guys, I give up, you win. Tell me when the new Right to Exist tax is coming due (mandatory health insurance coverage), and I'll send that check right over to you. Will you be sending someone by to pickup my first born while you're at it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the federal government can regulate that television commercials not be slightly louder than adjoining programming , then what ca n't the federal government regulate ? The type of lightbulbs we can use ? Oh , wait , we 've already crossed that bridge .
Alright guys , I give up , you win .
Tell me when the new Right to Exist tax is coming due ( mandatory health insurance coverage ) , and I 'll send that check right over to you .
Will you be sending someone by to pickup my first born while you 're at it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the federal government can regulate that television commercials not be slightly louder than adjoining programming, then what can't the federal government regulate?The type of lightbulbs we can use?Oh, wait, we've already crossed that bridge.
Alright guys, I give up, you win.
Tell me when the new Right to Exist tax is coming due (mandatory health insurance coverage), and I'll send that check right over to you.
Will you be sending someone by to pickup my first born while you're at it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438682</id>
	<title>Re:How about certain noises?</title>
	<author>Jah-Wren Ryel</author>
	<datestamp>1260800340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How about banning radio stations from broadcasting commercials with car crash sounds, police sirens, and screeching tires during the morning and afternoon drive times? That nonsense has made me jump out of my damn seat a couple times, now.</p></div><p>100\% with you on that.   Fuck the Seven Forbidden Words - false sirens while driving are 100x more dangerous to society at large.  I've given up on listening to any radio other than NPR precisely because of those shenanigans - its either NPR or my mp3s.  And if NPR ever does it, even once, that'll be the end of them too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about banning radio stations from broadcasting commercials with car crash sounds , police sirens , and screeching tires during the morning and afternoon drive times ?
That nonsense has made me jump out of my damn seat a couple times , now.100 \ % with you on that .
Fuck the Seven Forbidden Words - false sirens while driving are 100x more dangerous to society at large .
I 've given up on listening to any radio other than NPR precisely because of those shenanigans - its either NPR or my mp3s .
And if NPR ever does it , even once , that 'll be the end of them too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about banning radio stations from broadcasting commercials with car crash sounds, police sirens, and screeching tires during the morning and afternoon drive times?
That nonsense has made me jump out of my damn seat a couple times, now.100\% with you on that.
Fuck the Seven Forbidden Words - false sirens while driving are 100x more dangerous to society at large.
I've given up on listening to any radio other than NPR precisely because of those shenanigans - its either NPR or my mp3s.
And if NPR ever does it, even once, that'll be the end of them too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438186</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437396</id>
	<title>IF THIS GOES THROUGH...</title>
	<author>swanzilla</author>
	<datestamp>1260794520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe they can LEGISLATE ALL CAPS and excessive PUNCTUATION NEXT!!!!!!!!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe they can LEGISLATE ALL CAPS and excessive PUNCTUATION NEXT ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe they can LEGISLATE ALL CAPS and excessive PUNCTUATION NEXT!!!!!!!!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437326</id>
	<title>Wow, something about this seems freaky.</title>
	<author>Dr. Spork</author>
	<datestamp>1260794280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"We're gonna fight a few stupid wars in which thousands of people will die needlessly, and our country will go broke!" BOO!</p><p>"Also, we're gonna pass a law to make your commercials less loud!" YEEAAAHHH!!! WE LUVZ U CONGREZZ!!!11!! USA USA!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" We 're gon na fight a few stupid wars in which thousands of people will die needlessly , and our country will go broke !
" BOO !
" Also , we 're gon na pass a law to make your commercials less loud !
" YEEAAAHHH ! ! !
WE LUVZ U CONGREZZ ! ! ! 11 ! !
USA USA !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We're gonna fight a few stupid wars in which thousands of people will die needlessly, and our country will go broke!
" BOO!
"Also, we're gonna pass a law to make your commercials less loud!
" YEEAAAHHH!!!
WE LUVZ U CONGREZZ!!!11!!
USA USA!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437542</id>
	<title>commercials?</title>
	<author>the\_Bionic\_lemming</author>
	<datestamp>1260795120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I fixed my problem. I turned off cable/satellite, signed up to x-box and netflix. No more commercials, and and currently have an online library  of well over a years worth of stuff lined up to watch.</p><p>Did I mention no more commercials?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I fixed my problem .
I turned off cable/satellite , signed up to x-box and netflix .
No more commercials , and and currently have an online library of well over a years worth of stuff lined up to watch.Did I mention no more commercials ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I fixed my problem.
I turned off cable/satellite, signed up to x-box and netflix.
No more commercials, and and currently have an online library  of well over a years worth of stuff lined up to watch.Did I mention no more commercials?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30449424</id>
	<title>Watching commercials is for cavemen anyhow</title>
	<author>nharlotekk</author>
	<datestamp>1260870060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's been possible for years to isolate and skip over commercials with a pc-based PVR. Programs like BeyondTV, ShowAnalyzer and various DVRMS Toolbox implementations with Vista MC<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,W7 MC or MythTV conveniently purge commercials from the show you're watching AND you waste less time watching the show you wanted rather than sit through obnoxious advertiser messages.

The only time I watch commercials is with live sports - since I'm squarely in the target demographic for these type of broadcasts- in general I'm not that annoyed (compared to a commercial for tampons on Mad Men, for example).</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's been possible for years to isolate and skip over commercials with a pc-based PVR .
Programs like BeyondTV , ShowAnalyzer and various DVRMS Toolbox implementations with Vista MC ,W7 MC or MythTV conveniently purge commercials from the show you 're watching AND you waste less time watching the show you wanted rather than sit through obnoxious advertiser messages .
The only time I watch commercials is with live sports - since I 'm squarely in the target demographic for these type of broadcasts- in general I 'm not that annoyed ( compared to a commercial for tampons on Mad Men , for example ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's been possible for years to isolate and skip over commercials with a pc-based PVR.
Programs like BeyondTV, ShowAnalyzer and various DVRMS Toolbox implementations with Vista MC ,W7 MC or MythTV conveniently purge commercials from the show you're watching AND you waste less time watching the show you wanted rather than sit through obnoxious advertiser messages.
The only time I watch commercials is with live sports - since I'm squarely in the target demographic for these type of broadcasts- in general I'm not that annoyed (compared to a commercial for tampons on Mad Men, for example).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437658</id>
	<title>This even happens on Hulu.</title>
	<author>Facegarden</author>
	<datestamp>1260795600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This even happens a lot on Hulu, and I have to turn it down whenever those commercials come on, because its really annoying.</p><p>I don't really know if legislation is the answer, but honestly its annoying and I really wish *something* could be done about it, since the content distributors don't seem to care.<br>-Taylor</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This even happens a lot on Hulu , and I have to turn it down whenever those commercials come on , because its really annoying.I do n't really know if legislation is the answer , but honestly its annoying and I really wish * something * could be done about it , since the content distributors do n't seem to care.-Taylor</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This even happens a lot on Hulu, and I have to turn it down whenever those commercials come on, because its really annoying.I don't really know if legislation is the answer, but honestly its annoying and I really wish *something* could be done about it, since the content distributors don't seem to care.-Taylor</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438568</id>
	<title>Re:How about certain noises?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260799800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed, while we are at it lets add:</p><p>- Babies crying (could there be a more horrible sound!? I'm afraid when I have a real baby I will completely tune it out -- that MADD commercial is the worst for this!)<br>- Door bell<br>- Telephone ringing<br>- Common computers noises (msn messenger notifications! etc)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed , while we are at it lets add : - Babies crying ( could there be a more horrible sound ! ?
I 'm afraid when I have a real baby I will completely tune it out -- that MADD commercial is the worst for this !
) - Door bell- Telephone ringing- Common computers noises ( msn messenger notifications !
etc )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed, while we are at it lets add:- Babies crying (could there be a more horrible sound!?
I'm afraid when I have a real baby I will completely tune it out -- that MADD commercial is the worst for this!
)- Door bell- Telephone ringing- Common computers noises (msn messenger notifications!
etc)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438186</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438186</id>
	<title>How about certain noises?</title>
	<author>Tobor the Eighth Man</author>
	<datestamp>1260798000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about banning radio stations from broadcasting commercials with car crash sounds, police sirens, and screeching tires during the morning and afternoon drive times? That nonsense has made me jump out of my damn seat a couple times, now.</p><p>Also, on a less serious note, ban commercials from using that one blaring alarm clock stock sound that they all love to use. You know, the one that sounds exactly like the alarm clock I had for years, and always makes me feel miserable and pissed off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about banning radio stations from broadcasting commercials with car crash sounds , police sirens , and screeching tires during the morning and afternoon drive times ?
That nonsense has made me jump out of my damn seat a couple times , now.Also , on a less serious note , ban commercials from using that one blaring alarm clock stock sound that they all love to use .
You know , the one that sounds exactly like the alarm clock I had for years , and always makes me feel miserable and pissed off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about banning radio stations from broadcasting commercials with car crash sounds, police sirens, and screeching tires during the morning and afternoon drive times?
That nonsense has made me jump out of my damn seat a couple times, now.Also, on a less serious note, ban commercials from using that one blaring alarm clock stock sound that they all love to use.
You know, the one that sounds exactly like the alarm clock I had for years, and always makes me feel miserable and pissed off.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30449978</id>
	<title>finally, just as TV is about to die out</title>
	<author>Shompol</author>
	<datestamp>1260872340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>and once TV is replaced by Internet programming, there will REALLY be no way to enforce something like that</htmltext>
<tokenext>and once TV is replaced by Internet programming , there will REALLY be no way to enforce something like that</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and once TV is replaced by Internet programming, there will REALLY be no way to enforce something like that</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437990</id>
	<title>xine has a volume normalizer...tv's could do this</title>
	<author>keneng</author>
	<datestamp>1260796980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I recall turning on the volume normalizer feature in "xine" and other media players.  If the volume cranks up in the movie, xine gracefully lowers/limits the volume to what I consider acceptable.  Something like this could be simply implemented as a value-add feature in new televisions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I recall turning on the volume normalizer feature in " xine " and other media players .
If the volume cranks up in the movie , xine gracefully lowers/limits the volume to what I consider acceptable .
Something like this could be simply implemented as a value-add feature in new televisions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I recall turning on the volume normalizer feature in "xine" and other media players.
If the volume cranks up in the movie, xine gracefully lowers/limits the volume to what I consider acceptable.
Something like this could be simply implemented as a value-add feature in new televisions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437484</id>
	<title>Range compression</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260794880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is an issue with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic\_range\_compression#Broadcasting" title="wikipedia.org">Dynamic range compression</a> [wikipedia.org] use by broadcasters and advertisers to increase the apparent volume of sound while staying within legislated limits. That trick is not something that can be easily regulated, unless you do something silly like requiring all sound clips to be stored on records.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is an issue with Dynamic range compression [ wikipedia.org ] use by broadcasters and advertisers to increase the apparent volume of sound while staying within legislated limits .
That trick is not something that can be easily regulated , unless you do something silly like requiring all sound clips to be stored on records .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is an issue with Dynamic range compression [wikipedia.org] use by broadcasters and advertisers to increase the apparent volume of sound while staying within legislated limits.
That trick is not something that can be easily regulated, unless you do something silly like requiring all sound clips to be stored on records.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437344</id>
	<title>Ok, but...</title>
	<author>Nihixul</author>
	<datestamp>1260794340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While I certainly agree with the sentiments of those who've complained, I don't really want yet another FCC regulation or the like. I think the appropriate people to complain to would be the networks. I am not so naive as to think that would necessarily solve the problem, but that is at least where the problem is. Gripe at them, or perhaps push for a TV (hardware) feature that would accomplish what you want.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I certainly agree with the sentiments of those who 've complained , I do n't really want yet another FCC regulation or the like .
I think the appropriate people to complain to would be the networks .
I am not so naive as to think that would necessarily solve the problem , but that is at least where the problem is .
Gripe at them , or perhaps push for a TV ( hardware ) feature that would accomplish what you want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I certainly agree with the sentiments of those who've complained, I don't really want yet another FCC regulation or the like.
I think the appropriate people to complain to would be the networks.
I am not so naive as to think that would necessarily solve the problem, but that is at least where the problem is.
Gripe at them, or perhaps push for a TV (hardware) feature that would accomplish what you want.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437820</id>
	<title>Um, we need this</title>
	<author>pyster</author>
	<datestamp>1260796320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously, those of you who think we dont need this are just retarded. The commercials are fucken three times louder than the shows sometime. Comedy central is the fucken worse at this. Southpark with low volume and then BOOOM with the fucken commercials. Solve the problem with technology? Um, no. The one thing the FCC should be doing is controlling the technological aspects of transmission. Jesus... I hate gobberment interference with anything... but fuck. We need a SINGLE STANDARD TRASNSMISSION VOLUME. I would like to see a knives fall out of the sky and kill anyone who is against this idea.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. users often make me want to smoke crack just to get to their level of fucken stupid.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , those of you who think we dont need this are just retarded .
The commercials are fucken three times louder than the shows sometime .
Comedy central is the fucken worse at this .
Southpark with low volume and then BOOOM with the fucken commercials .
Solve the problem with technology ?
Um , no .
The one thing the FCC should be doing is controlling the technological aspects of transmission .
Jesus... I hate gobberment interference with anything... but fuck .
We need a SINGLE STANDARD TRASNSMISSION VOLUME .
I would like to see a knives fall out of the sky and kill anyone who is against this idea .
/. users often make me want to smoke crack just to get to their level of fucken stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, those of you who think we dont need this are just retarded.
The commercials are fucken three times louder than the shows sometime.
Comedy central is the fucken worse at this.
Southpark with low volume and then BOOOM with the fucken commercials.
Solve the problem with technology?
Um, no.
The one thing the FCC should be doing is controlling the technological aspects of transmission.
Jesus... I hate gobberment interference with anything... but fuck.
We need a SINGLE STANDARD TRASNSMISSION VOLUME.
I would like to see a knives fall out of the sky and kill anyone who is against this idea.
/. users often make me want to smoke crack just to get to their level of fucken stupid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438126</id>
	<title>Re:No fair way to write regulations?</title>
	<author>bcmm</author>
	<datestamp>1260797580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Other posters have claimed that the loudness is achieved not so much by higher gain as by limiting the dynamic range of the commercials (in much the same way that record labels wreck music to make their CDs sound louder, see "loudness wars").</htmltext>
<tokenext>Other posters have claimed that the loudness is achieved not so much by higher gain as by limiting the dynamic range of the commercials ( in much the same way that record labels wreck music to make their CDs sound louder , see " loudness wars " ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Other posters have claimed that the loudness is achieved not so much by higher gain as by limiting the dynamic range of the commercials (in much the same way that record labels wreck music to make their CDs sound louder, see "loudness wars").</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438756</id>
	<title>Re:No fair way to write regulations?</title>
	<author>complete loony</author>
	<datestamp>1260800700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Heck, take the average gain of the whole tv show, as well as the ads, and make sure they are *All* set to the same percentage of the peak volume.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Heck , take the average gain of the whole tv show , as well as the ads , and make sure they are * All * set to the same percentage of the peak volume .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heck, take the average gain of the whole tv show, as well as the ads, and make sure they are *All* set to the same percentage of the peak volume.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30440050</id>
	<title>Re:Bad idea.</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1260809280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, there's a very easy way to legislate this problem.  Enforce the cable card option and encourage people to use 3rd party pvrs that have commercial skip features.  The volume will come right back in line with the shows when everyone's video recorder is capable of perfectly filtering out ads on any channels that choose ear-splitting deltas in volume.</p><p>The main obstacle I can see at the moment is that the only real 3rd party contender at the moment appears to be Tivo, and their boxes cost more than renting a dvr from a cable company.  Plus, you also have to buy the box...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , there 's a very easy way to legislate this problem .
Enforce the cable card option and encourage people to use 3rd party pvrs that have commercial skip features .
The volume will come right back in line with the shows when everyone 's video recorder is capable of perfectly filtering out ads on any channels that choose ear-splitting deltas in volume.The main obstacle I can see at the moment is that the only real 3rd party contender at the moment appears to be Tivo , and their boxes cost more than renting a dvr from a cable company .
Plus , you also have to buy the box.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, there's a very easy way to legislate this problem.
Enforce the cable card option and encourage people to use 3rd party pvrs that have commercial skip features.
The volume will come right back in line with the shows when everyone's video recorder is capable of perfectly filtering out ads on any channels that choose ear-splitting deltas in volume.The main obstacle I can see at the moment is that the only real 3rd party contender at the moment appears to be Tivo, and their boxes cost more than renting a dvr from a cable company.
Plus, you also have to buy the box...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437766</id>
	<title>Not that simple</title>
	<author>dollar99</author>
	<datestamp>1260796080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The "volume" of commercials is exactly the same as television shows. Someone screaming on a TV show is just as loud as someone screaming on a commercial. The trick that commercials do is compress all of the audio into the high range. There are no quiet subtle sounds in a commercial. To make commercials not audibly jump out at you TV channels would have to run a filter with an algorithm to reduce the perceived volume of commercials. This could also easily be done by a human. Both methods require another step in the process which costs money, and is technically lowering the volume of commercials below that of TV shows. Advertisers will fight it forever or find another way around it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The " volume " of commercials is exactly the same as television shows .
Someone screaming on a TV show is just as loud as someone screaming on a commercial .
The trick that commercials do is compress all of the audio into the high range .
There are no quiet subtle sounds in a commercial .
To make commercials not audibly jump out at you TV channels would have to run a filter with an algorithm to reduce the perceived volume of commercials .
This could also easily be done by a human .
Both methods require another step in the process which costs money , and is technically lowering the volume of commercials below that of TV shows .
Advertisers will fight it forever or find another way around it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "volume" of commercials is exactly the same as television shows.
Someone screaming on a TV show is just as loud as someone screaming on a commercial.
The trick that commercials do is compress all of the audio into the high range.
There are no quiet subtle sounds in a commercial.
To make commercials not audibly jump out at you TV channels would have to run a filter with an algorithm to reduce the perceived volume of commercials.
This could also easily be done by a human.
Both methods require another step in the process which costs money, and is technically lowering the volume of commercials below that of TV shows.
Advertisers will fight it forever or find another way around it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30444760</id>
	<title>I want a 'soft' mute button.</title>
	<author>jnowlan</author>
	<datestamp>1260895380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I listen to ads sometimes. I'd like to have a mute button that just lowered the volume. Imagine. I'd even listen to a reasonable ad, at a reasonable volume.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I listen to ads sometimes .
I 'd like to have a mute button that just lowered the volume .
Imagine. I 'd even listen to a reasonable ad , at a reasonable volume .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I listen to ads sometimes.
I'd like to have a mute button that just lowered the volume.
Imagine. I'd even listen to a reasonable ad, at a reasonable volume.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438202</id>
	<title>Ad Agencies are responsible, not the TV stations</title>
	<author>matrixskp</author>
	<datestamp>1260798060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Having worked in audio production for many years I can say that in my experience ignorant people from ad agencies judge how good a studio is by how loud they can mix the commercials. Its nothing to do with the TV stations.<br> <br>

The problem is commercials are mixed with LOTS of compression (which limits the dynamic range) and recorded to the master tape at the maximum level it can handle. Movies and TV shows are mixed with a lot more dynamic range to allow for example, a gunshot to sound louder than a voice.
<br> <br>
If the TV stations consistently lowered the level of commercials when they transferred them into their systems (by 3-6db), then they would sit better after programs and wouldn't send us all grabbing for the remote to mute them. It's not going to stop me from muting them, but then I hardly ever watch TV as I find it mind numbingly boring and retarded.
<br> <br>
Also in response to some sort of volume limiter that kicks in when the level gets loud, its only going to ruin your movie soundtrack and make those huge explosions small... so IMHO its a bad idea.
<br> <br>
My idea was to scan the picture for the TV station ID which they impose over the programs but not commercials and detect which is which by this method or link the TV to a internet based service which can tell you when commercials are playing on your channel and auto-mute and dim the picture. Probably people would pay for a service like this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Having worked in audio production for many years I can say that in my experience ignorant people from ad agencies judge how good a studio is by how loud they can mix the commercials .
Its nothing to do with the TV stations .
The problem is commercials are mixed with LOTS of compression ( which limits the dynamic range ) and recorded to the master tape at the maximum level it can handle .
Movies and TV shows are mixed with a lot more dynamic range to allow for example , a gunshot to sound louder than a voice .
If the TV stations consistently lowered the level of commercials when they transferred them into their systems ( by 3-6db ) , then they would sit better after programs and would n't send us all grabbing for the remote to mute them .
It 's not going to stop me from muting them , but then I hardly ever watch TV as I find it mind numbingly boring and retarded .
Also in response to some sort of volume limiter that kicks in when the level gets loud , its only going to ruin your movie soundtrack and make those huge explosions small... so IMHO its a bad idea .
My idea was to scan the picture for the TV station ID which they impose over the programs but not commercials and detect which is which by this method or link the TV to a internet based service which can tell you when commercials are playing on your channel and auto-mute and dim the picture .
Probably people would pay for a service like this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having worked in audio production for many years I can say that in my experience ignorant people from ad agencies judge how good a studio is by how loud they can mix the commercials.
Its nothing to do with the TV stations.
The problem is commercials are mixed with LOTS of compression (which limits the dynamic range) and recorded to the master tape at the maximum level it can handle.
Movies and TV shows are mixed with a lot more dynamic range to allow for example, a gunshot to sound louder than a voice.
If the TV stations consistently lowered the level of commercials when they transferred them into their systems (by 3-6db), then they would sit better after programs and wouldn't send us all grabbing for the remote to mute them.
It's not going to stop me from muting them, but then I hardly ever watch TV as I find it mind numbingly boring and retarded.
Also in response to some sort of volume limiter that kicks in when the level gets loud, its only going to ruin your movie soundtrack and make those huge explosions small... so IMHO its a bad idea.
My idea was to scan the picture for the TV station ID which they impose over the programs but not commercials and detect which is which by this method or link the TV to a internet based service which can tell you when commercials are playing on your channel and auto-mute and dim the picture.
Probably people would pay for a service like this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30444032</id>
	<title>Re:Shitty Options</title>
	<author>sheph</author>
	<datestamp>1260892140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's the funniest thing I've read in a while, thanks!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the funniest thing I 've read in a while , thanks !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the funniest thing I've read in a while, thanks!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437594</id>
	<title>Legislate better volume controls</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1260795300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There should be 2 volumes you can set on the TV.</p><p>1. Existing TV volume<br>2. Decibel limit</p><p>Once the decibel limit is reached the tv set compensates by turning itself down in real time.</p><p>Legislate that every TV sold has number 2 on the basis of health and safety. Stiff fines for not complying or trying to circumvent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There should be 2 volumes you can set on the TV.1 .
Existing TV volume2 .
Decibel limitOnce the decibel limit is reached the tv set compensates by turning itself down in real time.Legislate that every TV sold has number 2 on the basis of health and safety .
Stiff fines for not complying or trying to circumvent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There should be 2 volumes you can set on the TV.1.
Existing TV volume2.
Decibel limitOnce the decibel limit is reached the tv set compensates by turning itself down in real time.Legislate that every TV sold has number 2 on the basis of health and safety.
Stiff fines for not complying or trying to circumvent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437868</id>
	<title>If volume louder = commercial</title>
	<author>MDMurphy</author>
	<datestamp>1260796500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hate the loud commercials ( ones I don't skip with TiVo ) but like others, don't think it requires the government to step in.</p><p>Instead, we just need DVRs to skip or TVs to mute, what it deems to be commericials. If relative volume worked well to find and negate the commercials, the networks would be encouraged to level the volume to as not to get skipped or muted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate the loud commercials ( ones I do n't skip with TiVo ) but like others , do n't think it requires the government to step in.Instead , we just need DVRs to skip or TVs to mute , what it deems to be commericials .
If relative volume worked well to find and negate the commercials , the networks would be encouraged to level the volume to as not to get skipped or muted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate the loud commercials ( ones I don't skip with TiVo ) but like others, don't think it requires the government to step in.Instead, we just need DVRs to skip or TVs to mute, what it deems to be commericials.
If relative volume worked well to find and negate the commercials, the networks would be encouraged to level the volume to as not to get skipped or muted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437524</id>
	<title>Re:Does each channel control their commercials?</title>
	<author>Kryptonian Jor-El</author>
	<datestamp>1260795060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But see, the commercials wouldn't be worth as much, or at least, the advertisers wouldn't pay as much to have their ads broadcast. Since people get up to get food and such during commercials, they make them louder so that if you can't see them, maybe you'll still hear them. So by normalizing the commercial audio, then you wouldn't potentially make as much money.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But see , the commercials would n't be worth as much , or at least , the advertisers would n't pay as much to have their ads broadcast .
Since people get up to get food and such during commercials , they make them louder so that if you ca n't see them , maybe you 'll still hear them .
So by normalizing the commercial audio , then you would n't potentially make as much money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But see, the commercials wouldn't be worth as much, or at least, the advertisers wouldn't pay as much to have their ads broadcast.
Since people get up to get food and such during commercials, they make them louder so that if you can't see them, maybe you'll still hear them.
So by normalizing the commercial audio, then you wouldn't potentially make as much money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30440002</id>
	<title>Re:No fair way to write regulations?</title>
	<author>ChiRaven</author>
	<datestamp>1260808800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You take the average gain of the last 30 seconds of a program before it goes to commercial, and don't allow the commercials to be any louder than that.</p></div><p>

And if the last 30 seconds is just a slow silent pan around a scene for effect and HAS no sound track?<br> <br>

It's not as easy as it looks.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You take the average gain of the last 30 seconds of a program before it goes to commercial , and do n't allow the commercials to be any louder than that .
And if the last 30 seconds is just a slow silent pan around a scene for effect and HAS no sound track ?
It 's not as easy as it looks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You take the average gain of the last 30 seconds of a program before it goes to commercial, and don't allow the commercials to be any louder than that.
And if the last 30 seconds is just a slow silent pan around a scene for effect and HAS no sound track?
It's not as easy as it looks.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30439192</id>
	<title>Re:How about certain noises?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260803280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>100\% agree. I switch off my car radio immediately when one of those annoying ads start up, and keep it off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>100 \ % agree .
I switch off my car radio immediately when one of those annoying ads start up , and keep it off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>100\% agree.
I switch off my car radio immediately when one of those annoying ads start up, and keep it off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438186</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437682</id>
	<title>Re:Ok, but...</title>
	<author>oldspewey</author>
	<datestamp>1260795660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So what you're saying is that because people continue to watch TV after ~60 years, they obviously enjoy commercials at double the volume of the show they're watching.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So what you 're saying is that because people continue to watch TV after ~ 60 years , they obviously enjoy commercials at double the volume of the show they 're watching .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what you're saying is that because people continue to watch TV after ~60 years, they obviously enjoy commercials at double the volume of the show they're watching.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437628</id>
	<title>How about instead banning drug commercials</title>
	<author>antifoidulus</author>
	<datestamp>1260795420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've spent the past 5 years in Germany and Japan and while I don't watch much TV, I have been at hotels and just flicked it on for a little bit.  While TV is pretty stupid the world round(Germany has a show about a monkey veterinarian and is obsessed with model shows, Japan has a lot of shows where you watch people watching TV....), what is refreshing is what I DIDNT see, namely commercials for drugs(most of which have a generic equivalent that does pretty much the same thing) and commercials for lawyers.  Banning these drug commercials would pretty much automatically lower health care costs IMO.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've spent the past 5 years in Germany and Japan and while I do n't watch much TV , I have been at hotels and just flicked it on for a little bit .
While TV is pretty stupid the world round ( Germany has a show about a monkey veterinarian and is obsessed with model shows , Japan has a lot of shows where you watch people watching TV.... ) , what is refreshing is what I DIDNT see , namely commercials for drugs ( most of which have a generic equivalent that does pretty much the same thing ) and commercials for lawyers .
Banning these drug commercials would pretty much automatically lower health care costs IMO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've spent the past 5 years in Germany and Japan and while I don't watch much TV, I have been at hotels and just flicked it on for a little bit.
While TV is pretty stupid the world round(Germany has a show about a monkey veterinarian and is obsessed with model shows, Japan has a lot of shows where you watch people watching TV....), what is refreshing is what I DIDNT see, namely commercials for drugs(most of which have a generic equivalent that does pretty much the same thing) and commercials for lawyers.
Banning these drug commercials would pretty much automatically lower health care costs IMO.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30442262</id>
	<title>Re:I'd much rather...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1260878220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The commercial killer?</p><p>I let people all around the world do this by hand for me. They do a pretty perfect job.</p><p>It&rsquo;s called file sharing. ^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The commercial killer ? I let people all around the world do this by hand for me .
They do a pretty perfect job.It    s called file sharing .
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The commercial killer?I let people all around the world do this by hand for me.
They do a pretty perfect job.It’s called file sharing.
^^</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437294</id>
	<title>How about...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260794160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>But the FCC concluded in 1984 there was no fair way to write regulations controlling the "apparent loudness" of commercials.'" </i><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...every time my wife yells at me to "turn down that damned TV" because commercial suddenly starts blasting, the advertising executive for that commercial gets a 24 volt shock?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But the FCC concluded in 1984 there was no fair way to write regulations controlling the " apparent loudness " of commercials .
' " ...every time my wife yells at me to " turn down that damned TV " because commercial suddenly starts blasting , the advertising executive for that commercial gets a 24 volt shock ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the FCC concluded in 1984 there was no fair way to write regulations controlling the "apparent loudness" of commercials.
'"  ...every time my wife yells at me to "turn down that damned TV" because commercial suddenly starts blasting, the advertising executive for that commercial gets a 24 volt shock?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30462436</id>
	<title>Re:No fair way to write regulations?</title>
	<author>Reziac</author>
	<datestamp>1259700360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As I recall from a discussion 10+ years ago, the problem isn't that the commercials are inherently louder; they're not (supposedly being louder is already against the rules). As I vaguely recall the explanation, it is (or at least was at the time) that commercials were in mono, which made them inherently louder than the surrounding programs, which were in stereo. I probably misremember the details but that was the gist of it.</p><p>I've noticed it works that way with a friend's fancy audio/TV setup -- when it's set to stereo it sounds half-muted, but when it's set to mono the sound is loud and clear.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As I recall from a discussion 10 + years ago , the problem is n't that the commercials are inherently louder ; they 're not ( supposedly being louder is already against the rules ) .
As I vaguely recall the explanation , it is ( or at least was at the time ) that commercials were in mono , which made them inherently louder than the surrounding programs , which were in stereo .
I probably misremember the details but that was the gist of it.I 've noticed it works that way with a friend 's fancy audio/TV setup -- when it 's set to stereo it sounds half-muted , but when it 's set to mono the sound is loud and clear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I recall from a discussion 10+ years ago, the problem isn't that the commercials are inherently louder; they're not (supposedly being louder is already against the rules).
As I vaguely recall the explanation, it is (or at least was at the time) that commercials were in mono, which made them inherently louder than the surrounding programs, which were in stereo.
I probably misremember the details but that was the gist of it.I've noticed it works that way with a friend's fancy audio/TV setup -- when it's set to stereo it sounds half-muted, but when it's set to mono the sound is loud and clear.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30442380</id>
	<title>Re:Whoring for votes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260879780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Harms no one? Your kidding arn't you? I mean do you understand how people loose their hearing? Many people suffer loss in their hearing due to loud noise. MP3 players and the old walkman are capable of damaging hearing and so are TV's. Distorted noise from most TV's are worse as people need a higher volume to hear and recognise speech.</p><p>So People tent to turn up the volume to hear voices and then when ad's come on they must quickly mute, or be blasted (and potentially damage their hearing). Of course this is not always easy to tell so people DO get blasted with noise when the ads start, even if they do mute. As everyone is different, some people are more prone to damage than others and should be aware that if they experience tinnitus, they have damaged their ears.</p><p>When I was living with my parents, I couldn't watch at the same time as them as they needed much higher volumes to hear the speech, and this was uncomfortable to me. When my nan came over I had to get out the house!</p><p>Anyway TV is good and bad have you never seem a good moive or watched a good debate or seem a funny skecth show, or watched amazing nature programs in HD??? should I go on? Of course there is plenty of dribble too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Harms no one ?
Your kidding ar n't you ?
I mean do you understand how people loose their hearing ?
Many people suffer loss in their hearing due to loud noise .
MP3 players and the old walkman are capable of damaging hearing and so are TV 's .
Distorted noise from most TV 's are worse as people need a higher volume to hear and recognise speech.So People tent to turn up the volume to hear voices and then when ad 's come on they must quickly mute , or be blasted ( and potentially damage their hearing ) .
Of course this is not always easy to tell so people DO get blasted with noise when the ads start , even if they do mute .
As everyone is different , some people are more prone to damage than others and should be aware that if they experience tinnitus , they have damaged their ears.When I was living with my parents , I could n't watch at the same time as them as they needed much higher volumes to hear the speech , and this was uncomfortable to me .
When my nan came over I had to get out the house ! Anyway TV is good and bad have you never seem a good moive or watched a good debate or seem a funny skecth show , or watched amazing nature programs in HD ? ? ?
should I go on ?
Of course there is plenty of dribble too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Harms no one?
Your kidding arn't you?
I mean do you understand how people loose their hearing?
Many people suffer loss in their hearing due to loud noise.
MP3 players and the old walkman are capable of damaging hearing and so are TV's.
Distorted noise from most TV's are worse as people need a higher volume to hear and recognise speech.So People tent to turn up the volume to hear voices and then when ad's come on they must quickly mute, or be blasted (and potentially damage their hearing).
Of course this is not always easy to tell so people DO get blasted with noise when the ads start, even if they do mute.
As everyone is different, some people are more prone to damage than others and should be aware that if they experience tinnitus, they have damaged their ears.When I was living with my parents, I couldn't watch at the same time as them as they needed much higher volumes to hear the speech, and this was uncomfortable to me.
When my nan came over I had to get out the house!Anyway TV is good and bad have you never seem a good moive or watched a good debate or seem a funny skecth show, or watched amazing nature programs in HD???
should I go on?
Of course there is plenty of dribble too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437466</id>
	<title>But, but</title>
	<author>pacsloof</author>
	<datestamp>1260794820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This means Hadden Enterprises won't be born, and Contact will never happen...
<br> <br>
Please don't destroy my dreams, Congress, please...</htmltext>
<tokenext>This means Hadden Enterprises wo n't be born , and Contact will never happen.. . Please do n't destroy my dreams , Congress , please.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This means Hadden Enterprises won't be born, and Contact will never happen...
 
Please don't destroy my dreams, Congress, please...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438060</id>
	<title>Instead of complaining about it...</title>
	<author>javalizard</author>
	<datestamp>1260797400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do something about it, personally.  You can even do it tonight!  Turn off the TV.  I did over a decade ago and haven't regretted it since!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do something about it , personally .
You can even do it tonight !
Turn off the TV .
I did over a decade ago and have n't regretted it since !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do something about it, personally.
You can even do it tonight!
Turn off the TV.
I did over a decade ago and haven't regretted it since!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437452</id>
	<title>I'm all for it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260794760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and I'll put money down and bet that ABC is one of the worst offenders. It's about damn time congress looked into this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and I 'll put money down and bet that ABC is one of the worst offenders .
It 's about damn time congress looked into this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and I'll put money down and bet that ABC is one of the worst offenders.
It's about damn time congress looked into this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438346</id>
	<title>Easy fix</title>
	<author>Spit</author>
	<datestamp>1260798660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stop watching TV.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stop watching TV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stop watching TV.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437872</id>
	<title>Re:Ok, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260796560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The networks won't do shit when you or anyone complains. You might as well sit in your room and masturbate to "Atlas Shrugged" again; it'll have the same effect. And they all engage in this practice, too; the mythical free market isn't going to fix this. So either the FCC can do something about it and actually solve the problem, or the problem won't get solved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The networks wo n't do shit when you or anyone complains .
You might as well sit in your room and masturbate to " Atlas Shrugged " again ; it 'll have the same effect .
And they all engage in this practice , too ; the mythical free market is n't going to fix this .
So either the FCC can do something about it and actually solve the problem , or the problem wo n't get solved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The networks won't do shit when you or anyone complains.
You might as well sit in your room and masturbate to "Atlas Shrugged" again; it'll have the same effect.
And they all engage in this practice, too; the mythical free market isn't going to fix this.
So either the FCC can do something about it and actually solve the problem, or the problem won't get solved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30442046</id>
	<title>Re:Range compression</title>
	<author>dbcad7</author>
	<datestamp>1260875280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You know what's strange, is that after the big conversion to digital TV.. I get some strange audio problems.. For instance there have been many commercials where the commercial was playing, and the background music was playing, but the voice over wasn't.. I have also experienced it a few time on some programs, but that is more rare.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know what 's strange , is that after the big conversion to digital TV.. I get some strange audio problems.. For instance there have been many commercials where the commercial was playing , and the background music was playing , but the voice over was n't.. I have also experienced it a few time on some programs , but that is more rare .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know what's strange, is that after the big conversion to digital TV.. I get some strange audio problems.. For instance there have been many commercials where the commercial was playing, and the background music was playing, but the voice over wasn't.. I have also experienced it a few time on some programs, but that is more rare.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30443582</id>
	<title>They like it LOUD!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260890160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a common practice in the broadcast world. Most commercials arrive on a master copy which is used to build a "comp" reel on tape or video server for on air playback. They are recorded at +4 DB and maxed audio levels. The program usually is played from the master copy recorded at 0 DB audio level. Note: +3 DB is twice the volume of 0 DB. So when the station goes to commercial break, BAM!!!, hear the noise! Stations love it because they know you hear the commercial even if you fell asleep during the movie. I've spent 15 years in the broadcast field and this is practiced everywhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a common practice in the broadcast world .
Most commercials arrive on a master copy which is used to build a " comp " reel on tape or video server for on air playback .
They are recorded at + 4 DB and maxed audio levels .
The program usually is played from the master copy recorded at 0 DB audio level .
Note : + 3 DB is twice the volume of 0 DB .
So when the station goes to commercial break , BAM ! !
! , hear the noise !
Stations love it because they know you hear the commercial even if you fell asleep during the movie .
I 've spent 15 years in the broadcast field and this is practiced everywhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a common practice in the broadcast world.
Most commercials arrive on a master copy which is used to build a "comp" reel on tape or video server for on air playback.
They are recorded at +4 DB and maxed audio levels.
The program usually is played from the master copy recorded at 0 DB audio level.
Note: +3 DB is twice the volume of 0 DB.
So when the station goes to commercial break, BAM!!
!, hear the noise!
Stations love it because they know you hear the commercial even if you fell asleep during the movie.
I've spent 15 years in the broadcast field and this is practiced everywhere.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30440486</id>
	<title>2 simple solutions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260813360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> that require NO government intervention WHAT SO EVER...</p><p>1) DVR...  fast forward through the annoying things...</p><p>2) Mute button...  works every time...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that require NO government intervention WHAT SO EVER...1 ) DVR... fast forward through the annoying things...2 ) Mute button... works every time.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> that require NO government intervention WHAT SO EVER...1) DVR...  fast forward through the annoying things...2) Mute button...  works every time...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437380</id>
	<title>Too far with the overacting</title>
	<author>101010\_or\_0x2A</author>
	<datestamp>1260794460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Enough with the over-exaggeration, she seriously has to close the windows? Maybe shes watching TV too loud in the first place. And Ive never seen an ad that pumps up the volume more than a few bars if at all, so rather than trying to get her name on a piece of legislature, she should focus on her own habits?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Enough with the over-exaggeration , she seriously has to close the windows ?
Maybe shes watching TV too loud in the first place .
And Ive never seen an ad that pumps up the volume more than a few bars if at all , so rather than trying to get her name on a piece of legislature , she should focus on her own habits ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Enough with the over-exaggeration, she seriously has to close the windows?
Maybe shes watching TV too loud in the first place.
And Ive never seen an ad that pumps up the volume more than a few bars if at all, so rather than trying to get her name on a piece of legislature, she should focus on her own habits?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438356</id>
	<title>What about...</title>
	<author>Anonymatt</author>
	<datestamp>1260798720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about doing away with loud ties while we're at it? Or Hawaiian shirts, period.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about doing away with loud ties while we 're at it ?
Or Hawaiian shirts , period .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about doing away with loud ties while we're at it?
Or Hawaiian shirts, period.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30440316</id>
	<title>mute button</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260811800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>trick is to just use the mute button. Then you don't have to play with volume.</p><p>The mute button is instantaneous as well. So it's easier than volume.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>trick is to just use the mute button .
Then you do n't have to play with volume.The mute button is instantaneous as well .
So it 's easier than volume .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>trick is to just use the mute button.
Then you don't have to play with volume.The mute button is instantaneous as well.
So it's easier than volume.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438162</id>
	<title>What are these 'commercials' of which you speak?</title>
	<author>kheldan</author>
	<datestamp>1260797820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>..ah, they must be what you poor devils who don't have TiVo or some other DVR have to sit through.</htmltext>
<tokenext>..ah , they must be what you poor devils who do n't have TiVo or some other DVR have to sit through .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..ah, they must be what you poor devils who don't have TiVo or some other DVR have to sit through.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438208</id>
	<title>Re:Bad idea.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260798060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Make invasive advertising illegal and give multi-million dollar fines to anyone who distributes such content.</p></div><p>I'll even take a stab at converting that into legalese. Ban "advertising that interrupts the contiguous presentation of content." Doesn't seem too broad, and I think it covers commercial breaks, pop-over ads, and in-text ads. It still allows for sponsorship messages, pre- and post-show commercials, and header, footer, and sidebar ads. What do any real lawyers think of that?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Make invasive advertising illegal and give multi-million dollar fines to anyone who distributes such content.I 'll even take a stab at converting that into legalese .
Ban " advertising that interrupts the contiguous presentation of content .
" Does n't seem too broad , and I think it covers commercial breaks , pop-over ads , and in-text ads .
It still allows for sponsorship messages , pre- and post-show commercials , and header , footer , and sidebar ads .
What do any real lawyers think of that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Make invasive advertising illegal and give multi-million dollar fines to anyone who distributes such content.I'll even take a stab at converting that into legalese.
Ban "advertising that interrupts the contiguous presentation of content.
" Doesn't seem too broad, and I think it covers commercial breaks, pop-over ads, and in-text ads.
It still allows for sponsorship messages, pre- and post-show commercials, and header, footer, and sidebar ads.
What do any real lawyers think of that?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30444024</id>
	<title>MP3s Teach Us</title>
	<author>kenp2002</author>
	<datestamp>1260892140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is it I can stream 1500 MP3s ripped from 50+ CDs and in real-time do volume normalization but a TV network can't? This seems reasonable since they plan the programming days in advance.</p><p>Volume Normalization is practical, easy to implement, even in streaming content, and a resonable request.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is it I can stream 1500 MP3s ripped from 50 + CDs and in real-time do volume normalization but a TV network ca n't ?
This seems reasonable since they plan the programming days in advance.Volume Normalization is practical , easy to implement , even in streaming content , and a resonable request .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is it I can stream 1500 MP3s ripped from 50+ CDs and in real-time do volume normalization but a TV network can't?
This seems reasonable since they plan the programming days in advance.Volume Normalization is practical, easy to implement, even in streaming content, and a resonable request.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437516</id>
	<title>Loud ads are a major nuisance</title>
	<author>Borg453b</author>
	<datestamp>1260795000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's get a similar legislation in the EU <br> <br>

(<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. and this is coming from a guy that works with advertising )</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's get a similar legislation in the EU ( .. and this is coming from a guy that works with advertising )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's get a similar legislation in the EU  

( .. and this is coming from a guy that works with advertising )</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437810</id>
	<title>Easy solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260796260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The solution to the problem is very easy.</p><p>1. Put forth legislation saying that the new policy will be "anytime any consumer complains about commercial volume levels, the network will be fined $100, with no oversight or guards against abuse."  I.e., threaten to put complete ultimate power in the viewers' hands.  Bitchy viewers will be able to drain as much money from the companies as they want--the only limiting factor will be how many times they can dial the phone number.</p><p>2. Continue to advance this plan while the networks scream in protest.  If they don't believe you will actually implement the new policy, it won't work.</p><p>3. Notice how suddenly commercials don't seem to be louder than the programs around they anymore.  Almost as if the networks have always had the technical capacity but just never had the *motivation* to do it.</p><p>4. Quietly drop the legislation you no longer need.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The solution to the problem is very easy.1 .
Put forth legislation saying that the new policy will be " anytime any consumer complains about commercial volume levels , the network will be fined $ 100 , with no oversight or guards against abuse .
" I.e. , threaten to put complete ultimate power in the viewers ' hands .
Bitchy viewers will be able to drain as much money from the companies as they want--the only limiting factor will be how many times they can dial the phone number.2 .
Continue to advance this plan while the networks scream in protest .
If they do n't believe you will actually implement the new policy , it wo n't work.3 .
Notice how suddenly commercials do n't seem to be louder than the programs around they anymore .
Almost as if the networks have always had the technical capacity but just never had the * motivation * to do it.4 .
Quietly drop the legislation you no longer need .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The solution to the problem is very easy.1.
Put forth legislation saying that the new policy will be "anytime any consumer complains about commercial volume levels, the network will be fined $100, with no oversight or guards against abuse.
"  I.e., threaten to put complete ultimate power in the viewers' hands.
Bitchy viewers will be able to drain as much money from the companies as they want--the only limiting factor will be how many times they can dial the phone number.2.
Continue to advance this plan while the networks scream in protest.
If they don't believe you will actually implement the new policy, it won't work.3.
Notice how suddenly commercials don't seem to be louder than the programs around they anymore.
Almost as if the networks have always had the technical capacity but just never had the *motivation* to do it.4.
Quietly drop the legislation you no longer need.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437494</id>
	<title>Re:Does each channel control their commercials?</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1260794880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Presently I can only imagine this is due to laziness on part of the channel</p></div><p>You are absolutely right. They don't want to have to pay anyone another cent then they have to. No one expresses their concerns to them, though who is expressing This particular concern to their congresswoman, absolutely baffles me (isn't she supposed to be representing her constituents or something like that? Are they all 80+ years old?).</p><p>Anyways, it's not that difficult, but the networks won't feel they need to do it unless the FCC does something about it, and they won't force it unless the government says so. Why hello Mr Red Tape, didn't expect to see you here.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Presently I can only imagine this is due to laziness on part of the channelYou are absolutely right .
They do n't want to have to pay anyone another cent then they have to .
No one expresses their concerns to them , though who is expressing This particular concern to their congresswoman , absolutely baffles me ( is n't she supposed to be representing her constituents or something like that ?
Are they all 80 + years old ?
) .Anyways , it 's not that difficult , but the networks wo n't feel they need to do it unless the FCC does something about it , and they wo n't force it unless the government says so .
Why hello Mr Red Tape , did n't expect to see you here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Presently I can only imagine this is due to laziness on part of the channelYou are absolutely right.
They don't want to have to pay anyone another cent then they have to.
No one expresses their concerns to them, though who is expressing This particular concern to their congresswoman, absolutely baffles me (isn't she supposed to be representing her constituents or something like that?
Are they all 80+ years old?
).Anyways, it's not that difficult, but the networks won't feel they need to do it unless the FCC does something about it, and they won't force it unless the government says so.
Why hello Mr Red Tape, didn't expect to see you here.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437688</id>
	<title>Re:Bad idea.</title>
	<author>snicho99</author>
	<datestamp>1260795720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mod parent up. Here in Australia we already have this legislation and it's *completely* pointless. Same deal, some ninny in parliament with no real understanding of the technology involved wrote some *bs* legislation:</p><p>
<a href="http://www.freetv.com.au/Content\_Common/pg-Loudness-in-Advertisements.seo" title="freetv.com.au" rel="nofollow">http://www.freetv.com.au/Content\_Common/pg-Loudness-in-Advertisements.seo</a> [freetv.com.au]
</p><p>The problem is coming up with an "objective" comparison of the loudness between two bits of programming. As the parent says it's more a question of compression and dynamic range than actual volume. (by compression I mean audio compression, not data compression). If you run a peak search on even the most mild mannered jane austen bbc tv program, you'll get the same reading as you do an a sham-wow commercial. It's just that the sham-wow tvc dude is trying to cram so much information in the 30 seconds that he'll run everything at -3db. Where as in the Jane Austen thing will only reach that point once or twice in 10 minute section.</p><p>
But an even bigger problem is that the people making the ads have no idea what they're actually going to be screening with. How are you going to match the apparent loudness of your ad with the tv program, if you've got no idea what that program is anyway? It's retarded.
</p><p>Consequently in Australia we have a vaguely written set of "guidelines" and a requirement that any tvc submitted to a network be "OP48" compliant and say as such on the slate. The result, everyone writes OP48 compliant on their slate and that's about it....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent up .
Here in Australia we already have this legislation and it 's * completely * pointless .
Same deal , some ninny in parliament with no real understanding of the technology involved wrote some * bs * legislation : http : //www.freetv.com.au/Content \ _Common/pg-Loudness-in-Advertisements.seo [ freetv.com.au ] The problem is coming up with an " objective " comparison of the loudness between two bits of programming .
As the parent says it 's more a question of compression and dynamic range than actual volume .
( by compression I mean audio compression , not data compression ) .
If you run a peak search on even the most mild mannered jane austen bbc tv program , you 'll get the same reading as you do an a sham-wow commercial .
It 's just that the sham-wow tvc dude is trying to cram so much information in the 30 seconds that he 'll run everything at -3db .
Where as in the Jane Austen thing will only reach that point once or twice in 10 minute section .
But an even bigger problem is that the people making the ads have no idea what they 're actually going to be screening with .
How are you going to match the apparent loudness of your ad with the tv program , if you 've got no idea what that program is anyway ?
It 's retarded .
Consequently in Australia we have a vaguely written set of " guidelines " and a requirement that any tvc submitted to a network be " OP48 " compliant and say as such on the slate .
The result , everyone writes OP48 compliant on their slate and that 's about it... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent up.
Here in Australia we already have this legislation and it's *completely* pointless.
Same deal, some ninny in parliament with no real understanding of the technology involved wrote some *bs* legislation:
http://www.freetv.com.au/Content\_Common/pg-Loudness-in-Advertisements.seo [freetv.com.au]
The problem is coming up with an "objective" comparison of the loudness between two bits of programming.
As the parent says it's more a question of compression and dynamic range than actual volume.
(by compression I mean audio compression, not data compression).
If you run a peak search on even the most mild mannered jane austen bbc tv program, you'll get the same reading as you do an a sham-wow commercial.
It's just that the sham-wow tvc dude is trying to cram so much information in the 30 seconds that he'll run everything at -3db.
Where as in the Jane Austen thing will only reach that point once or twice in 10 minute section.
But an even bigger problem is that the people making the ads have no idea what they're actually going to be screening with.
How are you going to match the apparent loudness of your ad with the tv program, if you've got no idea what that program is anyway?
It's retarded.
Consequently in Australia we have a vaguely written set of "guidelines" and a requirement that any tvc submitted to a network be "OP48" compliant and say as such on the slate.
The result, everyone writes OP48 compliant on their slate and that's about it....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438652</id>
	<title>Just Press Mute</title>
	<author>terrahertz</author>
	<datestamp>1260800160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>THANK YOU!  (Was that loud enough?)<br>
<br>
I've no points so this will have to do.  If you talk to almost anyone about commercials, they might admit to liking a few of the funny ones here or there, but by and large, I think you'd struggle to find a lot of people who <i>want</i> to watch commercials, who seek them out, and take measures to watch them when they would otherwise be interrupted.  Basically nobody gives a shit either way about watching commercials.<br>
<br>
I don't watch a lot of "live" TV these days, and as a result I <i>really</i> have no tolerance for commercials when I encounter them.  So I mute them.<br>
<br>
My "opt-in" approach is nothing novel -- on the slim chance that I want to hear whatever the <b>un</b>-programming is saying, I'll un-mute, but otherwise I assume that the sounds coming from commercials are at best disposable to me, and at worst, really fucking annoying.<br>
<br>
I do this everywhere I can, and I've yet to meet a single person who wanted to hear commercials when I was muting them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>THANK YOU !
( Was that loud enough ?
) I 've no points so this will have to do .
If you talk to almost anyone about commercials , they might admit to liking a few of the funny ones here or there , but by and large , I think you 'd struggle to find a lot of people who want to watch commercials , who seek them out , and take measures to watch them when they would otherwise be interrupted .
Basically nobody gives a shit either way about watching commercials .
I do n't watch a lot of " live " TV these days , and as a result I really have no tolerance for commercials when I encounter them .
So I mute them .
My " opt-in " approach is nothing novel -- on the slim chance that I want to hear whatever the un-programming is saying , I 'll un-mute , but otherwise I assume that the sounds coming from commercials are at best disposable to me , and at worst , really fucking annoying .
I do this everywhere I can , and I 've yet to meet a single person who wanted to hear commercials when I was muting them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>THANK YOU!
(Was that loud enough?
)

I've no points so this will have to do.
If you talk to almost anyone about commercials, they might admit to liking a few of the funny ones here or there, but by and large, I think you'd struggle to find a lot of people who want to watch commercials, who seek them out, and take measures to watch them when they would otherwise be interrupted.
Basically nobody gives a shit either way about watching commercials.
I don't watch a lot of "live" TV these days, and as a result I really have no tolerance for commercials when I encounter them.
So I mute them.
My "opt-in" approach is nothing novel -- on the slim chance that I want to hear whatever the un-programming is saying, I'll un-mute, but otherwise I assume that the sounds coming from commercials are at best disposable to me, and at worst, really fucking annoying.
I do this everywhere I can, and I've yet to meet a single person who wanted to hear commercials when I was muting them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437340</id>
	<title>Re:I'd much rather...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260794340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Which is technology I recall being advertised over a decade ago, I *think* by Philips.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which is technology I recall being advertised over a decade ago , I * think * by Philips .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which is technology I recall being advertised over a decade ago, I *think* by Philips.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30439594</id>
	<title>Simple answer: mandatory ReplayGain on EVERYTHING</title>
	<author>\_Shorty-dammit</author>
	<datestamp>1260805740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>haha, seriously though.  If everything was ReplayGained then it wouldn't matter.  And everything would sound better, unless the morons still compressed the hell out of it before running it through the mandatory ReplayGain process.  In which case it wouldn't be any louder, since it's ReplayGained, but it would sound a lot worse from having no reasonable dynamic range.  If everything, TV, movies, CDs, were recorded/engineered from the beginning with the thought that the last process in the chain had to be a run through ReplayGain, man, music would sound good again!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>haha , seriously though .
If everything was ReplayGained then it would n't matter .
And everything would sound better , unless the morons still compressed the hell out of it before running it through the mandatory ReplayGain process .
In which case it would n't be any louder , since it 's ReplayGained , but it would sound a lot worse from having no reasonable dynamic range .
If everything , TV , movies , CDs , were recorded/engineered from the beginning with the thought that the last process in the chain had to be a run through ReplayGain , man , music would sound good again !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>haha, seriously though.
If everything was ReplayGained then it wouldn't matter.
And everything would sound better, unless the morons still compressed the hell out of it before running it through the mandatory ReplayGain process.
In which case it wouldn't be any louder, since it's ReplayGained, but it would sound a lot worse from having no reasonable dynamic range.
If everything, TV, movies, CDs, were recorded/engineered from the beginning with the thought that the last process in the chain had to be a run through ReplayGain, man, music would sound good again!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437364</id>
	<title>No fair way to write regulations?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260794460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You take the average gain of the last 30 seconds of a program before it goes to commercial, and don't allow the commercials to be any louder than that.</p><p>If I can make karaoke and techno music automatically crossfade with my meager skills(link below)</p><p><a href="http://www.facebook.com/v/203775860215" title="facebook.com">http://www.facebook.com/v/203775860215</a> [facebook.com]</p><p>Then surely a TV station or broadcast network could make commercials stay at the same gain as the programming.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You take the average gain of the last 30 seconds of a program before it goes to commercial , and do n't allow the commercials to be any louder than that.If I can make karaoke and techno music automatically crossfade with my meager skills ( link below ) http : //www.facebook.com/v/203775860215 [ facebook.com ] Then surely a TV station or broadcast network could make commercials stay at the same gain as the programming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You take the average gain of the last 30 seconds of a program before it goes to commercial, and don't allow the commercials to be any louder than that.If I can make karaoke and techno music automatically crossfade with my meager skills(link below)http://www.facebook.com/v/203775860215 [facebook.com]Then surely a TV station or broadcast network could make commercials stay at the same gain as the programming.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437434</id>
	<title>Let the techies at TV/radio stations speaks...</title>
	<author>grumpyman</author>
	<datestamp>1260794700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought no matter how the ads source are like, the TV/radio techies has to 're-align' the sign so that they are in similar range (normalize, limit/compress, EQ).  Yes?  No?  Why do we need more legislation?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought no matter how the ads source are like , the TV/radio techies has to 're-align ' the sign so that they are in similar range ( normalize , limit/compress , EQ ) .
Yes ? No ?
Why do we need more legislation ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought no matter how the ads source are like, the TV/radio techies has to 're-align' the sign so that they are in similar range (normalize, limit/compress, EQ).
Yes?  No?
Why do we need more legislation?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437878</id>
	<title>Re:Range compression</title>
	<author>pyster</author>
	<datestamp>1260796560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Um, you regulate it at the source, not the destination.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Um , you regulate it at the source , not the destination .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um, you regulate it at the source, not the destination.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30442094</id>
	<title>fair</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1260876300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, there is no "fair" way to write the text when you already know that those subject to the rules will hire very expensive law firms to find any and all loopholes.</p><p>I have rules in my online game (battlemaster.org) - and one of them is roughly "attempts to exploit the rules and violating their spirit while formally abiding by the words double the punishment". It's time the legal system adds a rule like that, especially for corporations who willfully and intentionally choose that route.</p><p>We have "contempt of court" already. It's time to add "contempt of the meaning of the law" to it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , there is no " fair " way to write the text when you already know that those subject to the rules will hire very expensive law firms to find any and all loopholes.I have rules in my online game ( battlemaster.org ) - and one of them is roughly " attempts to exploit the rules and violating their spirit while formally abiding by the words double the punishment " .
It 's time the legal system adds a rule like that , especially for corporations who willfully and intentionally choose that route.We have " contempt of court " already .
It 's time to add " contempt of the meaning of the law " to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, there is no "fair" way to write the text when you already know that those subject to the rules will hire very expensive law firms to find any and all loopholes.I have rules in my online game (battlemaster.org) - and one of them is roughly "attempts to exploit the rules and violating their spirit while formally abiding by the words double the punishment".
It's time the legal system adds a rule like that, especially for corporations who willfully and intentionally choose that route.We have "contempt of court" already.
It's time to add "contempt of the meaning of the law" to it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30446448</id>
	<title>Re:How about certain noises?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260901140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Totally agree on the 'traffic noises' thing. I don't know how many times I hear a siren on the radio and instantly look for the emergency vehicle. It's a needless, dangerous distraction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Totally agree on the 'traffic noises ' thing .
I do n't know how many times I hear a siren on the radio and instantly look for the emergency vehicle .
It 's a needless , dangerous distraction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Totally agree on the 'traffic noises' thing.
I don't know how many times I hear a siren on the radio and instantly look for the emergency vehicle.
It's a needless, dangerous distraction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438186</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30440090</id>
	<title>this is not that difficult a problem</title>
	<author>belmolis</author>
	<datestamp>1260809580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
This is not that difficult a problem. The industry apologists, and many people here, talk as if peak signal level were the only measure of loudness. It isn't. It isn't even one of the usual ones. There are quite a few ways of measuring volume. In addition to those routinely used by electrical engineers, such as RMS power, there are measures that take into account the properties of the human auditory system, which exhibits differential sensitivity to different frequencies. Measurements made for purposes such as concert hall remediation, by-law enforcement, and industrial safety, are usually made with instruments that filter the input according to a filter contour based on that of the auditory system. Look up the "A-contour", the "B-contour", and the "C-contour". There is a whole little corner of psychoacoustics devoted to the perception of loudness as a function of the spectrum of the signal.
</p><p>
Some decisions would need to be made as to which loudness measure to use and over what time window to compute it, but once this choice is made, we can either use it as the criterion in legislation or use it as the basis for a more sophisticated system of automatic gain control. With digital TV, implementing such processing should not be too difficult, and individuals could even adjust it to suit their preferences and auditory systems.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not that difficult a problem .
The industry apologists , and many people here , talk as if peak signal level were the only measure of loudness .
It is n't .
It is n't even one of the usual ones .
There are quite a few ways of measuring volume .
In addition to those routinely used by electrical engineers , such as RMS power , there are measures that take into account the properties of the human auditory system , which exhibits differential sensitivity to different frequencies .
Measurements made for purposes such as concert hall remediation , by-law enforcement , and industrial safety , are usually made with instruments that filter the input according to a filter contour based on that of the auditory system .
Look up the " A-contour " , the " B-contour " , and the " C-contour " .
There is a whole little corner of psychoacoustics devoted to the perception of loudness as a function of the spectrum of the signal .
Some decisions would need to be made as to which loudness measure to use and over what time window to compute it , but once this choice is made , we can either use it as the criterion in legislation or use it as the basis for a more sophisticated system of automatic gain control .
With digital TV , implementing such processing should not be too difficult , and individuals could even adjust it to suit their preferences and auditory systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
This is not that difficult a problem.
The industry apologists, and many people here, talk as if peak signal level were the only measure of loudness.
It isn't.
It isn't even one of the usual ones.
There are quite a few ways of measuring volume.
In addition to those routinely used by electrical engineers, such as RMS power, there are measures that take into account the properties of the human auditory system, which exhibits differential sensitivity to different frequencies.
Measurements made for purposes such as concert hall remediation, by-law enforcement, and industrial safety, are usually made with instruments that filter the input according to a filter contour based on that of the auditory system.
Look up the "A-contour", the "B-contour", and the "C-contour".
There is a whole little corner of psychoacoustics devoted to the perception of loudness as a function of the spectrum of the signal.
Some decisions would need to be made as to which loudness measure to use and over what time window to compute it, but once this choice is made, we can either use it as the criterion in legislation or use it as the basis for a more sophisticated system of automatic gain control.
With digital TV, implementing such processing should not be too difficult, and individuals could even adjust it to suit their preferences and auditory systems.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437700</id>
	<title>Re:Bad idea.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260795780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Volume is objective.  Ever heard of the SPL decibel?</p><p>Shaky-cam and other techniques may disturb the viewer, but audio significantly louder than the desired setting can disturb others in adjacent rooms or apartments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Volume is objective .
Ever heard of the SPL decibel ? Shaky-cam and other techniques may disturb the viewer , but audio significantly louder than the desired setting can disturb others in adjacent rooms or apartments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Volume is objective.
Ever heard of the SPL decibel?Shaky-cam and other techniques may disturb the viewer, but audio significantly louder than the desired setting can disturb others in adjacent rooms or apartments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437902</id>
	<title>Re:Legislate better volume controls</title>
	<author>TheSync</author>
	<datestamp>1260796680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>There should be 2 volumes you can set on the TV.</i></p><p><i>1. Existing TV volume<br>2. Decibel limit</i></p><p>The problem is that perceived loudness is not simply sound pressure level, but it is weighted spectrally, and often has temporal qualities (a loud noise in the middle of quiet may be perceived as louder than a continuous high loudness) as well as semantic qualities (a loud gunshot is not perceived as loud as equivalently "loud" talking).</p><p>ITU-R BS.1770 is the best non-temporal/non-semantic measure we have for use right now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There should be 2 volumes you can set on the TV.1 .
Existing TV volume2 .
Decibel limitThe problem is that perceived loudness is not simply sound pressure level , but it is weighted spectrally , and often has temporal qualities ( a loud noise in the middle of quiet may be perceived as louder than a continuous high loudness ) as well as semantic qualities ( a loud gunshot is not perceived as loud as equivalently " loud " talking ) .ITU-R BS.1770 is the best non-temporal/non-semantic measure we have for use right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There should be 2 volumes you can set on the TV.1.
Existing TV volume2.
Decibel limitThe problem is that perceived loudness is not simply sound pressure level, but it is weighted spectrally, and often has temporal qualities (a loud noise in the middle of quiet may be perceived as louder than a continuous high loudness) as well as semantic qualities (a loud gunshot is not perceived as loud as equivalently "loud" talking).ITU-R BS.1770 is the best non-temporal/non-semantic measure we have for use right now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437594</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2210235_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30439268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30443970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2210235_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2210235_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30443584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2210235_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2210235_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2210235_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30440002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2210235_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30446448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2210235_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30439304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2210235_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2210235_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2210235_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2210235_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2210235_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30441966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2210235_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30439200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2210235_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30442380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2210235_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30448690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2210235_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2210235_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30441676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2210235_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30440068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2210235_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2210235_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30444032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2210235_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30440050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2210235_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30439192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2210235_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30439864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2210235_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30450832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2210235_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2210235_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2210235_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2210235_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2210235_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30440742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2210235_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2210235_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30442046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2210235_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2210235_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2210235_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2210235_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2210235_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30442262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2210235_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2210235_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30441478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2210235_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2210235_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30439222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2210235_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2210235_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2210235_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438652
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2210235_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2210235_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30447216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2210235_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2210235_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2210235_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2210235_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2210235_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2210235_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2210235_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30441114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2210235_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30439678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2210235_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30462436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2210235_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30440290
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2210235_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30449728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2210235_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30439606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_2210235.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437810
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_2210235.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437524
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_2210235.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30462436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30440002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30440290
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437468
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437574
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30439304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30448690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30439222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438004
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_2210235.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437488
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_2210235.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30440090
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_2210235.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437868
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_2210235.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437658
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_2210235.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438418
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_2210235.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30441136
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_2210235.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30439678
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_2210235.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437484
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30441114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30442046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30440068
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_2210235.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437826
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_2210235.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438346
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_2210235.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437482
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437442
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437682
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_2210235.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30450832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30440742
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30439200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438652
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30442380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30441966
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30439606
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_2210235.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438182
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_2210235.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437376
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_2210235.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437326
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_2210235.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30447216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30441478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30449728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30439864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30440050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438208
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_2210235.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30444032
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438306
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_2210235.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438186
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438568
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30443584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30446448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30441676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30439192
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_2210235.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438202
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_2210235.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438260
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_2210235.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437820
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_2210235.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30439268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30443970
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_2210235.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437452
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_2210235.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437380
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_2210235.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438060
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_2210235.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437340
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438450
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30442262
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_2210235.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437902
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_2210235.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437794
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_2210235.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30437766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2210235.30438354
</commentlist>
</conversation>
