<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_24_2114242</id>
	<title>Really Misleading Ads From Broadband Providers</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1261649880000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Bourdain writes <i>"Gizmodo has put together a good compilation of the &mdash; seemingly almost criminally &mdash; misleading (largely plain wrong) <a href="http://gizmodo.com/5432332/basically-every-isp-is-trying-to-scare-you-into-paying-for-internet-you-dont-need">advertising from our favorite local monopolies</a>.  My personal favorite is from AT&amp;T which states you need 3mbps to use social networking sites like Facebook."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bourdain writes " Gizmodo has put together a good compilation of the    seemingly almost criminally    misleading ( largely plain wrong ) advertising from our favorite local monopolies .
My personal favorite is from AT&amp;T which states you need 3mbps to use social networking sites like Facebook .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bourdain writes "Gizmodo has put together a good compilation of the — seemingly almost criminally — misleading (largely plain wrong) advertising from our favorite local monopolies.
My personal favorite is from AT&amp;T which states you need 3mbps to use social networking sites like Facebook.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548662</id>
	<title>Re:0\_0</title>
	<author>AmberBlackCat</author>
	<datestamp>1261668900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm supposed have 8 or 12 or whatever Time Warner claims we get by now. I'd love to get at least the 1.5 in real life.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm supposed have 8 or 12 or whatever Time Warner claims we get by now .
I 'd love to get at least the 1.5 in real life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm supposed have 8 or 12 or whatever Time Warner claims we get by now.
I'd love to get at least the 1.5 in real life.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30549606</id>
	<title>Re:0\_0</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261684260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lag injection would certainly surprise me, as that's intentionally damaging a service you pay for.  Now, I could see them performing some form of QoS on their links, and then prioritizing packets from the people who pay them more money, while dumping the packets from the cheapos into the "Bulk" category, which would seem rather similar to lag injection, except with a less 'willful damage' and more 'corporate neglect' feel to it, which has the side effect of allowing them to oversell bandwidth and having the people paying all kinds of money every month not even noticing...feel kind of bad for grandma paying every month for a 1.5Mbps connection to check her email though...she may as well have stuck with dial-up for the crap she may end up getting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lag injection would certainly surprise me , as that 's intentionally damaging a service you pay for .
Now , I could see them performing some form of QoS on their links , and then prioritizing packets from the people who pay them more money , while dumping the packets from the cheapos into the " Bulk " category , which would seem rather similar to lag injection , except with a less 'willful damage ' and more 'corporate neglect ' feel to it , which has the side effect of allowing them to oversell bandwidth and having the people paying all kinds of money every month not even noticing...feel kind of bad for grandma paying every month for a 1.5Mbps connection to check her email though...she may as well have stuck with dial-up for the crap she may end up getting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lag injection would certainly surprise me, as that's intentionally damaging a service you pay for.
Now, I could see them performing some form of QoS on their links, and then prioritizing packets from the people who pay them more money, while dumping the packets from the cheapos into the "Bulk" category, which would seem rather similar to lag injection, except with a less 'willful damage' and more 'corporate neglect' feel to it, which has the side effect of allowing them to oversell bandwidth and having the people paying all kinds of money every month not even noticing...feel kind of bad for grandma paying every month for a 1.5Mbps connection to check her email though...she may as well have stuck with dial-up for the crap she may end up getting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548466</id>
	<title>Re:BT</title>
	<author>orlanz</author>
	<datestamp>1261665300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's no different in the US.  If you look at the advertising, AT&amp;T offers less than a quarter of what Comcast offers for basically the same price.  Granted there are a LOT of short comings in Comcast, and some benefits to DSL, but those things never show up in the market speak from both.  If you just look at what is advertised, you begin to wonder how AT&amp;T's broadband division even exists year to year.  Do they get tax credits, are their customers really that lazy or ignorant, is there some secret service that I somehow missed and makes it all better....?</p><p>Every once in a while I get calls from my local cable provider and AT&amp;T asking to take up their net phone, landline, or internet.  These are my most pleasant marketing calls EVER.  I make it very easy for them by basically telling them my situation (Vonage - need to call UK &amp; India, Cell - Family plan, &gt;2Mb/512Kb net, and total price) and ask them to even match the value.  It's almost worth my time just to listen to the silence.  The smart ones bid me a good day and the rest go back to being drones, to which I say "no" once and hangup.  Its not rude to hangup on drones who waste your time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's no different in the US .
If you look at the advertising , AT&amp;T offers less than a quarter of what Comcast offers for basically the same price .
Granted there are a LOT of short comings in Comcast , and some benefits to DSL , but those things never show up in the market speak from both .
If you just look at what is advertised , you begin to wonder how AT&amp;T 's broadband division even exists year to year .
Do they get tax credits , are their customers really that lazy or ignorant , is there some secret service that I somehow missed and makes it all better.... ? Every once in a while I get calls from my local cable provider and AT&amp;T asking to take up their net phone , landline , or internet .
These are my most pleasant marketing calls EVER .
I make it very easy for them by basically telling them my situation ( Vonage - need to call UK &amp; India , Cell - Family plan , &gt; 2Mb/512Kb net , and total price ) and ask them to even match the value .
It 's almost worth my time just to listen to the silence .
The smart ones bid me a good day and the rest go back to being drones , to which I say " no " once and hangup .
Its not rude to hangup on drones who waste your time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's no different in the US.
If you look at the advertising, AT&amp;T offers less than a quarter of what Comcast offers for basically the same price.
Granted there are a LOT of short comings in Comcast, and some benefits to DSL, but those things never show up in the market speak from both.
If you just look at what is advertised, you begin to wonder how AT&amp;T's broadband division even exists year to year.
Do they get tax credits, are their customers really that lazy or ignorant, is there some secret service that I somehow missed and makes it all better....?Every once in a while I get calls from my local cable provider and AT&amp;T asking to take up their net phone, landline, or internet.
These are my most pleasant marketing calls EVER.
I make it very easy for them by basically telling them my situation (Vonage - need to call UK &amp; India, Cell - Family plan, &gt;2Mb/512Kb net, and total price) and ask them to even match the value.
It's almost worth my time just to listen to the silence.
The smart ones bid me a good day and the rest go back to being drones, to which I say "no" once and hangup.
Its not rude to hangup on drones who waste your time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30549362</id>
	<title>Re:Totally misleading</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261679520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amen to that, another hate monger story making a mountain out of a molehill.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amen to that , another hate monger story making a mountain out of a molehill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amen to that, another hate monger story making a mountain out of a molehill.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30549642</id>
	<title>Re:12 mpbs for online games!!!</title>
	<author>dushkin</author>
	<datestamp>1261771800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can even do with less than 3mbps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can even do with less than 3mbps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can even do with less than 3mbps.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548406</id>
	<title>Poor metric.</title>
	<author>raehl</author>
	<datestamp>1261664100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>internet a utility that I use for average 8hrs a day. That is pretty steep compared to electricity which I use 24hrs a day</i></p><p>Your power runs 110Hz.</p><p>Your DSL runs at.... 3000000Hz.  And is bi-directional.</p><p><i>I never have any voltage fluctuations or power outs</i></p><p>Your power never goes out?  That may be true depending on where you live, or at least extremely rare, but you definitely have voltage fluctuations.</p><p>Also, the costs of the power network are born by more users.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>internet a utility that I use for average 8hrs a day .
That is pretty steep compared to electricity which I use 24hrs a dayYour power runs 110Hz.Your DSL runs at.... 3000000Hz. And is bi-directional.I never have any voltage fluctuations or power outsYour power never goes out ?
That may be true depending on where you live , or at least extremely rare , but you definitely have voltage fluctuations.Also , the costs of the power network are born by more users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>internet a utility that I use for average 8hrs a day.
That is pretty steep compared to electricity which I use 24hrs a dayYour power runs 110Hz.Your DSL runs at.... 3000000Hz.  And is bi-directional.I never have any voltage fluctuations or power outsYour power never goes out?
That may be true depending on where you live, or at least extremely rare, but you definitely have voltage fluctuations.Also, the costs of the power network are born by more users.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548982</id>
	<title>Re:No, they just don't want it used all the time</title>
	<author>AbRASiON</author>
	<datestamp>1261674240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank you for this post!!!<br>I'm sick and tired of whining Americans claiming "THEY WON'T LET ME USE MY LINK!!!!" you outline exactly why people simply can't thrash their link constantly.<br>If you actually want a 30mbit line AND to thrash it 24/7 you need a business link. You can't whine because a 50$ / month cable job 'only' lets you download 250gb per month.</p><p>I'm in Australia, so I'm accustomed to having shitty expensive internet but that's the price, you get what you pay for, it's just one of those things. (I wish I could cite an example of other products in our lives which are similar but nothing comes to mind at the moment)<br>Obviously we also shouldn't be paying 100$ per month for a 5gb limit, you need some give and take here but 250gb per month on a 30gb line is bloody fantastic, especially for a country like America with such open widespread population, if you want it super fast all the time with high limits, move to Korea or Japan.</p><p>I for one download a LOT of stuff I shouldn't (free to air TV is dead here) and I still can't max out 70gb per month. I'll gladly accept streaming TV, youtube, multiple people in the house, gaming, windows / linux updates - sure 150gb a household isn't bad - but I've seen Americans whine about 250 -&gt; 300gb a month.  STOP IT and use some common bloody sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you for this post ! !
! I 'm sick and tired of whining Americans claiming " THEY WO N'T LET ME USE MY LINK ! ! ! !
" you outline exactly why people simply ca n't thrash their link constantly.If you actually want a 30mbit line AND to thrash it 24/7 you need a business link .
You ca n't whine because a 50 $ / month cable job 'only ' lets you download 250gb per month.I 'm in Australia , so I 'm accustomed to having shitty expensive internet but that 's the price , you get what you pay for , it 's just one of those things .
( I wish I could cite an example of other products in our lives which are similar but nothing comes to mind at the moment ) Obviously we also should n't be paying 100 $ per month for a 5gb limit , you need some give and take here but 250gb per month on a 30gb line is bloody fantastic , especially for a country like America with such open widespread population , if you want it super fast all the time with high limits , move to Korea or Japan.I for one download a LOT of stuff I should n't ( free to air TV is dead here ) and I still ca n't max out 70gb per month .
I 'll gladly accept streaming TV , youtube , multiple people in the house , gaming , windows / linux updates - sure 150gb a household is n't bad - but I 've seen Americans whine about 250 - &gt; 300gb a month .
STOP IT and use some common bloody sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you for this post!!
!I'm sick and tired of whining Americans claiming "THEY WON'T LET ME USE MY LINK!!!!
" you outline exactly why people simply can't thrash their link constantly.If you actually want a 30mbit line AND to thrash it 24/7 you need a business link.
You can't whine because a 50$ / month cable job 'only' lets you download 250gb per month.I'm in Australia, so I'm accustomed to having shitty expensive internet but that's the price, you get what you pay for, it's just one of those things.
(I wish I could cite an example of other products in our lives which are similar but nothing comes to mind at the moment)Obviously we also shouldn't be paying 100$ per month for a 5gb limit, you need some give and take here but 250gb per month on a 30gb line is bloody fantastic, especially for a country like America with such open widespread population, if you want it super fast all the time with high limits, move to Korea or Japan.I for one download a LOT of stuff I shouldn't (free to air TV is dead here) and I still can't max out 70gb per month.
I'll gladly accept streaming TV, youtube, multiple people in the house, gaming, windows / linux updates - sure 150gb a household isn't bad - but I've seen Americans whine about 250 -&gt; 300gb a month.
STOP IT and use some common bloody sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548442</id>
	<title>Re:pice you pay for a connected world...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261664760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From my experience you pay half the price for  the same bandwidth (without any FUP) in Central Europe  countries and currently they are starting to roll out a 120Mbit option. AFAIK there are no special laws or subsidies from the government. Anyone care to explain what is going on in the US?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From my experience you pay half the price for the same bandwidth ( without any FUP ) in Central Europe countries and currently they are starting to roll out a 120Mbit option .
AFAIK there are no special laws or subsidies from the government .
Anyone care to explain what is going on in the US ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From my experience you pay half the price for  the same bandwidth (without any FUP) in Central Europe  countries and currently they are starting to roll out a 120Mbit option.
AFAIK there are no special laws or subsidies from the government.
Anyone care to explain what is going on in the US?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30557874</id>
	<title>Re:No difference in cars</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261818060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"real estimate"<br>Real estate?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" real estimate " Real estate ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"real estimate"Real estate?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30550456</id>
	<title>Re:No, they just don't want it used all the time</title>
	<author>StormReaver</author>
	<datestamp>1261748400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You seem to be of the opinion that customers would object to not being able to use their full bandwidth 100\% of the time, <b>if the damn ISPs would just tell the truth at sales time</b>.  But that's not how people are sold their connections.  They're sold their connections on the implicit guarantee of full speed all the time, with the reality buried on page 3,567,241 of the service agreement in micro-point font.</p><p>Secondly, if the high speed connection is not sustainable at full speed 100\% of the time, then ISPs should not sell the connection at that speed.  They should sell connections at speeds that are sustainable 100\% of the time.  The maximum bandwidth a customer is allowed to use should be determined by the maximum rate the customer purchased, at full tilt all the time.  If the ISPs network cannot sustain that, then don't sell that.  Overselling bandwidth should be the ISPs loss, not the customer that signed on at a specific rate in good faith.  If an ISP is not capable of providing that, then it should just fold up and let someone else do it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You seem to be of the opinion that customers would object to not being able to use their full bandwidth 100 \ % of the time , if the damn ISPs would just tell the truth at sales time .
But that 's not how people are sold their connections .
They 're sold their connections on the implicit guarantee of full speed all the time , with the reality buried on page 3,567,241 of the service agreement in micro-point font.Secondly , if the high speed connection is not sustainable at full speed 100 \ % of the time , then ISPs should not sell the connection at that speed .
They should sell connections at speeds that are sustainable 100 \ % of the time .
The maximum bandwidth a customer is allowed to use should be determined by the maximum rate the customer purchased , at full tilt all the time .
If the ISPs network can not sustain that , then do n't sell that .
Overselling bandwidth should be the ISPs loss , not the customer that signed on at a specific rate in good faith .
If an ISP is not capable of providing that , then it should just fold up and let someone else do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You seem to be of the opinion that customers would object to not being able to use their full bandwidth 100\% of the time, if the damn ISPs would just tell the truth at sales time.
But that's not how people are sold their connections.
They're sold their connections on the implicit guarantee of full speed all the time, with the reality buried on page 3,567,241 of the service agreement in micro-point font.Secondly, if the high speed connection is not sustainable at full speed 100\% of the time, then ISPs should not sell the connection at that speed.
They should sell connections at speeds that are sustainable 100\% of the time.
The maximum bandwidth a customer is allowed to use should be determined by the maximum rate the customer purchased, at full tilt all the time.
If the ISPs network cannot sustain that, then don't sell that.
Overselling bandwidth should be the ISPs loss, not the customer that signed on at a specific rate in good faith.
If an ISP is not capable of providing that, then it should just fold up and let someone else do it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548032</id>
	<title>Re:Facebook really should sue them</title>
	<author>ddxexex</author>
	<datestamp>1261659180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The only problem is that they don't ever call out Facebook specifically. They just say social networking sites. They could have meant MySpace or Twitter or something else. And anyways at least it's consistent with their sharing photo section, which you're going to do with FB anyways. So no real grounds to sue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only problem is that they do n't ever call out Facebook specifically .
They just say social networking sites .
They could have meant MySpace or Twitter or something else .
And anyways at least it 's consistent with their sharing photo section , which you 're going to do with FB anyways .
So no real grounds to sue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only problem is that they don't ever call out Facebook specifically.
They just say social networking sites.
They could have meant MySpace or Twitter or something else.
And anyways at least it's consistent with their sharing photo section, which you're going to do with FB anyways.
So no real grounds to sue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548378</id>
	<title>Re:Totally misleading</title>
	<author>flimflammer</author>
	<datestamp>1261663680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You clearly have a better understanding of the internet compared to someone who doesn't know any better. People look to advertising to guide them when they don't know what they want. If advertisements are saying "Hey, this 3mbps plan is great for social networking sites!" then that will stick in their mind when it comes to making a determination. The person making the ads understands their network, why shouldn't you trust their judgement unless they're shady? And if that's the case then why would you consider business with them in the first place?</p><p>You have to admit it's a bit silly (and a stretch) for Time Warner to even claim that you should consider the 15-30mbps plan if you're a big online shopper, or a 7mbps connection if you share a lot of photos (I guess if you share full resolution camera raws...)</p><p>Sure it's "ideal" to have that kind of bandwidth for whatever they're advertising. I mean hey if everyone just bought the best plan I'm sure their web experience would be amazing for that task. The problem is their advertisements are in fact misleading unknowing customers, and intentionally so, to get people who don't really understand the difference to pay for more and use less.</p><p>They would love it if everyone bought 30mbit plans and used it for email. They don't love it when people like me buy their plans and use it for what should be considered its intended purpose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You clearly have a better understanding of the internet compared to someone who does n't know any better .
People look to advertising to guide them when they do n't know what they want .
If advertisements are saying " Hey , this 3mbps plan is great for social networking sites !
" then that will stick in their mind when it comes to making a determination .
The person making the ads understands their network , why should n't you trust their judgement unless they 're shady ?
And if that 's the case then why would you consider business with them in the first place ? You have to admit it 's a bit silly ( and a stretch ) for Time Warner to even claim that you should consider the 15-30mbps plan if you 're a big online shopper , or a 7mbps connection if you share a lot of photos ( I guess if you share full resolution camera raws... ) Sure it 's " ideal " to have that kind of bandwidth for whatever they 're advertising .
I mean hey if everyone just bought the best plan I 'm sure their web experience would be amazing for that task .
The problem is their advertisements are in fact misleading unknowing customers , and intentionally so , to get people who do n't really understand the difference to pay for more and use less.They would love it if everyone bought 30mbit plans and used it for email .
They do n't love it when people like me buy their plans and use it for what should be considered its intended purpose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You clearly have a better understanding of the internet compared to someone who doesn't know any better.
People look to advertising to guide them when they don't know what they want.
If advertisements are saying "Hey, this 3mbps plan is great for social networking sites!
" then that will stick in their mind when it comes to making a determination.
The person making the ads understands their network, why shouldn't you trust their judgement unless they're shady?
And if that's the case then why would you consider business with them in the first place?You have to admit it's a bit silly (and a stretch) for Time Warner to even claim that you should consider the 15-30mbps plan if you're a big online shopper, or a 7mbps connection if you share a lot of photos (I guess if you share full resolution camera raws...)Sure it's "ideal" to have that kind of bandwidth for whatever they're advertising.
I mean hey if everyone just bought the best plan I'm sure their web experience would be amazing for that task.
The problem is their advertisements are in fact misleading unknowing customers, and intentionally so, to get people who don't really understand the difference to pay for more and use less.They would love it if everyone bought 30mbit plans and used it for email.
They don't love it when people like me buy their plans and use it for what should be considered its intended purpose.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30549128</id>
	<title>Re:Verizon</title>
	<author>trapnest</author>
	<datestamp>1261675920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reasons why I left Verizon for T-Mobile keep coming and coming.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reasons why I left Verizon for T-Mobile keep coming and coming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reasons why I left Verizon for T-Mobile keep coming and coming.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548068</id>
	<title>Cox Powerboost</title>
	<author>X-Power</author>
	<datestamp>1261659540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cox powerboost lets you use extra available bandwidth around your area for a few seconds when starting large downloads.

So 25 mbps becomes ~30 mpbs for 10-15 seconds.

Works on torrents aswell. It's pretty sweet, especially if you dont live in an area with lots of kids downloading mp3s all the time.
Then 30 mbps almost becomes the norm.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cox powerboost lets you use extra available bandwidth around your area for a few seconds when starting large downloads .
So 25 mbps becomes ~ 30 mpbs for 10-15 seconds .
Works on torrents aswell .
It 's pretty sweet , especially if you dont live in an area with lots of kids downloading mp3s all the time .
Then 30 mbps almost becomes the norm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cox powerboost lets you use extra available bandwidth around your area for a few seconds when starting large downloads.
So 25 mbps becomes ~30 mpbs for 10-15 seconds.
Works on torrents aswell.
It's pretty sweet, especially if you dont live in an area with lots of kids downloading mp3s all the time.
Then 30 mbps almost becomes the norm.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547928</id>
	<title>Re:I love some of their plans</title>
	<author>Ihmhi</author>
	<datestamp>1261658040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>- Forced Induction (Blown)</p></div><p>Give me 20 minutes with an air compressor and one of their marketing executives and I'll show them what forced induction is all about.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>- Forced Induction ( Blown ) Give me 20 minutes with an air compressor and one of their marketing executives and I 'll show them what forced induction is all about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>- Forced Induction (Blown)Give me 20 minutes with an air compressor and one of their marketing executives and I'll show them what forced induction is all about.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548044</id>
	<title>Re:I love some of their plans</title>
	<author>\_merlin</author>
	<datestamp>1261659300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>F1 is naturally aspirated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>F1 is naturally aspirated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>F1 is naturally aspirated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547866</id>
	<title>Re:Facebook bloat</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261657440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Loads pretty fast on my 3g. But I wouldn't know, I don't have many friends.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Loads pretty fast on my 3g .
But I would n't know , I do n't have many friends .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Loads pretty fast on my 3g.
But I wouldn't know, I don't have many friends.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547716</id>
	<title>A variant...</title>
	<author>SomeGuyFromCA</author>
	<datestamp>1261655940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My favorite of these were the old Comcast ads.</p><p>The ones that said something alone the lines of " Unlimited internet! Download music and more!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My favorite of these were the old Comcast ads.The ones that said something alone the lines of " Unlimited internet !
Download music and more !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My favorite of these were the old Comcast ads.The ones that said something alone the lines of " Unlimited internet!
Download music and more!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548298</id>
	<title>Rental car problems</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1261662540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I have friends that bought a huge SUV for when they drive to the ski slopes (they go 2-3x a year). A rented SUV would be much cheaper.</p></div><p>A lot of rental car places won't rent to people age 18-24 and/or won't allow driving the vehicle across state lines. And what's the Internet access analogy to a rental car? Ordering the work on optical disc from its publisher?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have friends that bought a huge SUV for when they drive to the ski slopes ( they go 2-3x a year ) .
A rented SUV would be much cheaper.A lot of rental car places wo n't rent to people age 18-24 and/or wo n't allow driving the vehicle across state lines .
And what 's the Internet access analogy to a rental car ?
Ordering the work on optical disc from its publisher ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have friends that bought a huge SUV for when they drive to the ski slopes (they go 2-3x a year).
A rented SUV would be much cheaper.A lot of rental car places won't rent to people age 18-24 and/or won't allow driving the vehicle across state lines.
And what's the Internet access analogy to a rental car?
Ordering the work on optical disc from its publisher?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547454</id>
	<title>0\_0</title>
	<author>negRo\_slim</author>
	<datestamp>1261653960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To be fair 1.5 plans are really starting to feel sluggish these days.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To be fair 1.5 plans are really starting to feel sluggish these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be fair 1.5 plans are really starting to feel sluggish these days.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30551298</id>
	<title>Now I see the Truth</title>
	<author>Soiden</author>
	<datestamp>1261762500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And here I thought that with 2 PCs and a Wii connected at 400kbps in total was enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And here I thought that with 2 PCs and a Wii connected at 400kbps in total was enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And here I thought that with 2 PCs and a Wii connected at 400kbps in total was enough.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547430</id>
	<title>Facebook bloat</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261653840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My personal favorite is from AT&amp;T which states you need 3mbps to use social networking sites like Facebook.</p></div><p>Have you <i>tried</i> to use Facebook recently?  Sounds about right!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My personal favorite is from AT&amp;T which states you need 3mbps to use social networking sites like Facebook.Have you tried to use Facebook recently ?
Sounds about right !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My personal favorite is from AT&amp;T which states you need 3mbps to use social networking sites like Facebook.Have you tried to use Facebook recently?
Sounds about right!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548484</id>
	<title>Re:I love some of their plans</title>
	<author>lanadapter </author>
	<datestamp>1261666020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bzzzt!

Oh I'm sorry, the correct answer was Gillette Fusion Power gamer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bzzzt !
Oh I 'm sorry , the correct answer was Gillette Fusion Power gamer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bzzzt!
Oh I'm sorry, the correct answer was Gillette Fusion Power gamer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547846</id>
	<title>American problem again.</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1261657200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"hands off busines" crap is costing you people time and money. because there are not enough tough regulations, corporations often can get away with scamming customers. to the extent that they dare put 'you cant sue us' clauses in contracts.</p><p>that "hands off business" thing really has to end. scamming, screwing people is not business, anyone using that excuse to defend such actions is a bastard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" hands off busines " crap is costing you people time and money .
because there are not enough tough regulations , corporations often can get away with scamming customers .
to the extent that they dare put 'you cant sue us ' clauses in contracts.that " hands off business " thing really has to end .
scamming , screwing people is not business , anyone using that excuse to defend such actions is a bastard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"hands off busines" crap is costing you people time and money.
because there are not enough tough regulations, corporations often can get away with scamming customers.
to the extent that they dare put 'you cant sue us' clauses in contracts.that "hands off business" thing really has to end.
scamming, screwing people is not business, anyone using that excuse to defend such actions is a bastard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30551018</id>
	<title>AdBlock / Noscript</title>
	<author>DrYak</author>
	<datestamp>1261758960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Have you <i>tried</i> to use Facebook recently?  Sounds about right!</p></div><p>Just turn off Adblock, Noscript or Flashblock. And then go to any website (be it Facebook or whatever else) :<br>I dare you to browse most of webpages on anything slower than a university / corporate 10mbps line.</p><p>In fact, in case you *do* have access to 10mbps-line, I dare you to sustain all the blinking shit on screen for more than 10 seconds straight without having to resort to bleach in order to clean your eyeballs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you tried to use Facebook recently ?
Sounds about right ! Just turn off Adblock , Noscript or Flashblock .
And then go to any website ( be it Facebook or whatever else ) : I dare you to browse most of webpages on anything slower than a university / corporate 10mbps line.In fact , in case you * do * have access to 10mbps-line , I dare you to sustain all the blinking shit on screen for more than 10 seconds straight without having to resort to bleach in order to clean your eyeballs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you tried to use Facebook recently?
Sounds about right!Just turn off Adblock, Noscript or Flashblock.
And then go to any website (be it Facebook or whatever else) :I dare you to browse most of webpages on anything slower than a university / corporate 10mbps line.In fact, in case you *do* have access to 10mbps-line, I dare you to sustain all the blinking shit on screen for more than 10 seconds straight without having to resort to bleach in order to clean your eyeballs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548086</id>
	<title>Re:I love some of their plans</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261659660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not "maximum". They're plans for guys named "Max".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not " maximum " .
They 're plans for guys named " Max " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not "maximum".
They're plans for guys named "Max".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548504</id>
	<title>Re:Totally misleading</title>
	<author>radtea</author>
	<datestamp>1261666380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Try writing a real article instead of just completely making shit up.</i></p><p>Hey, this is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/,, where the only thing less true than the articles is the headlines and summaries.</p><p>A<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. summary complaining about inaccuracies!?  Now that's funny.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Try writing a real article instead of just completely making shit up.Hey , this is /, , where the only thing less true than the articles is the headlines and summaries.A / .
summary complaining about inaccuracies ! ?
Now that 's funny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try writing a real article instead of just completely making shit up.Hey, this is /,, where the only thing less true than the articles is the headlines and summaries.A /.
summary complaining about inaccuracies!?
Now that's funny.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30549618</id>
	<title>Re:Totally misleading</title>
	<author>msgtomatt</author>
	<datestamp>1261684740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You must be new here. RTFA</htmltext>
<tokenext>You must be new here .
RTFA</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You must be new here.
RTFA</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547786</id>
	<title>Re:I love some of their plans</title>
	<author>bobdotorg</author>
	<datestamp>1261656600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Do these people even know what the word "maximum" means?</p></div></blockquote><p>Pffft.  My ISP goes to 11.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do these people even know what the word " maximum " means ? Pffft .
My ISP goes to 11 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do these people even know what the word "maximum" means?Pffft.
My ISP goes to 11.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548518</id>
	<title>At least you can increase your speed...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261666560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Malaysia, we can't !</p><p>The local monopoly won't allow that.</p><p>Our 1Mbps package actually delivers around 384Kbps speed.</p><p>Our 4Mbps package maybe able to get 1.5 to 2 Mbps speed.</p><p>And when we need more, the local monopoly (telco) keep telling us "10 Mbps very soon" and we have heard that for the past 8 years !</p><p>Compare to Japan or Korea, or even Singapore, Malaysia is nothing !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Malaysia , we ca n't ! The local monopoly wo n't allow that.Our 1Mbps package actually delivers around 384Kbps speed.Our 4Mbps package maybe able to get 1.5 to 2 Mbps speed.And when we need more , the local monopoly ( telco ) keep telling us " 10 Mbps very soon " and we have heard that for the past 8 years ! Compare to Japan or Korea , or even Singapore , Malaysia is nothing !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Malaysia, we can't !The local monopoly won't allow that.Our 1Mbps package actually delivers around 384Kbps speed.Our 4Mbps package maybe able to get 1.5 to 2 Mbps speed.And when we need more, the local monopoly (telco) keep telling us "10 Mbps very soon" and we have heard that for the past 8 years !Compare to Japan or Korea, or even Singapore, Malaysia is nothing !</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547936</id>
	<title>Re:What hacks me off.</title>
	<author>Sporkinum</author>
	<datestamp>1261658100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's kind of funny. My local phone co-op only offers 1 meg download speed, and I'll be dipped in snot if it doesn't stream hulu (non HD) just fine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's kind of funny .
My local phone co-op only offers 1 meg download speed , and I 'll be dipped in snot if it does n't stream hulu ( non HD ) just fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's kind of funny.
My local phone co-op only offers 1 meg download speed, and I'll be dipped in snot if it doesn't stream hulu (non HD) just fine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547812</id>
	<title>Totally misleading</title>
	<author>Kenoli</author>
	<datestamp>1261656840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My personal favorite is from AT&amp;T which states you need 3mbps to use social networking sites like Facebook</p></div><p>That would be pretty funny if it were true, but no, it doesn't actually say that.<br>
Try writing a real article instead of just completely making shit up.<br>
<br>
The little chats even say "good for:" or "ideal for:".<br>
The checkboxes clearly mean "if you want to do these sorts of things you probably want this amount of bandwidth", not "lesser connections are incapable of this".<br>
It doesn't take a genius.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My personal favorite is from AT&amp;T which states you need 3mbps to use social networking sites like FacebookThat would be pretty funny if it were true , but no , it does n't actually say that .
Try writing a real article instead of just completely making shit up .
The little chats even say " good for : " or " ideal for : " .
The checkboxes clearly mean " if you want to do these sorts of things you probably want this amount of bandwidth " , not " lesser connections are incapable of this " .
It does n't take a genius .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My personal favorite is from AT&amp;T which states you need 3mbps to use social networking sites like FacebookThat would be pretty funny if it were true, but no, it doesn't actually say that.
Try writing a real article instead of just completely making shit up.
The little chats even say "good for:" or "ideal for:".
The checkboxes clearly mean "if you want to do these sorts of things you probably want this amount of bandwidth", not "lesser connections are incapable of this".
It doesn't take a genius.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548352</id>
	<title>Re:I love some of their plans</title>
	<author>Jesus\_666</author>
	<datestamp>1261663440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oral-B is another offender. I don't know about the USA but in Germany they run advertisements that make Star Trek look like Fisher-Price. Seriously. They need a goddamn holodeck just to look at people brushing their teeth and then their massive transhuman knowledge of oral hygiene coalesces into a product called the "Oral-B Triumph". And they market it like they just brought about world peace by manufacturing an electric toothbrush.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oral-B is another offender .
I do n't know about the USA but in Germany they run advertisements that make Star Trek look like Fisher-Price .
Seriously. They need a goddamn holodeck just to look at people brushing their teeth and then their massive transhuman knowledge of oral hygiene coalesces into a product called the " Oral-B Triumph " .
And they market it like they just brought about world peace by manufacturing an electric toothbrush .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oral-B is another offender.
I don't know about the USA but in Germany they run advertisements that make Star Trek look like Fisher-Price.
Seriously. They need a goddamn holodeck just to look at people brushing their teeth and then their massive transhuman knowledge of oral hygiene coalesces into a product called the "Oral-B Triumph".
And they market it like they just brought about world peace by manufacturing an electric toothbrush.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547598</id>
	<title>The sad part</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261655100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The really sad part is that they want to sell you a super fast Internet connection but they sure as hell don't want you to use it. Most ISP's are slapping bandwidth caps which are all over the place. I believe comcast has a 250GB cap which is fair but I'm on Rogers (up in Canada) with a shitty low cap of 60 GB's. That's probably fine for most people but I actually use the internet so I need to be careful. It's just more deceit to get you to pay more for less.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The really sad part is that they want to sell you a super fast Internet connection but they sure as hell do n't want you to use it .
Most ISP 's are slapping bandwidth caps which are all over the place .
I believe comcast has a 250GB cap which is fair but I 'm on Rogers ( up in Canada ) with a shitty low cap of 60 GB 's .
That 's probably fine for most people but I actually use the internet so I need to be careful .
It 's just more deceit to get you to pay more for less .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The really sad part is that they want to sell you a super fast Internet connection but they sure as hell don't want you to use it.
Most ISP's are slapping bandwidth caps which are all over the place.
I believe comcast has a 250GB cap which is fair but I'm on Rogers (up in Canada) with a shitty low cap of 60 GB's.
That's probably fine for most people but I actually use the internet so I need to be careful.
It's just more deceit to get you to pay more for less.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547958</id>
	<title>crimnals</title>
	<author>kenshin33</author>
	<datestamp>1261658340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> [...] &mdash; seemingly almost criminally &mdash; [...]</p> </div><p>If not misinterpreting in Canada it is criminal offence. To quote <a href="http://competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/eng/02776.html" title="competitionbureau.gc.ca" rel="nofollow"> competitionbureau</a> [competitionbureau.gc.ca] :
</p><p>
The false or misleading representations and deceptive marketing practices provisions of the Competition Act contain a general prohibition against all materially false or misleading representations. They also prohibit making performance representations which are not based on adequate and proper tests, misleading warranties and guarantees, false or misleading ordinary selling price representations, untrue, misleading or unauthorized use of tests and testimonials, bait and switch selling, double ticketing and the sale of a product above its advertised price. Further, the promotional contest provisions prohibit contests that do not disclose required information.</p><p> [...]
</p><p>
The Competition Act provides criminal and civil regimes to address false or misleading representations. Under both regimes, the Act prohibits the making, or the permitting of the making, of a representation to the public, in any form whatever, that is false or misleading in a material respect. </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ ... ]    seemingly almost criminally    [ ... ] If not misinterpreting in Canada it is criminal offence .
To quote competitionbureau [ competitionbureau.gc.ca ] : The false or misleading representations and deceptive marketing practices provisions of the Competition Act contain a general prohibition against all materially false or misleading representations .
They also prohibit making performance representations which are not based on adequate and proper tests , misleading warranties and guarantees , false or misleading ordinary selling price representations , untrue , misleading or unauthorized use of tests and testimonials , bait and switch selling , double ticketing and the sale of a product above its advertised price .
Further , the promotional contest provisions prohibit contests that do not disclose required information .
[ ... ] The Competition Act provides criminal and civil regimes to address false or misleading representations .
Under both regimes , the Act prohibits the making , or the permitting of the making , of a representation to the public , in any form whatever , that is false or misleading in a material respect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> [...] — seemingly almost criminally — [...] If not misinterpreting in Canada it is criminal offence.
To quote  competitionbureau [competitionbureau.gc.ca] :

The false or misleading representations and deceptive marketing practices provisions of the Competition Act contain a general prohibition against all materially false or misleading representations.
They also prohibit making performance representations which are not based on adequate and proper tests, misleading warranties and guarantees, false or misleading ordinary selling price representations, untrue, misleading or unauthorized use of tests and testimonials, bait and switch selling, double ticketing and the sale of a product above its advertised price.
Further, the promotional contest provisions prohibit contests that do not disclose required information.
[...]

The Competition Act provides criminal and civil regimes to address false or misleading representations.
Under both regimes, the Act prohibits the making, or the permitting of the making, of a representation to the public, in any form whatever, that is false or misleading in a material respect. 
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30549080</id>
	<title>Re:No difference in cars</title>
	<author>haruharaharu</author>
	<datestamp>1261675440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/., so we need some car comparisons...</p><p>My gf claims she <i>needs</i> a 250hp (at the rear wheel) V6 in her commuter car so she can "get on the highway easier." She compared 0-60 times for Honda Accords and Toyota Camrys.</p><p>I have friends that bought a huge SUV for when they drive to the ski slopes (they go 2-3x a year).  A rented SUV would be much cheaper.</p><p>So why wouldn't the telcos use the same tactics when convincing their customers to purchase something that they really don't need?  People are buying dual/quad core CPUs with 4GB of RAM just to surf the web and upload pics to flickr and facebook.</p></div><p>I have a 4 year old WRX that would fit both of your groups fine - 230hp (170 at the wheels) and 0-60 is 5.5 (new version is something crazy like 4.9), but it's plenty good for driving to fast and maintaining control. It also goes to the ski slopes if you get some snow tires (new set every 3-4 years). It isn't perfect, but it's a good compromise and proof that you really don't need the SUV.</p><p>Selling things isn't about need, but image - the SUV and custom ski gear is an image thing, just like lesbians with subarus (because subaru markets to them directly). The computer thing is less about that as a $800 computer has your specs. </p><p>I, of course, do lust after the firebreathing computer rigs and $10k car upgrades, but over time was able to realize that these things won't help, so now I have more money for other things, like saving and college.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is /. , so we need some car comparisons...My gf claims she needs a 250hp ( at the rear wheel ) V6 in her commuter car so she can " get on the highway easier .
" She compared 0-60 times for Honda Accords and Toyota Camrys.I have friends that bought a huge SUV for when they drive to the ski slopes ( they go 2-3x a year ) .
A rented SUV would be much cheaper.So why would n't the telcos use the same tactics when convincing their customers to purchase something that they really do n't need ?
People are buying dual/quad core CPUs with 4GB of RAM just to surf the web and upload pics to flickr and facebook.I have a 4 year old WRX that would fit both of your groups fine - 230hp ( 170 at the wheels ) and 0-60 is 5.5 ( new version is something crazy like 4.9 ) , but it 's plenty good for driving to fast and maintaining control .
It also goes to the ski slopes if you get some snow tires ( new set every 3-4 years ) .
It is n't perfect , but it 's a good compromise and proof that you really do n't need the SUV.Selling things is n't about need , but image - the SUV and custom ski gear is an image thing , just like lesbians with subarus ( because subaru markets to them directly ) .
The computer thing is less about that as a $ 800 computer has your specs .
I , of course , do lust after the firebreathing computer rigs and $ 10k car upgrades , but over time was able to realize that these things wo n't help , so now I have more money for other things , like saving and college .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is /., so we need some car comparisons...My gf claims she needs a 250hp (at the rear wheel) V6 in her commuter car so she can "get on the highway easier.
" She compared 0-60 times for Honda Accords and Toyota Camrys.I have friends that bought a huge SUV for when they drive to the ski slopes (they go 2-3x a year).
A rented SUV would be much cheaper.So why wouldn't the telcos use the same tactics when convincing their customers to purchase something that they really don't need?
People are buying dual/quad core CPUs with 4GB of RAM just to surf the web and upload pics to flickr and facebook.I have a 4 year old WRX that would fit both of your groups fine - 230hp (170 at the wheels) and 0-60 is 5.5 (new version is something crazy like 4.9), but it's plenty good for driving to fast and maintaining control.
It also goes to the ski slopes if you get some snow tires (new set every 3-4 years).
It isn't perfect, but it's a good compromise and proof that you really don't need the SUV.Selling things isn't about need, but image - the SUV and custom ski gear is an image thing, just like lesbians with subarus (because subaru markets to them directly).
The computer thing is less about that as a $800 computer has your specs.
I, of course, do lust after the firebreathing computer rigs and $10k car upgrades, but over time was able to realize that these things won't help, so now I have more money for other things, like saving and college.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30550548</id>
	<title>Re:I love some of their plans</title>
	<author>shacky003</author>
	<datestamp>1261750380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>...Although the all-time ridiculously overstated product name has to be the Gillette Fusion Power Stealth.</p></div><p>Dude, that shit comes with not only laser beams, but radar invisible delta-force trained personnel to set up friendly dictatorships in small countries - didn't you read the promises on the package?!???</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...Although the all-time ridiculously overstated product name has to be the Gillette Fusion Power Stealth.Dude , that shit comes with not only laser beams , but radar invisible delta-force trained personnel to set up friendly dictatorships in small countries - did n't you read the promises on the package ? ! ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...Although the all-time ridiculously overstated product name has to be the Gillette Fusion Power Stealth.Dude, that shit comes with not only laser beams, but radar invisible delta-force trained personnel to set up friendly dictatorships in small countries - didn't you read the promises on the package?!??
?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30550050</id>
	<title>Re:need more speed!</title>
	<author>B00KER</author>
	<datestamp>1261738140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Missleading?
I did read lying ads.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Missleading ?
I did read lying ads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Missleading?
I did read lying ads.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30640528</id>
	<title>3kbps?</title>
	<author>in10se</author>
	<datestamp>1231084080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since when is Facebook usable at 3mbps? Facebook is still slow on my 100mbps LAN.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since when is Facebook usable at 3mbps ?
Facebook is still slow on my 100mbps LAN .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since when is Facebook usable at 3mbps?
Facebook is still slow on my 100mbps LAN.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547714</id>
	<title>Re:I love some of their plans</title>
	<author>stimpleton</author>
	<datestamp>1261655940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes I am starting an ISP, we have named our plans based on internal combustion engine technology (from slowest to fastest):
<br> <br>
- Naturally Aspirated<br>
- Venturi Affected Plenum Chamber<br>
- Forced Induction (Blown)<br>
- F1 (120\% Volumetric Efficiency<br> <br>Sign-ups seem slow...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes I am starting an ISP , we have named our plans based on internal combustion engine technology ( from slowest to fastest ) : - Naturally Aspirated - Venturi Affected Plenum Chamber - Forced Induction ( Blown ) - F1 ( 120 \ % Volumetric Efficiency Sign-ups seem slow.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes I am starting an ISP, we have named our plans based on internal combustion engine technology (from slowest to fastest):
 
- Naturally Aspirated
- Venturi Affected Plenum Chamber
- Forced Induction (Blown)
- F1 (120\% Volumetric Efficiency Sign-ups seem slow...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547864</id>
	<title>Re:Facebook really should sue them</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1261657440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Too slow to use Facebook intensively and have a seamless experience, with Video and everything..
</p><p>their service.
</p><p>
Even though their service may be advertised at 6 Megs peak,  doesn't necessarily mean customers will get a service that allows them to have the best experience with services that benefit low-latency.
</p><p>
For example, their "3 Megs" peak, connection, may only provide the customer 1 meg most of the time, with <b>bursts</b> up to 3 megs.
</p><p>
They could believe that their service degraded on the low-end version so much that,  you need a  3 meg service choice to reliably get  1.5 megs,  and a  6 meg service to reliably get  3 megs  without some serious latency and packet loss at those bitrates.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Too slow to use Facebook intensively and have a seamless experience , with Video and everything. . their service .
Even though their service may be advertised at 6 Megs peak , does n't necessarily mean customers will get a service that allows them to have the best experience with services that benefit low-latency .
For example , their " 3 Megs " peak , connection , may only provide the customer 1 meg most of the time , with bursts up to 3 megs .
They could believe that their service degraded on the low-end version so much that , you need a 3 meg service choice to reliably get 1.5 megs , and a 6 meg service to reliably get 3 megs without some serious latency and packet loss at those bitrates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Too slow to use Facebook intensively and have a seamless experience, with Video and everything..
their service.
Even though their service may be advertised at 6 Megs peak,  doesn't necessarily mean customers will get a service that allows them to have the best experience with services that benefit low-latency.
For example, their "3 Megs" peak, connection, may only provide the customer 1 meg most of the time, with bursts up to 3 megs.
They could believe that their service degraded on the low-end version so much that,  you need a  3 meg service choice to reliably get  1.5 megs,  and a  6 meg service to reliably get  3 megs  without some serious latency and packet loss at those bitrates.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548492</id>
	<title>Suggestion: Don't accept abuse.</title>
	<author>Futurepower(R)</author>
	<datestamp>1261666320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've read this and some of the comments below, and it amazes me how many people easily and even jokingly accept dishonesty and other abuse from businesses.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've read this and some of the comments below , and it amazes me how many people easily and even jokingly accept dishonesty and other abuse from businesses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've read this and some of the comments below, and it amazes me how many people easily and even jokingly accept dishonesty and other abuse from businesses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547452</id>
	<title>I love some of their plans</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261653960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Max"</p><p>"Max Plus"</p><p>"Max Turbo"</p><p>Do these people even know what the word "maximum" means?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Max " " Max Plus " " Max Turbo " Do these people even know what the word " maximum " means ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Max""Max Plus""Max Turbo"Do these people even know what the word "maximum" means?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547498</id>
	<title>Re:0\_0</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261654260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some companies add latency and lag to their lower end connections to get people to pay up for higher speed ones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some companies add latency and lag to their lower end connections to get people to pay up for higher speed ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some companies add latency and lag to their lower end connections to get people to pay up for higher speed ones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547460</id>
	<title>3mbps</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261654020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would think that 3 millibits per second is about right for most social networking sites.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would think that 3 millibits per second is about right for most social networking sites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would think that 3 millibits per second is about right for most social networking sites.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30549410</id>
	<title>Re:No, they just don't want it used all the time</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1261680120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>That's the problem. They are ok with you using your speed. They aren't ok with you using it all the time to the max</p></div> </blockquote><p>I was going to use a car analogy, but I'll just say this: If I buy an Internet connection, I expect to be able to use it however I wish, within the bounds of the law. If there are additional restrictions on top of that, those need to be communicated before the sale or its false advertising. Otherwise, there's no way to tell exactly what kid of service you're actually getting. Under current broadband provider marketing practices, they could advertise a 200mbit connection for $10 a month but then not reveal until after the customer has the service that you can actually only get 200mb speed for 5 seconds at 4:03 AM on weekday nights. It's technically 200mb service, but like you said, you just can't use it all the time to the max.</p><p>None of the marketing pages that TFA linked to even mention the existence of a bandwidth cap (even in the fine print), yet all of those companies are known to have caps. AT&amp;T and Comcast have been taken to task for using the word "unlimited" on their marketing material when the service they offer is nothing of the kind. And I believe AT&amp;T is still using it. I'm normally against regulation, but I really hope the FCC will eventually implement a rule enforcing truth in advertising when it comes to broadband providers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the problem .
They are ok with you using your speed .
They are n't ok with you using it all the time to the max I was going to use a car analogy , but I 'll just say this : If I buy an Internet connection , I expect to be able to use it however I wish , within the bounds of the law .
If there are additional restrictions on top of that , those need to be communicated before the sale or its false advertising .
Otherwise , there 's no way to tell exactly what kid of service you 're actually getting .
Under current broadband provider marketing practices , they could advertise a 200mbit connection for $ 10 a month but then not reveal until after the customer has the service that you can actually only get 200mb speed for 5 seconds at 4 : 03 AM on weekday nights .
It 's technically 200mb service , but like you said , you just ca n't use it all the time to the max.None of the marketing pages that TFA linked to even mention the existence of a bandwidth cap ( even in the fine print ) , yet all of those companies are known to have caps .
AT&amp;T and Comcast have been taken to task for using the word " unlimited " on their marketing material when the service they offer is nothing of the kind .
And I believe AT&amp;T is still using it .
I 'm normally against regulation , but I really hope the FCC will eventually implement a rule enforcing truth in advertising when it comes to broadband providers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the problem.
They are ok with you using your speed.
They aren't ok with you using it all the time to the max I was going to use a car analogy, but I'll just say this: If I buy an Internet connection, I expect to be able to use it however I wish, within the bounds of the law.
If there are additional restrictions on top of that, those need to be communicated before the sale or its false advertising.
Otherwise, there's no way to tell exactly what kid of service you're actually getting.
Under current broadband provider marketing practices, they could advertise a 200mbit connection for $10 a month but then not reveal until after the customer has the service that you can actually only get 200mb speed for 5 seconds at 4:03 AM on weekday nights.
It's technically 200mb service, but like you said, you just can't use it all the time to the max.None of the marketing pages that TFA linked to even mention the existence of a bandwidth cap (even in the fine print), yet all of those companies are known to have caps.
AT&amp;T and Comcast have been taken to task for using the word "unlimited" on their marketing material when the service they offer is nothing of the kind.
And I believe AT&amp;T is still using it.
I'm normally against regulation, but I really hope the FCC will eventually implement a rule enforcing truth in advertising when it comes to broadband providers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548600</id>
	<title>Not just broadband</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261667760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The best buy add i recieved last weekend had a chart in it showing that a core i-7 was necessary to use social networking sites.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The best buy add i recieved last weekend had a chart in it showing that a core i-7 was necessary to use social networking sites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The best buy add i recieved last weekend had a chart in it showing that a core i-7 was necessary to use social networking sites.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547474</id>
	<title>Re:I love some of their plans</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261654140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would you like an EXTRA big ass fries!?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would you like an EXTRA big ass fries !
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would you like an EXTRA big ass fries!
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30550362</id>
	<title>Re:No difference in cars</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261746180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/., so we need some car comparisons...</p><p>My gf claims she <i>needs</i> a 250hp (at the rear wheel) V6 in her commuter car so she can "get on the highway easier." She compared 0-60 times for Honda Accords and Toyota Camrys.</p></div><p>What in the name of God are the Americans doing with their cars that they need a 250hp V6 for decent acceleration?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is /. , so we need some car comparisons...My gf claims she needs a 250hp ( at the rear wheel ) V6 in her commuter car so she can " get on the highway easier .
" She compared 0-60 times for Honda Accords and Toyota Camrys.What in the name of God are the Americans doing with their cars that they need a 250hp V6 for decent acceleration ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is /., so we need some car comparisons...My gf claims she needs a 250hp (at the rear wheel) V6 in her commuter car so she can "get on the highway easier.
" She compared 0-60 times for Honda Accords and Toyota Camrys.What in the name of God are the Americans doing with their cars that they need a 250hp V6 for decent acceleration?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548262</id>
	<title>oh right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261662060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>are they like misleading headlines on slashdot?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>are they like misleading headlines on slashdot ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>are they like misleading headlines on slashdot?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30551234</id>
	<title>Re:I love some of their plans</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1261761780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed.  I'd definitely stay away from anything labeled "turbo" where I can't figure out what part is spinning.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed .
I 'd definitely stay away from anything labeled " turbo " where I ca n't figure out what part is spinning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed.
I'd definitely stay away from anything labeled "turbo" where I can't figure out what part is spinning.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548084</id>
	<title>Re:I love some of their plans</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261659660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sign-ups seem slow...</p></div><p>But isn't that a good thing?  You can have like, 800 million megabit speeds and no limits!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sign-ups seem slow...But is n't that a good thing ?
You can have like , 800 million megabit speeds and no limits !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sign-ups seem slow...But isn't that a good thing?
You can have like, 800 million megabit speeds and no limits!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547756</id>
	<title>QWEST where 3 = 2.66</title>
	<author>mtm\_king</author>
	<datestamp>1261656420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>QWEST sells a 3 mbps (the fastest I can get to my house) naked for $60/month.
<p>
Except it is not 3 mbps, it is 2.66.  QWEST says "Well, we mean up to 3 mbps."  But it is never up to 3 mbps.  It is always at 2.66.  But that is OK with QWEST because they call it good if it is within 80\% of 3 mbps.
</p><p>
Also I learned that the reason I am not seeing 3 mbps is because of "overhead".
</p><p>
I hated to do it but I switched to cable.  I am paying for 5 and it is always above 5.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>QWEST sells a 3 mbps ( the fastest I can get to my house ) naked for $ 60/month .
Except it is not 3 mbps , it is 2.66 .
QWEST says " Well , we mean up to 3 mbps .
" But it is never up to 3 mbps .
It is always at 2.66 .
But that is OK with QWEST because they call it good if it is within 80 \ % of 3 mbps .
Also I learned that the reason I am not seeing 3 mbps is because of " overhead " .
I hated to do it but I switched to cable .
I am paying for 5 and it is always above 5 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>QWEST sells a 3 mbps (the fastest I can get to my house) naked for $60/month.
Except it is not 3 mbps, it is 2.66.
QWEST says "Well, we mean up to 3 mbps.
"  But it is never up to 3 mbps.
It is always at 2.66.
But that is OK with QWEST because they call it good if it is within 80\% of 3 mbps.
Also I learned that the reason I am not seeing 3 mbps is because of "overhead".
I hated to do it but I switched to cable.
I am paying for 5 and it is always above 5.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547784</id>
	<title>Re:I love some of their plans</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261656600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Max.  It's just a name, like Bob.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Max .
It 's just a name , like Bob .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Max.
It's just a name, like Bob.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548128</id>
	<title>Re:Facebook bloat</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261660320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Http://lite.Facebook.com</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Http : //lite.Facebook.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Http://lite.Facebook.com</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547574</id>
	<title>Verizon</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261654920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know this isn't broadband, but I love that Verizon (Wireless) wants to charge $3/month just for visual voicemail. Chiselers!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know this is n't broadband , but I love that Verizon ( Wireless ) wants to charge $ 3/month just for visual voicemail .
Chiselers !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know this isn't broadband, but I love that Verizon (Wireless) wants to charge $3/month just for visual voicemail.
Chiselers!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547588</id>
	<title>Re:I love some of their plans</title>
	<author>Thelasko</author>
	<datestamp>1261654980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Do these people even know what the word "maximum" means?</p></div><p> <a href="http://xkcd.com/670/" title="xkcd.com">They're smart engineers.</a> [xkcd.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do these people even know what the word " maximum " means ?
They 're smart engineers .
[ xkcd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do these people even know what the word "maximum" means?
They're smart engineers.
[xkcd.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547956</id>
	<title>No, they just don't want it used all the time</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1261658340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a difference. It turns out that one of the great things about packet switched links is as you get more and more people, you can share bandwidth further. What I mean is that if I as a single person want a fast link, say 10mbps, I have to get a 10mbps link. However, turns out that I can have another person (my roommate) on that link and it'll still be about equally fast for both of us. We don't use it all the time, and as such 10mbps is just about as fast for two as it is for one. We don't need 20mbps just because there's another person.</p><p>This holds true as you go up the chain. This also allows for ISPs to sell access to consumers for cheaper than what it costs them. An OC-3 (155mbps) to a Tier-1 provider can run you $30,000/month or more. By the numbers that means that a 10mbps connection from that would cost about $2,000/month. However, if you oversubscribe it, sell more bandwidth than you have, you can lower the cost. Turns out this works well, since it is still fast for everyone. People get cheap connections for a low cost.</p><p>Ok well the problem is this all breaks down if people try to use their connection full blast 24/7. Because they are using it all the time, it saps bandwidth from others. The sharing only works on the assumption that everyone doesn't use it full blast all the time. The load is sporadic.</p><p>In the case of the OC-3, suppose you sell 10mb connections at $50/month, and you make $10/month profit on each. That means you need 600 subscribers. However, if they all tried to use their connections full blast, they'd only get about 260kbps each. For customers to maintain fast access, usage needs to be sporadic, which it normally will be.</p><p>That's the problem. They are ok with you using your speed. They aren't ok with you using it all the time to the max (which people who go nuts on torrents do). If you want that, you have to pay more (business accounts usually offer that, mine does). You can expect extremely cheap access that is also very fast.</p><p>You find this even in company LAN/WANs. We have gigabit ethernet at work. Gig right to your desktop. It's nice. However, it is only that fast if people use it as needed and don't run their connections full blast all the time. Reason is our switches only have gig uplinks. So there'll be anywhere form 1-24 computers with gig links that have gig back to the floor switches. Those switches also have gig links. So you then have 48 rooms that all have gig back to the building switch. That then has a gig link back to the core, so the whole building, all 700 computers or so, only has 1gb back to the core. As such if everyone tried to use their full 1gig all the time across the core, it'd go rather slow for everyone. That doesn't happen though. People get what they need and then their usage falls idle, making it fast for everyone despite the oversubscription.</p><p>It's also the only way to do it. There is no way we could afford the network equipment to give everyone dedicated gig bandwidth. It would take room switches from little $100-200 gig jobs to $3000+ switches that have 1-2 10gb uplinks. Floor switches wouldn't be $3000 gig pizza box Ciscos, they'd be $100,000 modular blade routers loaded with 10gb cards and OC-768 uplinks. The core switches would probably have to be CRS-1s.</p><p>The Internet as we enjoy it, where we can get cheap access that is reasonably fast, relies on the idea of sharing bandwidth. That means we all can't use all our bandwidth all the time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a difference .
It turns out that one of the great things about packet switched links is as you get more and more people , you can share bandwidth further .
What I mean is that if I as a single person want a fast link , say 10mbps , I have to get a 10mbps link .
However , turns out that I can have another person ( my roommate ) on that link and it 'll still be about equally fast for both of us .
We do n't use it all the time , and as such 10mbps is just about as fast for two as it is for one .
We do n't need 20mbps just because there 's another person.This holds true as you go up the chain .
This also allows for ISPs to sell access to consumers for cheaper than what it costs them .
An OC-3 ( 155mbps ) to a Tier-1 provider can run you $ 30,000/month or more .
By the numbers that means that a 10mbps connection from that would cost about $ 2,000/month .
However , if you oversubscribe it , sell more bandwidth than you have , you can lower the cost .
Turns out this works well , since it is still fast for everyone .
People get cheap connections for a low cost.Ok well the problem is this all breaks down if people try to use their connection full blast 24/7 .
Because they are using it all the time , it saps bandwidth from others .
The sharing only works on the assumption that everyone does n't use it full blast all the time .
The load is sporadic.In the case of the OC-3 , suppose you sell 10mb connections at $ 50/month , and you make $ 10/month profit on each .
That means you need 600 subscribers .
However , if they all tried to use their connections full blast , they 'd only get about 260kbps each .
For customers to maintain fast access , usage needs to be sporadic , which it normally will be.That 's the problem .
They are ok with you using your speed .
They are n't ok with you using it all the time to the max ( which people who go nuts on torrents do ) .
If you want that , you have to pay more ( business accounts usually offer that , mine does ) .
You can expect extremely cheap access that is also very fast.You find this even in company LAN/WANs .
We have gigabit ethernet at work .
Gig right to your desktop .
It 's nice .
However , it is only that fast if people use it as needed and do n't run their connections full blast all the time .
Reason is our switches only have gig uplinks .
So there 'll be anywhere form 1-24 computers with gig links that have gig back to the floor switches .
Those switches also have gig links .
So you then have 48 rooms that all have gig back to the building switch .
That then has a gig link back to the core , so the whole building , all 700 computers or so , only has 1gb back to the core .
As such if everyone tried to use their full 1gig all the time across the core , it 'd go rather slow for everyone .
That does n't happen though .
People get what they need and then their usage falls idle , making it fast for everyone despite the oversubscription.It 's also the only way to do it .
There is no way we could afford the network equipment to give everyone dedicated gig bandwidth .
It would take room switches from little $ 100-200 gig jobs to $ 3000 + switches that have 1-2 10gb uplinks .
Floor switches would n't be $ 3000 gig pizza box Ciscos , they 'd be $ 100,000 modular blade routers loaded with 10gb cards and OC-768 uplinks .
The core switches would probably have to be CRS-1s.The Internet as we enjoy it , where we can get cheap access that is reasonably fast , relies on the idea of sharing bandwidth .
That means we all ca n't use all our bandwidth all the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a difference.
It turns out that one of the great things about packet switched links is as you get more and more people, you can share bandwidth further.
What I mean is that if I as a single person want a fast link, say 10mbps, I have to get a 10mbps link.
However, turns out that I can have another person (my roommate) on that link and it'll still be about equally fast for both of us.
We don't use it all the time, and as such 10mbps is just about as fast for two as it is for one.
We don't need 20mbps just because there's another person.This holds true as you go up the chain.
This also allows for ISPs to sell access to consumers for cheaper than what it costs them.
An OC-3 (155mbps) to a Tier-1 provider can run you $30,000/month or more.
By the numbers that means that a 10mbps connection from that would cost about $2,000/month.
However, if you oversubscribe it, sell more bandwidth than you have, you can lower the cost.
Turns out this works well, since it is still fast for everyone.
People get cheap connections for a low cost.Ok well the problem is this all breaks down if people try to use their connection full blast 24/7.
Because they are using it all the time, it saps bandwidth from others.
The sharing only works on the assumption that everyone doesn't use it full blast all the time.
The load is sporadic.In the case of the OC-3, suppose you sell 10mb connections at $50/month, and you make $10/month profit on each.
That means you need 600 subscribers.
However, if they all tried to use their connections full blast, they'd only get about 260kbps each.
For customers to maintain fast access, usage needs to be sporadic, which it normally will be.That's the problem.
They are ok with you using your speed.
They aren't ok with you using it all the time to the max (which people who go nuts on torrents do).
If you want that, you have to pay more (business accounts usually offer that, mine does).
You can expect extremely cheap access that is also very fast.You find this even in company LAN/WANs.
We have gigabit ethernet at work.
Gig right to your desktop.
It's nice.
However, it is only that fast if people use it as needed and don't run their connections full blast all the time.
Reason is our switches only have gig uplinks.
So there'll be anywhere form 1-24 computers with gig links that have gig back to the floor switches.
Those switches also have gig links.
So you then have 48 rooms that all have gig back to the building switch.
That then has a gig link back to the core, so the whole building, all 700 computers or so, only has 1gb back to the core.
As such if everyone tried to use their full 1gig all the time across the core, it'd go rather slow for everyone.
That doesn't happen though.
People get what they need and then their usage falls idle, making it fast for everyone despite the oversubscription.It's also the only way to do it.
There is no way we could afford the network equipment to give everyone dedicated gig bandwidth.
It would take room switches from little $100-200 gig jobs to $3000+ switches that have 1-2 10gb uplinks.
Floor switches wouldn't be $3000 gig pizza box Ciscos, they'd be $100,000 modular blade routers loaded with 10gb cards and OC-768 uplinks.
The core switches would probably have to be CRS-1s.The Internet as we enjoy it, where we can get cheap access that is reasonably fast, relies on the idea of sharing bandwidth.
That means we all can't use all our bandwidth all the time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548318</id>
	<title>Advertised speed</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1261662780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're confusing advertised speed with actual speed (which are two very different things.) What they're telling you you can do with each of those plans gives you a better idea of what their actual speed capabilities are on those plans.</p><p>But don't make them give you any sort of actual figures. They'd never be able to compete if they did that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're confusing advertised speed with actual speed ( which are two very different things .
) What they 're telling you you can do with each of those plans gives you a better idea of what their actual speed capabilities are on those plans.But do n't make them give you any sort of actual figures .
They 'd never be able to compete if they did that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're confusing advertised speed with actual speed (which are two very different things.
) What they're telling you you can do with each of those plans gives you a better idea of what their actual speed capabilities are on those plans.But don't make them give you any sort of actual figures.
They'd never be able to compete if they did that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30550290</id>
	<title>The ultimate is still "Unlimited"</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1261744740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now that the mobile internet is with us, I know that "unlimited" can mean as little as 100MB.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now that the mobile internet is with us , I know that " unlimited " can mean as little as 100MB .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now that the mobile internet is with us, I know that "unlimited" can mean as little as 100MB.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548258</id>
	<title>Re:What hacks me off.</title>
	<author>dingen</author>
	<datestamp>1261662000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>5mb would do most American's just fine.</p></div><p>Of course not. You never have enough bandwith. The biggest restricting factor in online services is a lack of bandwith. The Internet could be so much more awesome if only people had more bandwidth.</p><p>And besides, DSL is perfectly capable of doing 20 Mbit, so you shouldn't accept lower speeds than that. And even 20 Mbit is pretty low on the scale, since the cable companies (using DOCSIS 3) are already pushing 200 and 400 Mbit downstream speeds, not to mention the fact that glassfiber to the home is around the corner.</p><p>I'm really amazed people are accepting ridicously small bandwiths of 10 Mbit or less and even suggest it's "enough".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>5mb would do most American 's just fine.Of course not .
You never have enough bandwith .
The biggest restricting factor in online services is a lack of bandwith .
The Internet could be so much more awesome if only people had more bandwidth.And besides , DSL is perfectly capable of doing 20 Mbit , so you should n't accept lower speeds than that .
And even 20 Mbit is pretty low on the scale , since the cable companies ( using DOCSIS 3 ) are already pushing 200 and 400 Mbit downstream speeds , not to mention the fact that glassfiber to the home is around the corner.I 'm really amazed people are accepting ridicously small bandwiths of 10 Mbit or less and even suggest it 's " enough " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>5mb would do most American's just fine.Of course not.
You never have enough bandwith.
The biggest restricting factor in online services is a lack of bandwith.
The Internet could be so much more awesome if only people had more bandwidth.And besides, DSL is perfectly capable of doing 20 Mbit, so you shouldn't accept lower speeds than that.
And even 20 Mbit is pretty low on the scale, since the cable companies (using DOCSIS 3) are already pushing 200 and 400 Mbit downstream speeds, not to mention the fact that glassfiber to the home is around the corner.I'm really amazed people are accepting ridicously small bandwiths of 10 Mbit or less and even suggest it's "enough".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548668</id>
	<title>Re:No kidding!</title>
	<author>MobileTatsu-NJG</author>
	<datestamp>1261669020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Right on, bruddah! You can't browse facebook with less than 10mbps. Any slower and it'll take forever for the four videos, two slideshows, background music, and flash animation to load. What were they thinking?!?</p></div><p>They're thinking:  "How come we'z gettin so many emails calling us idiots for confusing MySpace and Facebook?"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Right on , bruddah !
You ca n't browse facebook with less than 10mbps .
Any slower and it 'll take forever for the four videos , two slideshows , background music , and flash animation to load .
What were they thinking ? !
? They 're thinking : " How come we'z gettin so many emails calling us idiots for confusing MySpace and Facebook ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right on, bruddah!
You can't browse facebook with less than 10mbps.
Any slower and it'll take forever for the four videos, two slideshows, background music, and flash animation to load.
What were they thinking?!
?They're thinking:  "How come we'z gettin so many emails calling us idiots for confusing MySpace and Facebook?
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547450</id>
	<title>You read that wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261653900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You need to have at least 3mbps to <b>host</b> a social networking site like Facebook.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You need to have at least 3mbps to host a social networking site like Facebook .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You need to have at least 3mbps to host a social networking site like Facebook.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548234</id>
	<title>Re:No difference in cars</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261661580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The overall effect is hardly bad, from the consumer's point of view.  My 1977 Ferrari 308GTB gets regularly blown into the weeds by those 250 HP Honda Accords.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The overall effect is hardly bad , from the consumer 's point of view .
My 1977 Ferrari 308GTB gets regularly blown into the weeds by those 250 HP Honda Accords .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The overall effect is hardly bad, from the consumer's point of view.
My 1977 Ferrari 308GTB gets regularly blown into the weeds by those 250 HP Honda Accords.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30552466</id>
	<title>Re:No difference in cars</title>
	<author>Rising Ape</author>
	<datestamp>1261734300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>What in the name of God are the Americans doing with their cars that they need a 250hp V6 for decent acceleration?</i></p><p>Automatic transmissions? While they're all very convenient, they do change up too quickly, so sometimes you don't have the power there when you want it. I used to have a 1995 Ford Mondeo with a 115 bhp 1.8 litre engine, and it easily felt powerful enough for general driving, but then it was a manual and I could leave it in a low gear if necessary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What in the name of God are the Americans doing with their cars that they need a 250hp V6 for decent acceleration ? Automatic transmissions ?
While they 're all very convenient , they do change up too quickly , so sometimes you do n't have the power there when you want it .
I used to have a 1995 Ford Mondeo with a 115 bhp 1.8 litre engine , and it easily felt powerful enough for general driving , but then it was a manual and I could leave it in a low gear if necessary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What in the name of God are the Americans doing with their cars that they need a 250hp V6 for decent acceleration?Automatic transmissions?
While they're all very convenient, they do change up too quickly, so sometimes you don't have the power there when you want it.
I used to have a 1995 Ford Mondeo with a 115 bhp 1.8 litre engine, and it easily felt powerful enough for general driving, but then it was a manual and I could leave it in a low gear if necessary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30550362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548988</id>
	<title>QWest "Fiber Optic"</title>
	<author>grenthar</author>
	<datestamp>1261674300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sure that stuff is pretty sleazy, but it doesn't really compare to the stuff QWest has been spamming all over my city. They are advertising their new "fiber optic" service. One would assume based on the ads that they will actually provide you with fiber service. A little investigation (not on their website of course) reveals the truth. It's just regular DSL, they ran some more fiber lines to their exchanges. Qwest may as well just call all their internet services "fiber optic" since your traffic is probably flowing through a fiber network somewhere along the way....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure that stuff is pretty sleazy , but it does n't really compare to the stuff QWest has been spamming all over my city .
They are advertising their new " fiber optic " service .
One would assume based on the ads that they will actually provide you with fiber service .
A little investigation ( not on their website of course ) reveals the truth .
It 's just regular DSL , they ran some more fiber lines to their exchanges .
Qwest may as well just call all their internet services " fiber optic " since your traffic is probably flowing through a fiber network somewhere along the way... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure that stuff is pretty sleazy, but it doesn't really compare to the stuff QWest has been spamming all over my city.
They are advertising their new "fiber optic" service.
One would assume based on the ads that they will actually provide you with fiber service.
A little investigation (not on their website of course) reveals the truth.
It's just regular DSL, they ran some more fiber lines to their exchanges.
Qwest may as well just call all their internet services "fiber optic" since your traffic is probably flowing through a fiber network somewhere along the way....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30549660</id>
	<title>Re:0\_0</title>
	<author>badran</author>
	<datestamp>1261772460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would think that they just put the higher paying customers on a better QoS plan.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would think that they just put the higher paying customers on a better QoS plan .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would think that they just put the higher paying customers on a better QoS plan.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547792</id>
	<title>What do they recommended for windows / ms update?</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1261656720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What do they recommended for windows / ms update?</p><p>At lest windows updates are not as bad as mac os x that are at the 800meg+ level.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What do they recommended for windows / ms update ? At lest windows updates are not as bad as mac os x that are at the 800meg + level .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do they recommended for windows / ms update?At lest windows updates are not as bad as mac os x that are at the 800meg+ level.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30549320</id>
	<title>The better question</title>
	<author>BCW2</author>
	<datestamp>1261678860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Has anyone seen an ad from a broadband provider that wasn't misleading?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Has anyone seen an ad from a broadband provider that was n't misleading ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has anyone seen an ad from a broadband provider that wasn't misleading?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548382</id>
	<title>Re:No, they just don't want it used all the time</title>
	<author>Man On Pink Corner</author>
	<datestamp>1261663800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The Internet as we enjoy it, where we can get cheap access that is reasonably fast, relies on the idea of sharing bandwidth. That means we all can't use all our bandwidth all the time.</i></p><p>True, and another way to put this is that using a packet-switched system as if it were a circuit-switched system is never, ever going to be a good idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Internet as we enjoy it , where we can get cheap access that is reasonably fast , relies on the idea of sharing bandwidth .
That means we all ca n't use all our bandwidth all the time.True , and another way to put this is that using a packet-switched system as if it were a circuit-switched system is never , ever going to be a good idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Internet as we enjoy it, where we can get cheap access that is reasonably fast, relies on the idea of sharing bandwidth.
That means we all can't use all our bandwidth all the time.True, and another way to put this is that using a packet-switched system as if it were a circuit-switched system is never, ever going to be a good idea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30550286</id>
	<title>Re:I love some of their plans</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1261744620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't you mean the Gillette Omega Fusion Power Stealth Extreme Plus 5000 with Active Blade Technology?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't you mean the Gillette Omega Fusion Power Stealth Extreme Plus 5000 with Active Blade Technology ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't you mean the Gillette Omega Fusion Power Stealth Extreme Plus 5000 with Active Blade Technology?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548400</id>
	<title>How about that maximum thing?</title>
	<author>elgee</author>
	<datestamp>1261663980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You do need a bit of speed for sniping on ebay auctions.</p><p>But how about that maximum thing when buying pills to "extend your tool?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do need a bit of speed for sniping on ebay auctions.But how about that maximum thing when buying pills to " extend your tool ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do need a bit of speed for sniping on ebay auctions.But how about that maximum thing when buying pills to "extend your tool?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30550506</id>
	<title>750kbps</title>
	<author>geekymachoman</author>
	<datestamp>1261749480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've got 750 kbps, and everything works just fine. Facebook loads quickly (matter of seconds), youtube isn't buffering (except maybe when watching HD), 700mb movie downloads in 3 hrs.</p><p>Where's the rush ?</p><p>IMHO.. you don't need more then 3mbps today. And that 3mbps, to download a movie, and to watch youtube simult.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've got 750 kbps , and everything works just fine .
Facebook loads quickly ( matter of seconds ) , youtube is n't buffering ( except maybe when watching HD ) , 700mb movie downloads in 3 hrs.Where 's the rush ? IMHO.. you do n't need more then 3mbps today .
And that 3mbps , to download a movie , and to watch youtube simult .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've got 750 kbps, and everything works just fine.
Facebook loads quickly (matter of seconds), youtube isn't buffering (except maybe when watching HD), 700mb movie downloads in 3 hrs.Where's the rush ?IMHO.. you don't need more then 3mbps today.
And that 3mbps, to download a movie, and to watch youtube simult.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30549132</id>
	<title>Re:need more speed!</title>
	<author>spartacus\_prime</author>
	<datestamp>1261675980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>How nice of your connection to hit the submit button for you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How nice of your connection to hit the submit button for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How nice of your connection to hit the submit button for you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30550450</id>
	<title>Re:12 mpbs for online games!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261748220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thats because the new thing is that game companies can no longer be bothered with game servers.<br>Today the player servers the game.<br>Just look at xbox. You need 12 megabit to serve those xbox 360 games properly</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thats because the new thing is that game companies can no longer be bothered with game servers.Today the player servers the game.Just look at xbox .
You need 12 megabit to serve those xbox 360 games properly</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thats because the new thing is that game companies can no longer be bothered with game servers.Today the player servers the game.Just look at xbox.
You need 12 megabit to serve those xbox 360 games properly</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547572</id>
	<title>No kidding!</title>
	<author>jtownatpunk.net</author>
	<datestamp>1261654920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right on, bruddah!  You can't browse facebook with less than 10mbps.  Any slower and it'll take forever for the four videos, two slideshows, background music, and flash animation to load.  What were they thinking?!?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right on , bruddah !
You ca n't browse facebook with less than 10mbps .
Any slower and it 'll take forever for the four videos , two slideshows , background music , and flash animation to load .
What were they thinking ? !
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right on, bruddah!
You can't browse facebook with less than 10mbps.
Any slower and it'll take forever for the four videos, two slideshows, background music, and flash animation to load.
What were they thinking?!
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547932</id>
	<title>Re:I love some of their plans</title>
	<author>Beardo the Bearded</author>
	<datestamp>1261658100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait for the Gillette Fusion Power Stealth Extreme Plus 3000.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait for the Gillette Fusion Power Stealth Extreme Plus 3000 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait for the Gillette Fusion Power Stealth Extreme Plus 3000.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548004</id>
	<title>Re:I love some of their plans</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1261658880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>- Forced Induction (Blown)</p></div><p>Might want to skip that one, they all blow.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>- Forced Induction ( Blown ) Might want to skip that one , they all blow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>- Forced Induction (Blown)Might want to skip that one, they all blow.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547586</id>
	<title>pice you pay for a connected world...</title>
	<author>cheap.computer</author>
	<datestamp>1261654980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have Time Warner Cable, with Turbo. I use internet extensively, online streaming like pandora, netflix, youtube, and skype. Not only do I have to pay Time Warner for the internet connection I also have to pay for all the services like netflix &amp; skype (out). In the US we are still in stone age compared to 3rd world countries like Korea when it comes to bandwidth. We supposedly have the best technology &amp; brain power, but we are still short when it comes to servicing 200 mil people with cheap and fast internet. Will breaking cable monopoly help? or it the problem deeper than that? I pay roughly $600 a year for internet a utility that I use for average 8hrs a day. That is pretty steep compared to electricity which I use 24hrs a day, I never have any voltage fluctuations or power outs. But with internet I experience drop in BW or even outage for long periods of time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have Time Warner Cable , with Turbo .
I use internet extensively , online streaming like pandora , netflix , youtube , and skype .
Not only do I have to pay Time Warner for the internet connection I also have to pay for all the services like netflix &amp; skype ( out ) .
In the US we are still in stone age compared to 3rd world countries like Korea when it comes to bandwidth .
We supposedly have the best technology &amp; brain power , but we are still short when it comes to servicing 200 mil people with cheap and fast internet .
Will breaking cable monopoly help ?
or it the problem deeper than that ?
I pay roughly $ 600 a year for internet a utility that I use for average 8hrs a day .
That is pretty steep compared to electricity which I use 24hrs a day , I never have any voltage fluctuations or power outs .
But with internet I experience drop in BW or even outage for long periods of time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have Time Warner Cable, with Turbo.
I use internet extensively, online streaming like pandora, netflix, youtube, and skype.
Not only do I have to pay Time Warner for the internet connection I also have to pay for all the services like netflix &amp; skype (out).
In the US we are still in stone age compared to 3rd world countries like Korea when it comes to bandwidth.
We supposedly have the best technology &amp; brain power, but we are still short when it comes to servicing 200 mil people with cheap and fast internet.
Will breaking cable monopoly help?
or it the problem deeper than that?
I pay roughly $600 a year for internet a utility that I use for average 8hrs a day.
That is pretty steep compared to electricity which I use 24hrs a day, I never have any voltage fluctuations or power outs.
But with internet I experience drop in BW or even outage for long periods of time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30561316</id>
	<title>Re:12 mpbs for online games!!!</title>
	<author>Dexter Herbivore</author>
	<datestamp>1261945080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Try moving to Australia and playing on US servers for just about any game. Most of my recent experience in online gaming is WoW, and on a 2Mb connection I get between 500-600ms latency. There are VPN services such as WoWTunnels which get our latency down to a blistering 200-300ms for only a small monthly fee on top of our ISP charges!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Try moving to Australia and playing on US servers for just about any game .
Most of my recent experience in online gaming is WoW , and on a 2Mb connection I get between 500-600ms latency .
There are VPN services such as WoWTunnels which get our latency down to a blistering 200-300ms for only a small monthly fee on top of our ISP charges !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try moving to Australia and playing on US servers for just about any game.
Most of my recent experience in online gaming is WoW, and on a 2Mb connection I get between 500-600ms latency.
There are VPN services such as WoWTunnels which get our latency down to a blistering 200-300ms for only a small monthly fee on top of our ISP charges!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30549204</id>
	<title>Re:Totally misleading</title>
	<author>darkgray</author>
	<datestamp>1261677000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sharing photos means uploading them, no? I'd assume the 7Mbit connections are asynchronous, so it's not a stretch to recommend a ~500kbit upload connection if you intend to send your ageing mother a bunch of straight-off-the-camera photo files at 3MB each.</p><p>I don't think it's false advertising. As the GP says, it's all "good for" and "ideal for", which is true.</p><p>Not entirely sure what these super turbo maximum deluxe packages do, but I believe the idea behind snatching auction deals is to have extremely low latency and fast download to be able to reload a closing auction as quickly as possible in order to get in the winning bid.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sharing photos means uploading them , no ?
I 'd assume the 7Mbit connections are asynchronous , so it 's not a stretch to recommend a ~ 500kbit upload connection if you intend to send your ageing mother a bunch of straight-off-the-camera photo files at 3MB each.I do n't think it 's false advertising .
As the GP says , it 's all " good for " and " ideal for " , which is true.Not entirely sure what these super turbo maximum deluxe packages do , but I believe the idea behind snatching auction deals is to have extremely low latency and fast download to be able to reload a closing auction as quickly as possible in order to get in the winning bid .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sharing photos means uploading them, no?
I'd assume the 7Mbit connections are asynchronous, so it's not a stretch to recommend a ~500kbit upload connection if you intend to send your ageing mother a bunch of straight-off-the-camera photo files at 3MB each.I don't think it's false advertising.
As the GP says, it's all "good for" and "ideal for", which is true.Not entirely sure what these super turbo maximum deluxe packages do, but I believe the idea behind snatching auction deals is to have extremely low latency and fast download to be able to reload a closing auction as quickly as possible in order to get in the winning bid.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547422</id>
	<title>need more speed!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261653780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apparently I need a faster connection to use sla</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently I need a faster connection to use sla</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently I need a faster connection to use sla</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30553038</id>
	<title>Re:Poor metric.</title>
	<author>burroughsj1</author>
	<datestamp>1261742340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your power runs 110Hz.  <br> Hz != V... Pretty sure you're off by 50ish there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your power runs 110Hz .
Hz ! = V... Pretty sure you 're off by 50ish there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your power runs 110Hz.
Hz != V... Pretty sure you're off by 50ish there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30551190</id>
	<title>Re:No difference in cars</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1261761300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If your GF lived near me, she might.  I've got a highway that has a stop sign on the <em>end</em> of the on-ramp with nice pleasant obscuring bushes in the direction of oncoming traffic.  If you can manage to spot a gap in the quarter second stretch of road you can actually see, you need to match speeds with traffic extremely quickly.</p><p>Normally I'd say you're right, but in NE, you need that stuff because we can't be bothered to plan or take care of our roads properly.</p><p>Also, it's not the same with CPUs.  In that area, the best choice likely is one of the latest models.  Even if it is way too fast for what you really need it for, the cost of manufacturing of a lesser chip is the same or even sometimes more, and speed stepping means that the faster chip is probably more power efficient for the low-power thing you actually need it for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If your GF lived near me , she might .
I 've got a highway that has a stop sign on the end of the on-ramp with nice pleasant obscuring bushes in the direction of oncoming traffic .
If you can manage to spot a gap in the quarter second stretch of road you can actually see , you need to match speeds with traffic extremely quickly.Normally I 'd say you 're right , but in NE , you need that stuff because we ca n't be bothered to plan or take care of our roads properly.Also , it 's not the same with CPUs .
In that area , the best choice likely is one of the latest models .
Even if it is way too fast for what you really need it for , the cost of manufacturing of a lesser chip is the same or even sometimes more , and speed stepping means that the faster chip is probably more power efficient for the low-power thing you actually need it for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If your GF lived near me, she might.
I've got a highway that has a stop sign on the end of the on-ramp with nice pleasant obscuring bushes in the direction of oncoming traffic.
If you can manage to spot a gap in the quarter second stretch of road you can actually see, you need to match speeds with traffic extremely quickly.Normally I'd say you're right, but in NE, you need that stuff because we can't be bothered to plan or take care of our roads properly.Also, it's not the same with CPUs.
In that area, the best choice likely is one of the latest models.
Even if it is way too fast for what you really need it for, the cost of manufacturing of a lesser chip is the same or even sometimes more, and speed stepping means that the faster chip is probably more power efficient for the low-power thing you actually need it for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30550310</id>
	<title>Re:Facebook bloat</title>
	<author>Wovel</author>
	<datestamp>1261745160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Despite all the jokes and people with anecdotal 56k stories....Lots of people post video on Facebook now, AT&amp;T is right and the author is a Luddite.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Despite all the jokes and people with anecdotal 56k stories....Lots of people post video on Facebook now , AT&amp;T is right and the author is a Luddite.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Despite all the jokes and people with anecdotal 56k stories....Lots of people post video on Facebook now, AT&amp;T is right and the author is a Luddite.....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547720</id>
	<title>Re:12 mpbs for online games!!!</title>
	<author>Joce640k</author>
	<datestamp>1261656000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For most people "Email" means logging in and downloading a bunch of humorous and/or motivatinal PPS files so they're not too far off the mark when they say 3mbps minimum.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For most people " Email " means logging in and downloading a bunch of humorous and/or motivatinal PPS files so they 're not too far off the mark when they say 3mbps minimum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For most people "Email" means logging in and downloading a bunch of humorous and/or motivatinal PPS files so they're not too far off the mark when they say 3mbps minimum.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30549834</id>
	<title>Re:What hacks me off.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261733340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll skip the "640k is enough for most" comparison.</p><p>Right now, and I'm coming from a US perspective, bandwidth is one of the biggest things stunting growth of Internet services.  Here in the States, if lucky, the consumer has a choice between cable or DSL.  Clear is slowly but surely getting their wireless network out there that goes up to 10mbits (IIRC, YMMV.)  However, bandwidth is stagnant, and instead of the mbps increasing, fees are going up.</p><p>Picture what one could do if Internet subscribers could get even relatively slow LAN speeds (100mbits) on broadband connections.  Of course, movies and such would be just one improvement, but that is just one single thing.  Backend cloud networks for offsite backups become more feasible for businesses.  Offsite backup providers could offer bare metal restore functionality where hosts can be restored or reimaged via a PXE-like boot process with no boot media necessary.  People could use wireless CCTV cameras that would save their video feed in very high detail (1024p+) to an offsite security company.  Bands could always keep their mics hot when in the studio and record every second just in case someone gets that perfect riff.  People who mix could grab the latest tracks and start the equalization process seconds after the band members finish a take.  Fans of the band could buy a final mix of a song streamed directly to their MP3 players minutes after the final mix is complete.</p><p>There would be a revolution of new Internet devices with WAN speeds of 75+ mbps.  Joe Sixpack could have his widescreen TV be able to pull up last week's game of his high school without requiring a DVR.  A service like Spotify could sell high fidelity (CD quality or better) streaming audio devices that have access to an immense catalog, so the capacity of their iPod wouldn't matter, just select what songs to play and play them.</p><p>With faster bandwidth speeds, there would be services created that are not thought of now, just like how HD video streaming wasn't thought of in the days where 40k on a US Robotics HST modem was the tops you were going to get.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll skip the " 640k is enough for most " comparison.Right now , and I 'm coming from a US perspective , bandwidth is one of the biggest things stunting growth of Internet services .
Here in the States , if lucky , the consumer has a choice between cable or DSL .
Clear is slowly but surely getting their wireless network out there that goes up to 10mbits ( IIRC , YMMV .
) However , bandwidth is stagnant , and instead of the mbps increasing , fees are going up.Picture what one could do if Internet subscribers could get even relatively slow LAN speeds ( 100mbits ) on broadband connections .
Of course , movies and such would be just one improvement , but that is just one single thing .
Backend cloud networks for offsite backups become more feasible for businesses .
Offsite backup providers could offer bare metal restore functionality where hosts can be restored or reimaged via a PXE-like boot process with no boot media necessary .
People could use wireless CCTV cameras that would save their video feed in very high detail ( 1024p + ) to an offsite security company .
Bands could always keep their mics hot when in the studio and record every second just in case someone gets that perfect riff .
People who mix could grab the latest tracks and start the equalization process seconds after the band members finish a take .
Fans of the band could buy a final mix of a song streamed directly to their MP3 players minutes after the final mix is complete.There would be a revolution of new Internet devices with WAN speeds of 75 + mbps .
Joe Sixpack could have his widescreen TV be able to pull up last week 's game of his high school without requiring a DVR .
A service like Spotify could sell high fidelity ( CD quality or better ) streaming audio devices that have access to an immense catalog , so the capacity of their iPod would n't matter , just select what songs to play and play them.With faster bandwidth speeds , there would be services created that are not thought of now , just like how HD video streaming was n't thought of in the days where 40k on a US Robotics HST modem was the tops you were going to get .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll skip the "640k is enough for most" comparison.Right now, and I'm coming from a US perspective, bandwidth is one of the biggest things stunting growth of Internet services.
Here in the States, if lucky, the consumer has a choice between cable or DSL.
Clear is slowly but surely getting their wireless network out there that goes up to 10mbits (IIRC, YMMV.
)  However, bandwidth is stagnant, and instead of the mbps increasing, fees are going up.Picture what one could do if Internet subscribers could get even relatively slow LAN speeds (100mbits) on broadband connections.
Of course, movies and such would be just one improvement, but that is just one single thing.
Backend cloud networks for offsite backups become more feasible for businesses.
Offsite backup providers could offer bare metal restore functionality where hosts can be restored or reimaged via a PXE-like boot process with no boot media necessary.
People could use wireless CCTV cameras that would save their video feed in very high detail (1024p+) to an offsite security company.
Bands could always keep their mics hot when in the studio and record every second just in case someone gets that perfect riff.
People who mix could grab the latest tracks and start the equalization process seconds after the band members finish a take.
Fans of the band could buy a final mix of a song streamed directly to their MP3 players minutes after the final mix is complete.There would be a revolution of new Internet devices with WAN speeds of 75+ mbps.
Joe Sixpack could have his widescreen TV be able to pull up last week's game of his high school without requiring a DVR.
A service like Spotify could sell high fidelity (CD quality or better) streaming audio devices that have access to an immense catalog, so the capacity of their iPod wouldn't matter, just select what songs to play and play them.With faster bandwidth speeds, there would be services created that are not thought of now, just like how HD video streaming wasn't thought of in the days where 40k on a US Robotics HST modem was the tops you were going to get.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547806</id>
	<title>They're right,  3mbps IS required for facebook</title>
	<author>arikol</author>
	<datestamp>1261656840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're right,  3mbps IS required for facebook.</p><p>I mean, otherwise your torrents might slow to a crawl...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're right , 3mbps IS required for facebook.I mean , otherwise your torrents might slow to a crawl.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're right,  3mbps IS required for facebook.I mean, otherwise your torrents might slow to a crawl...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547874</id>
	<title>Fun from Australia</title>
	<author>AHuxley</author>
	<datestamp>1261657500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Our Bells are trying it too<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) <br>
<a href="http://cspcentral.com.au/2009/09/accc-executes-perfect-hit-on-telstra-optus-and-vodafone/" title="cspcentral.com.au">http://cspcentral.com.au/2009/09/accc-executes-perfect-hit-on-telstra-optus-and-vodafone/</a> [cspcentral.com.au] <br>
"misrepresents data allowances" and per meg up/down $ are very evil in Australia.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Our Bells are trying it too : ) http : //cspcentral.com.au/2009/09/accc-executes-perfect-hit-on-telstra-optus-and-vodafone/ [ cspcentral.com.au ] " misrepresents data allowances " and per meg up/down $ are very evil in Australia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our Bells are trying it too :) 
http://cspcentral.com.au/2009/09/accc-executes-perfect-hit-on-telstra-optus-and-vodafone/ [cspcentral.com.au] 
"misrepresents data allowances" and per meg up/down $ are very evil in Australia.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548368</id>
	<title>The biggest ISP lie of all</title>
	<author>Junior J. Junior III</author>
	<datestamp>1261663620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The biggest ISP lie of all is that 7mbps is a fast connection.  Just because it's the fastest they offer, doesn't make it fast.  Rather than arguing about how fast a connection one needs to watch videos, we ought to be storming the telco office with pitch forks and torches, demanding 100mbit to the home.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The biggest ISP lie of all is that 7mbps is a fast connection .
Just because it 's the fastest they offer , does n't make it fast .
Rather than arguing about how fast a connection one needs to watch videos , we ought to be storming the telco office with pitch forks and torches , demanding 100mbit to the home .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The biggest ISP lie of all is that 7mbps is a fast connection.
Just because it's the fastest they offer, doesn't make it fast.
Rather than arguing about how fast a connection one needs to watch videos, we ought to be storming the telco office with pitch forks and torches, demanding 100mbit to the home.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547500</id>
	<title>12 mpbs for online games!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261654320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>ATT recommended the highest speed (12 mbps) for online gamine. Ironically, streaming video only required 6!
<br> <br>
On the bright side, if you're just sending and receiving emails, a 3mbps connection will suffice.</htmltext>
<tokenext>ATT recommended the highest speed ( 12 mbps ) for online gamine .
Ironically , streaming video only required 6 !
On the bright side , if you 're just sending and receiving emails , a 3mbps connection will suffice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ATT recommended the highest speed (12 mbps) for online gamine.
Ironically, streaming video only required 6!
On the bright side, if you're just sending and receiving emails, a 3mbps connection will suffice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30549342</id>
	<title>Re:I love some of their plans</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1261679220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fuck Gillette.  I stopped shaving back in 1979.  When I start looking scruffy, I rely on <a href="http://jwissandsons.com/" title="jwissandsons.com">http://jwissandsons.com/</a> [jwissandsons.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck Gillette .
I stopped shaving back in 1979 .
When I start looking scruffy , I rely on http : //jwissandsons.com/ [ jwissandsons.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck Gillette.
I stopped shaving back in 1979.
When I start looking scruffy, I rely on http://jwissandsons.com/ [jwissandsons.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548036</id>
	<title>I can kinda agree with them</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1261659180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have to remember that not only does online gaming entail transferring game data, which is low bandwidth and mostly latency important, but it increasingly means transferring game assets which are much larger. Patches for MMOs, new maps for FPSes, heck even buying whole games digitally. It's cool stuff but you want some heavy hitting bandwidth for it. It would suck to connect to a TF2 server and have a map end, just as you'd finally got the file downloaded.</p><p>You have to remember that part of having a high speed connection is making things feel fast, such that you aren't waiting on anything. It is easy to say "Oh who needs that just for web surfing," until you go back and try it and realize that man, you really do a lot of waiting with lower end connections.</p><p>I noticed a difference when I went form my 4mb DSL to my 10mb cable with things like web surfing. With my DSL, pages were just a little laggy compared to work (extremely high end connection). It wasn't like a had to wait a long time, but there was a noticeable amount of time. With my 10mb connection that went away, it was fast enough that things seemed more or less immediate. Big deal? No, not really, but worthwhile if it didn't cost too much. Certainly the kind of thing I'd recommend to people.</p><p>Ideally, we want everything on a computer to happen under human perception time (which varies depending on what we are talking about but is usually in the range of tens of milliseconds). Ideally, it should never feel like you are waiting on your computer, it should always be waiting on you. When you ask for something it should happen immediately from your perception.</p><p>Part of that requires fast net connections. Yes, it is easy to get all "onion in the belt" and talk about how we did just fine with 128k broadband and so on. However, it is also false. Sure it worked, but it wasn't immediate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have to remember that not only does online gaming entail transferring game data , which is low bandwidth and mostly latency important , but it increasingly means transferring game assets which are much larger .
Patches for MMOs , new maps for FPSes , heck even buying whole games digitally .
It 's cool stuff but you want some heavy hitting bandwidth for it .
It would suck to connect to a TF2 server and have a map end , just as you 'd finally got the file downloaded.You have to remember that part of having a high speed connection is making things feel fast , such that you are n't waiting on anything .
It is easy to say " Oh who needs that just for web surfing , " until you go back and try it and realize that man , you really do a lot of waiting with lower end connections.I noticed a difference when I went form my 4mb DSL to my 10mb cable with things like web surfing .
With my DSL , pages were just a little laggy compared to work ( extremely high end connection ) .
It was n't like a had to wait a long time , but there was a noticeable amount of time .
With my 10mb connection that went away , it was fast enough that things seemed more or less immediate .
Big deal ?
No , not really , but worthwhile if it did n't cost too much .
Certainly the kind of thing I 'd recommend to people.Ideally , we want everything on a computer to happen under human perception time ( which varies depending on what we are talking about but is usually in the range of tens of milliseconds ) .
Ideally , it should never feel like you are waiting on your computer , it should always be waiting on you .
When you ask for something it should happen immediately from your perception.Part of that requires fast net connections .
Yes , it is easy to get all " onion in the belt " and talk about how we did just fine with 128k broadband and so on .
However , it is also false .
Sure it worked , but it was n't immediate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have to remember that not only does online gaming entail transferring game data, which is low bandwidth and mostly latency important, but it increasingly means transferring game assets which are much larger.
Patches for MMOs, new maps for FPSes, heck even buying whole games digitally.
It's cool stuff but you want some heavy hitting bandwidth for it.
It would suck to connect to a TF2 server and have a map end, just as you'd finally got the file downloaded.You have to remember that part of having a high speed connection is making things feel fast, such that you aren't waiting on anything.
It is easy to say "Oh who needs that just for web surfing," until you go back and try it and realize that man, you really do a lot of waiting with lower end connections.I noticed a difference when I went form my 4mb DSL to my 10mb cable with things like web surfing.
With my DSL, pages were just a little laggy compared to work (extremely high end connection).
It wasn't like a had to wait a long time, but there was a noticeable amount of time.
With my 10mb connection that went away, it was fast enough that things seemed more or less immediate.
Big deal?
No, not really, but worthwhile if it didn't cost too much.
Certainly the kind of thing I'd recommend to people.Ideally, we want everything on a computer to happen under human perception time (which varies depending on what we are talking about but is usually in the range of tens of milliseconds).
Ideally, it should never feel like you are waiting on your computer, it should always be waiting on you.
When you ask for something it should happen immediately from your perception.Part of that requires fast net connections.
Yes, it is easy to get all "onion in the belt" and talk about how we did just fine with 128k broadband and so on.
However, it is also false.
Sure it worked, but it wasn't immediate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548358</id>
	<title>Re:The sad part</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1261663500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Aah, Canadian Rogers user. Back when I was still with Rogers, we had an "unlimited" (*within reasonable limits) plan. Our internet got cut off one day, we called Rogers and they told us that we "downloaded too much". We asked how much should we download and what the cap is, but we just got "not that much". We're with Bell now (which also has pretty bad customer support but at least we don't get arbitrarily disconnected).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Aah , Canadian Rogers user .
Back when I was still with Rogers , we had an " unlimited " ( * within reasonable limits ) plan .
Our internet got cut off one day , we called Rogers and they told us that we " downloaded too much " .
We asked how much should we download and what the cap is , but we just got " not that much " .
We 're with Bell now ( which also has pretty bad customer support but at least we do n't get arbitrarily disconnected ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aah, Canadian Rogers user.
Back when I was still with Rogers, we had an "unlimited" (*within reasonable limits) plan.
Our internet got cut off one day, we called Rogers and they told us that we "downloaded too much".
We asked how much should we download and what the cap is, but we just got "not that much".
We're with Bell now (which also has pretty bad customer support but at least we don't get arbitrarily disconnected).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30553564</id>
	<title>Re:I love some of their plans</title>
	<author>AmiMoJo</author>
	<datestamp>1261751160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem for them is that toothpaste is a solved problem and there are loads of other and probably cheaper brands which do just as good a job of keeping your teeth clean as theirs does. Even the toothbrush (manual or electric) is a commodity product now.</p><p>The only "solution" is to try and make out theirs is a super high-tech premium product that is far better than anything else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem for them is that toothpaste is a solved problem and there are loads of other and probably cheaper brands which do just as good a job of keeping your teeth clean as theirs does .
Even the toothbrush ( manual or electric ) is a commodity product now.The only " solution " is to try and make out theirs is a super high-tech premium product that is far better than anything else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem for them is that toothpaste is a solved problem and there are loads of other and probably cheaper brands which do just as good a job of keeping your teeth clean as theirs does.
Even the toothbrush (manual or electric) is a commodity product now.The only "solution" is to try and make out theirs is a super high-tech premium product that is far better than anything else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548352</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547752</id>
	<title>No difference in cars</title>
	<author>HockeyPuck</author>
	<datestamp>1261656300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/., so we need some car comparisons...</p><p>My gf claims she <i>needs</i> a 250hp (at the rear wheel) V6 in her commuter car so she can "get on the highway easier." She compared 0-60 times for Honda Accords and Toyota Camrys.</p><p>I have friends that bought a huge SUV for when they drive to the ski slopes (they go 2-3x a year).  A rented SUV would be much cheaper.</p><p>So why wouldn't the telcos use the same tactics when convincing their customers to purchase something that they really don't need?  People are buying dual/quad core CPUs with 4GB of RAM just to surf the web and upload pics to flickr and facebook.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is /. , so we need some car comparisons...My gf claims she needs a 250hp ( at the rear wheel ) V6 in her commuter car so she can " get on the highway easier .
" She compared 0-60 times for Honda Accords and Toyota Camrys.I have friends that bought a huge SUV for when they drive to the ski slopes ( they go 2-3x a year ) .
A rented SUV would be much cheaper.So why would n't the telcos use the same tactics when convincing their customers to purchase something that they really do n't need ?
People are buying dual/quad core CPUs with 4GB of RAM just to surf the web and upload pics to flickr and facebook .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is /., so we need some car comparisons...My gf claims she needs a 250hp (at the rear wheel) V6 in her commuter car so she can "get on the highway easier.
" She compared 0-60 times for Honda Accords and Toyota Camrys.I have friends that bought a huge SUV for when they drive to the ski slopes (they go 2-3x a year).
A rented SUV would be much cheaper.So why wouldn't the telcos use the same tactics when convincing their customers to purchase something that they really don't need?
People are buying dual/quad core CPUs with 4GB of RAM just to surf the web and upload pics to flickr and facebook.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548124</id>
	<title>Perfectly reasonable</title>
	<author>dirkdodgers</author>
	<datestamp>1261660320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most of those suggestions are perfectly reasonable if you want an optimal online experience. If you can't tolerate hiccups when streaming HD video, something that many consumers would call their ISPs to complain about, then yes, you are going to pay an arm and a leg for that convenience. The same goes for uploading albums of high megapixel images from your cameras - sharing pictures. You are going to pay an arm and a leg for that upload bandwidth.</p><p>It's not as though we're talking about medications here. It's not as though this is predatory. Anyone with this kind of money to dump just to avoid hiccups when streaming HD video of Dances with Douches from Hulu.com, but can't be bothered to do even minimal consumer research, is going to get exactly what they deserve. Consider it a tax on ignorance. It's a public good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of those suggestions are perfectly reasonable if you want an optimal online experience .
If you ca n't tolerate hiccups when streaming HD video , something that many consumers would call their ISPs to complain about , then yes , you are going to pay an arm and a leg for that convenience .
The same goes for uploading albums of high megapixel images from your cameras - sharing pictures .
You are going to pay an arm and a leg for that upload bandwidth.It 's not as though we 're talking about medications here .
It 's not as though this is predatory .
Anyone with this kind of money to dump just to avoid hiccups when streaming HD video of Dances with Douches from Hulu.com , but ca n't be bothered to do even minimal consumer research , is going to get exactly what they deserve .
Consider it a tax on ignorance .
It 's a public good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of those suggestions are perfectly reasonable if you want an optimal online experience.
If you can't tolerate hiccups when streaming HD video, something that many consumers would call their ISPs to complain about, then yes, you are going to pay an arm and a leg for that convenience.
The same goes for uploading albums of high megapixel images from your cameras - sharing pictures.
You are going to pay an arm and a leg for that upload bandwidth.It's not as though we're talking about medications here.
It's not as though this is predatory.
Anyone with this kind of money to dump just to avoid hiccups when streaming HD video of Dances with Douches from Hulu.com, but can't be bothered to do even minimal consumer research, is going to get exactly what they deserve.
Consider it a tax on ignorance.
It's a public good.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547570</id>
	<title>Re:I love some of their plans</title>
	<author>Rising Ape</author>
	<datestamp>1261654860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or, for that matter, "turbo".</p><p>Although the all-time ridiculously overstated product name has to be the Gillette Fusion Power Stealth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or , for that matter , " turbo " .Although the all-time ridiculously overstated product name has to be the Gillette Fusion Power Stealth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or, for that matter, "turbo".Although the all-time ridiculously overstated product name has to be the Gillette Fusion Power Stealth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547584</id>
	<title>this is news?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261654980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>after being lied to for decades, you bring THIS up as something to be upset about?  how about COX cable's "Digital Tomorrow" that is never coming?  The technology is in place but it's more profitable to NOT provide everything "On Demand".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>after being lied to for decades , you bring THIS up as something to be upset about ?
how about COX cable 's " Digital Tomorrow " that is never coming ?
The technology is in place but it 's more profitable to NOT provide everything " On Demand " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>after being lied to for decades, you bring THIS up as something to be upset about?
how about COX cable's "Digital Tomorrow" that is never coming?
The technology is in place but it's more profitable to NOT provide everything "On Demand".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548300</id>
	<title>Re:Facebook bloat</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261662540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your bandwidth is irrelevant. You just need something on the order of a quad-core i7 to handle the Javascript.</p><p>Of course, that doesn't help with the other bottleneck, which is that the entire site seems to be served from a single 486.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your bandwidth is irrelevant .
You just need something on the order of a quad-core i7 to handle the Javascript.Of course , that does n't help with the other bottleneck , which is that the entire site seems to be served from a single 486 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your bandwidth is irrelevant.
You just need something on the order of a quad-core i7 to handle the Javascript.Of course, that doesn't help with the other bottleneck, which is that the entire site seems to be served from a single 486.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547458</id>
	<title>Facebook really should sue them</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1261654020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My personal favorite is from AT&amp;T which states you need 3mbps to use social networking sites like Facebook.</p></div><p> Some people might see that, think their connection is too slow and not use Facebook. That's some pretty clear defamation right there.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My personal favorite is from AT&amp;T which states you need 3mbps to use social networking sites like Facebook .
Some people might see that , think their connection is too slow and not use Facebook .
That 's some pretty clear defamation right there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My personal favorite is from AT&amp;T which states you need 3mbps to use social networking sites like Facebook.
Some people might see that, think their connection is too slow and not use Facebook.
That's some pretty clear defamation right there.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547742</id>
	<title>Re:12 mpbs for online games!!!</title>
	<author>omgarthas</author>
	<datestamp>1261656240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I used to play AGES ago Counter-Strike with a 128Kbps cable connection and I had around 40 ms of latency which was considered superb at those times...<br> <br>

Now I have 20 Mb (same ISP) and I have to "suffer" 100ms latency in CoD:MW2 : (</htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to play AGES ago Counter-Strike with a 128Kbps cable connection and I had around 40 ms of latency which was considered superb at those times.. . Now I have 20 Mb ( same ISP ) and I have to " suffer " 100ms latency in CoD : MW2 : (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to play AGES ago Counter-Strike with a 128Kbps cable connection and I had around 40 ms of latency which was considered superb at those times... 

Now I have 20 Mb (same ISP) and I have to "suffer" 100ms latency in CoD:MW2 : (</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547466</id>
	<title>BT</title>
	<author>Dr\_Barnowl</author>
	<datestamp>1261654080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>British Telecom are claiming that their ADSL package gives you the best connection... of course, it's the best connection to the <b>local wireless router</b>, and not the connection to the gateway... they have an enormous router with a high gain antenna set (and a phone handset for VoIP).</p><p>They can't bring themselves to admit that the cable provider walks all over them in terms of actual bandwidth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>British Telecom are claiming that their ADSL package gives you the best connection... of course , it 's the best connection to the local wireless router , and not the connection to the gateway... they have an enormous router with a high gain antenna set ( and a phone handset for VoIP ) .They ca n't bring themselves to admit that the cable provider walks all over them in terms of actual bandwidth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>British Telecom are claiming that their ADSL package gives you the best connection... of course, it's the best connection to the local wireless router, and not the connection to the gateway... they have an enormous router with a high gain antenna set (and a phone handset for VoIP).They can't bring themselves to admit that the cable provider walks all over them in terms of actual bandwidth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548478</id>
	<title>Re:No, they just don't want it used all the time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261665540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>That's the problem. They are ok with you using your speed. They aren't ok with you using it all the time to the max (which people who go nuts on torrents do). If you want that, you have to pay more (business accounts usually offer that, mine does). You can expect extremely cheap access that is also very fast.<br></i></p><p>I am not going to get a business account just because I like to stream Netflix and Hulu during my waking computing hours.  It is a paradigm of "home use".  Internet streaming offers more variety of programming than local broadcast, and for less than cable.</p><p>They are <i>not</i> okay with me using my speed.  My bandwidth has been capped and uncapped because of my complaints.</p><p>And let's not forget that ISPs have <i>constantly</i> whined that the bottleneck/most expensive part of the network to upgrade was "the last mile".  So they piggybacked on cable TV and telephone lines, at little cost to themselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the problem .
They are ok with you using your speed .
They are n't ok with you using it all the time to the max ( which people who go nuts on torrents do ) .
If you want that , you have to pay more ( business accounts usually offer that , mine does ) .
You can expect extremely cheap access that is also very fast.I am not going to get a business account just because I like to stream Netflix and Hulu during my waking computing hours .
It is a paradigm of " home use " .
Internet streaming offers more variety of programming than local broadcast , and for less than cable.They are not okay with me using my speed .
My bandwidth has been capped and uncapped because of my complaints.And let 's not forget that ISPs have constantly whined that the bottleneck/most expensive part of the network to upgrade was " the last mile " .
So they piggybacked on cable TV and telephone lines , at little cost to themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the problem.
They are ok with you using your speed.
They aren't ok with you using it all the time to the max (which people who go nuts on torrents do).
If you want that, you have to pay more (business accounts usually offer that, mine does).
You can expect extremely cheap access that is also very fast.I am not going to get a business account just because I like to stream Netflix and Hulu during my waking computing hours.
It is a paradigm of "home use".
Internet streaming offers more variety of programming than local broadcast, and for less than cable.They are not okay with me using my speed.
My bandwidth has been capped and uncapped because of my complaints.And let's not forget that ISPs have constantly whined that the bottleneck/most expensive part of the network to upgrade was "the last mile".
So they piggybacked on cable TV and telephone lines, at little cost to themselves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30551142</id>
	<title>Re:need more speed!</title>
	<author>Keep Six</author>
	<datestamp>1261760880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oddly enough, I had to reset my modem/router after clicking this story.  First time in years.

My dad has a 'lite' package capped at 10 GB/month.  They are calculating his usage at 10 times the actual use, just like the Verizon Math Fail of days gone by.  I used his connection to d/l openSUSE11.2 (690 MB) and when I looked at his usage web page the next day it said I used over 6 GB.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oddly enough , I had to reset my modem/router after clicking this story .
First time in years .
My dad has a 'lite ' package capped at 10 GB/month .
They are calculating his usage at 10 times the actual use , just like the Verizon Math Fail of days gone by .
I used his connection to d/l openSUSE11.2 ( 690 MB ) and when I looked at his usage web page the next day it said I used over 6 GB .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oddly enough, I had to reset my modem/router after clicking this story.
First time in years.
My dad has a 'lite' package capped at 10 GB/month.
They are calculating his usage at 10 times the actual use, just like the Verizon Math Fail of days gone by.
I used his connection to d/l openSUSE11.2 (690 MB) and when I looked at his usage web page the next day it said I used over 6 GB.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547920</id>
	<title>Remember when a T1 was broadband?</title>
	<author>shoppa</author>
	<datestamp>1261657980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I got started, 20+ years ago, a few large universities had T1's. That was by definition broadband - 1.5 mbps. Smaller schools often only had 2400 baud or in some cases faster telebit modems to hook up to the backbones.</p><p>In the 90's things started taking off and it was expected that every institution, except the very smallest, would have a T1. The biggest ones were hooked up by a T3. By the late 90's a few wealthy, well-connected individuals had their own private T1 at home.</p><p>And today? 1.5mbps does not meet most definitions of broadband. It's the backwaters. Isn't that amazing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I got started , 20 + years ago , a few large universities had T1 's .
That was by definition broadband - 1.5 mbps .
Smaller schools often only had 2400 baud or in some cases faster telebit modems to hook up to the backbones.In the 90 's things started taking off and it was expected that every institution , except the very smallest , would have a T1 .
The biggest ones were hooked up by a T3 .
By the late 90 's a few wealthy , well-connected individuals had their own private T1 at home.And today ?
1.5mbps does not meet most definitions of broadband .
It 's the backwaters .
Is n't that amazing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I got started, 20+ years ago, a few large universities had T1's.
That was by definition broadband - 1.5 mbps.
Smaller schools often only had 2400 baud or in some cases faster telebit modems to hook up to the backbones.In the 90's things started taking off and it was expected that every institution, except the very smallest, would have a T1.
The biggest ones were hooked up by a T3.
By the late 90's a few wealthy, well-connected individuals had their own private T1 at home.And today?
1.5mbps does not meet most definitions of broadband.
It's the backwaters.
Isn't that amazing?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548454</id>
	<title>Re:I love some of their plans</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261665060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"Max"</p><p>"Max Plus"</p><p>"Max Turbo"</p><p>Do these people even know what the word "maximum" means?</p></div><p>Remember folks: in America, medium is the smallest size!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Max " " Max Plus " " Max Turbo " Do these people even know what the word " maximum " means ? Remember folks : in America , medium is the smallest size !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Max""Max Plus""Max Turbo"Do these people even know what the word "maximum" means?Remember folks: in America, medium is the smallest size!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30549350</id>
	<title>Don't forget the extra 6 Mbps</title>
	<author>Sets\_Chaos</author>
	<datestamp>1261679280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You need 18 Mbps to stream video, according to AT&amp;T, but you need 24 Mbps to do video conferencing.

That makes sense.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You need 18 Mbps to stream video , according to AT&amp;T , but you need 24 Mbps to do video conferencing .
That makes sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You need 18 Mbps to stream video, according to AT&amp;T, but you need 24 Mbps to do video conferencing.
That makes sense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30552644</id>
	<title>Leave misleading advertising to the Masters</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261736160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple Computer</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple Computer</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple Computer</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30549328</id>
	<title>Re:Facebook bloat</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1261678920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Facebook really isn't that bad.  I do well on facebook with a lame 300kb connection.  What really sucks, are the various flash based forums.  Go ahead, hit the various news agencies comment sections.  If you don't have a full MB connection, you'll wait and wait and wait for pages to load or refresh.</p><p>You don't see this with VBB and other more sensible forums.  Despite people badmouthing slashdot all the time, the pages load smoothly and quickly.</p><p>Myspace?  Different story entirely.  That abortion should flushed down the toilet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Facebook really is n't that bad .
I do well on facebook with a lame 300kb connection .
What really sucks , are the various flash based forums .
Go ahead , hit the various news agencies comment sections .
If you do n't have a full MB connection , you 'll wait and wait and wait for pages to load or refresh.You do n't see this with VBB and other more sensible forums .
Despite people badmouthing slashdot all the time , the pages load smoothly and quickly.Myspace ?
Different story entirely .
That abortion should flushed down the toilet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Facebook really isn't that bad.
I do well on facebook with a lame 300kb connection.
What really sucks, are the various flash based forums.
Go ahead, hit the various news agencies comment sections.
If you don't have a full MB connection, you'll wait and wait and wait for pages to load or refresh.You don't see this with VBB and other more sensible forums.
Despite people badmouthing slashdot all the time, the pages load smoothly and quickly.Myspace?
Different story entirely.
That abortion should flushed down the toilet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547492</id>
	<title>What hacks me off.</title>
	<author>Drakin020</author>
	<datestamp>1261654260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What hacks me off about ISP's is the available packages for internet.</p><p>I just moved up to Colorado, and I had to sign up for internet at my new apartment. It was DSL, and the available packages were as follows...</p><p>1.5mb<br>3.0mb<br>7.0mb<br>10.0 mb</p><p>When in reality all that I need for gaming, and some Hulu action is perhaps 5mb, but they get you to take that extra jump to 7mb so they can charge you more. All that most anyone needs is maybe 3mb and even that would allow you to some some video streaming (Perhaps not in HD) 5mb would do most American's just fine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What hacks me off about ISP 's is the available packages for internet.I just moved up to Colorado , and I had to sign up for internet at my new apartment .
It was DSL , and the available packages were as follows...1.5mb3.0mb7.0mb10.0 mbWhen in reality all that I need for gaming , and some Hulu action is perhaps 5mb , but they get you to take that extra jump to 7mb so they can charge you more .
All that most anyone needs is maybe 3mb and even that would allow you to some some video streaming ( Perhaps not in HD ) 5mb would do most American 's just fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What hacks me off about ISP's is the available packages for internet.I just moved up to Colorado, and I had to sign up for internet at my new apartment.
It was DSL, and the available packages were as follows...1.5mb3.0mb7.0mb10.0 mbWhen in reality all that I need for gaming, and some Hulu action is perhaps 5mb, but they get you to take that extra jump to 7mb so they can charge you more.
All that most anyone needs is maybe 3mb and even that would allow you to some some video streaming (Perhaps not in HD) 5mb would do most American's just fine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548508</id>
	<title>Re:No difference in cars</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261666440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I work for a large software company, and though I don't do any development any longer, I was just assigned new desktop machine with great specs - it is a quad proc with hyper-V, 8GB RAM, 2 x 500 GB HDDs, 2 ATI video cards (not just 2 video ports), and two 24" Samsung monitors<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-) With all that screen real estimate I have Outlook open on one screen all the time and use the other one for switching between a browser and Excel/Word.</p><p>What I am saying is no amount of resources are too much, if you have it you would use it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I work for a large software company , and though I do n't do any development any longer , I was just assigned new desktop machine with great specs - it is a quad proc with hyper-V , 8GB RAM , 2 x 500 GB HDDs , 2 ATI video cards ( not just 2 video ports ) , and two 24 " Samsung monitors : - ) With all that screen real estimate I have Outlook open on one screen all the time and use the other one for switching between a browser and Excel/Word.What I am saying is no amount of resources are too much , if you have it you would use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work for a large software company, and though I don't do any development any longer, I was just assigned new desktop machine with great specs - it is a quad proc with hyper-V, 8GB RAM, 2 x 500 GB HDDs, 2 ATI video cards (not just 2 video ports), and two 24" Samsung monitors :-) With all that screen real estimate I have Outlook open on one screen all the time and use the other one for switching between a browser and Excel/Word.What I am saying is no amount of resources are too much, if you have it you would use it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548444</id>
	<title>In their defense...</title>
	<author>Petersko</author>
	<datestamp>1261664760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You have a "max", and then you put a turbo on it, and suddenly the max goes up. Doesn't mean it wasn't a max before - take away the turbo and you have your plain old max back. Go ahead and try to exceed it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You have a " max " , and then you put a turbo on it , and suddenly the max goes up .
Does n't mean it was n't a max before - take away the turbo and you have your plain old max back .
Go ahead and try to exceed it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have a "max", and then you put a turbo on it, and suddenly the max goes up.
Doesn't mean it wasn't a max before - take away the turbo and you have your plain old max back.
Go ahead and try to exceed it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30549420</id>
	<title>It's misleading if they advertise internet access,</title>
	<author>pecosdave</author>
	<datestamp>1261680420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But they block something say, like port 80 outbound or port 25.......</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But they block something say , like port 80 outbound or port 25...... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But they block something say, like port 80 outbound or port 25.......</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547602</id>
	<title>3mbps for facebook...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261655100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Block the ads, and you can probably get away with 300 baud..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Block the ads , and you can probably get away with 300 baud. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Block the ads, and you can probably get away with 300 baud..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30549944</id>
	<title>Something else seems strange to me</title>
	<author>andreicio</author>
	<datestamp>1261735560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The US is where Internet was born and, consequently, where it is the most developed. Yet prices for ADSL connections are way higher than in my country (Romania). I admit, minimum wage is way higher in the US, but still. Besides, prices for almost anything else, from food to clothing to electronics, are way lower in the US.<br>Long story short, a 20mbps adsl connection here is EUR12.5, meaning around $17.99. Taxes included. So.... umm.... what gives?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The US is where Internet was born and , consequently , where it is the most developed .
Yet prices for ADSL connections are way higher than in my country ( Romania ) .
I admit , minimum wage is way higher in the US , but still .
Besides , prices for almost anything else , from food to clothing to electronics , are way lower in the US.Long story short , a 20mbps adsl connection here is EUR12.5 , meaning around $ 17.99 .
Taxes included .
So.... umm.... what gives ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US is where Internet was born and, consequently, where it is the most developed.
Yet prices for ADSL connections are way higher than in my country (Romania).
I admit, minimum wage is way higher in the US, but still.
Besides, prices for almost anything else, from food to clothing to electronics, are way lower in the US.Long story short, a 20mbps adsl connection here is EUR12.5, meaning around $17.99.
Taxes included.
So.... umm.... what gives?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548346</id>
	<title>Re:I love some of their plans</title>
	<author>orlanz</author>
	<datestamp>1261663380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People talk about the race to the bottom when it comes to quality and cost, but I think this is the real race to the bottom.  We have so much market speak that pretty much says "Better than what you have" but uses all the extreme words available.  We have already crossed the most extreme possible in coherent English so now we just invent random definitions.</p><p>Predictable enough, society has evolved to just comprehend such things as everyday "commodities" thou we still expect to see those odd words.  Sad part is, in a global scale, most things conveying "Better than..." is actually average or lower quality than the rest of the world (ex: broadband, music, sports, cellphones, cars, renewable resources, math &amp; sciences<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People talk about the race to the bottom when it comes to quality and cost , but I think this is the real race to the bottom .
We have so much market speak that pretty much says " Better than what you have " but uses all the extreme words available .
We have already crossed the most extreme possible in coherent English so now we just invent random definitions.Predictable enough , society has evolved to just comprehend such things as everyday " commodities " thou we still expect to see those odd words .
Sad part is , in a global scale , most things conveying " Better than... " is actually average or lower quality than the rest of the world ( ex : broadband , music , sports , cellphones , cars , renewable resources , math &amp; sciences ... ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People talk about the race to the bottom when it comes to quality and cost, but I think this is the real race to the bottom.
We have so much market speak that pretty much says "Better than what you have" but uses all the extreme words available.
We have already crossed the most extreme possible in coherent English so now we just invent random definitions.Predictable enough, society has evolved to just comprehend such things as everyday "commodities" thou we still expect to see those odd words.
Sad part is, in a global scale, most things conveying "Better than..." is actually average or lower quality than the rest of the world (ex: broadband, music, sports, cellphones, cars, renewable resources, math &amp; sciences ...).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30553526</id>
	<title>Re:Facebook bloat</title>
	<author>AmiMoJo</author>
	<datestamp>1261750380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It does make you wonder just what kind of idiots they employ to manage their servers. The longer your page takes to load the less interested in it I become, and if it's too slow I won't use your site at all if I can help it.</p><p>Yet eBay, PayPal, Facebook and many many others are all excruciatingly slow no matter how fast your connection is. It isn't a technical limitation - Google manages to serve up vast amounts of data from database queries almost instantly. Even Slashdot isn't too bad. If they just spent as much time figuring out how to make their sites faster as they do figuring out how to screw/exploit you I might be more inclined to bother with them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does make you wonder just what kind of idiots they employ to manage their servers .
The longer your page takes to load the less interested in it I become , and if it 's too slow I wo n't use your site at all if I can help it.Yet eBay , PayPal , Facebook and many many others are all excruciatingly slow no matter how fast your connection is .
It is n't a technical limitation - Google manages to serve up vast amounts of data from database queries almost instantly .
Even Slashdot is n't too bad .
If they just spent as much time figuring out how to make their sites faster as they do figuring out how to screw/exploit you I might be more inclined to bother with them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It does make you wonder just what kind of idiots they employ to manage their servers.
The longer your page takes to load the less interested in it I become, and if it's too slow I won't use your site at all if I can help it.Yet eBay, PayPal, Facebook and many many others are all excruciatingly slow no matter how fast your connection is.
It isn't a technical limitation - Google manages to serve up vast amounts of data from database queries almost instantly.
Even Slashdot isn't too bad.
If they just spent as much time figuring out how to make their sites faster as they do figuring out how to screw/exploit you I might be more inclined to bother with them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547984</id>
	<title>Time Warner</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261658700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Roadrunner Highspeed Internet is 150x faster than dialup, for only $19.99/mo!</p><p>That's what their ad says, but it's lying. You can't get their $20/mo service unless you specifically ask for it. They will only tell you about their $45/mo or $55/mo service on the phone. It's also not as fast as they say - the $20/mo service is only 4 times faster than dialup (~200kbps), and the $55/mo service is only 18 times faster than dialup (1mbps). I'm referring to upstream bandwidth, because upstream bandwidth the limiting factor - 56kbps dialup is symmetric, but cable Internet is asymmetric.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Roadrunner Highspeed Internet is 150x faster than dialup , for only $ 19.99/mo ! That 's what their ad says , but it 's lying .
You ca n't get their $ 20/mo service unless you specifically ask for it .
They will only tell you about their $ 45/mo or $ 55/mo service on the phone .
It 's also not as fast as they say - the $ 20/mo service is only 4 times faster than dialup ( ~ 200kbps ) , and the $ 55/mo service is only 18 times faster than dialup ( 1mbps ) .
I 'm referring to upstream bandwidth , because upstream bandwidth the limiting factor - 56kbps dialup is symmetric , but cable Internet is asymmetric .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Roadrunner Highspeed Internet is 150x faster than dialup, for only $19.99/mo!That's what their ad says, but it's lying.
You can't get their $20/mo service unless you specifically ask for it.
They will only tell you about their $45/mo or $55/mo service on the phone.
It's also not as fast as they say - the $20/mo service is only 4 times faster than dialup (~200kbps), and the $55/mo service is only 18 times faster than dialup (1mbps).
I'm referring to upstream bandwidth, because upstream bandwidth the limiting factor - 56kbps dialup is symmetric, but cable Internet is asymmetric.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547606</id>
	<title>Re:I love some of their plans</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261655100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They obviously didn't give 110\% in their English studies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They obviously did n't give 110 \ % in their English studies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They obviously didn't give 110\% in their English studies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30550410</id>
	<title>Re:I love some of their plans</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261747200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know its going to happen.<br>I really thought the 5 blade was some sort of joke. I remember when the 3 blade was the new shit. and I saw a few comedy bits about 5 blades. And now the really makes them.</p><p>Let us joke about 10 blades, you know it's going to happen. With insane prices.</p><p>I have now a blade cleaner. http://www.razorpit.com/index.php?language=us And it really works. it "sharpens" the blades by cleaning them properly. So it feels like a new blade for much longer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know its going to happen.I really thought the 5 blade was some sort of joke .
I remember when the 3 blade was the new shit .
and I saw a few comedy bits about 5 blades .
And now the really makes them.Let us joke about 10 blades , you know it 's going to happen .
With insane prices.I have now a blade cleaner .
http : //www.razorpit.com/index.php ? language = us And it really works .
it " sharpens " the blades by cleaning them properly .
So it feels like a new blade for much longer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know its going to happen.I really thought the 5 blade was some sort of joke.
I remember when the 3 blade was the new shit.
and I saw a few comedy bits about 5 blades.
And now the really makes them.Let us joke about 10 blades, you know it's going to happen.
With insane prices.I have now a blade cleaner.
http://www.razorpit.com/index.php?language=us And it really works.
it "sharpens" the blades by cleaning them properly.
So it feels like a new blade for much longer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548638</id>
	<title>Re:No, they just don't want it used all the time</title>
	<author>girlintraining</author>
	<datestamp>1261668540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your post doesn't take into account that as our computers have increased in complexity, our need for bandwidth has risen lock in step with that. We're paying them not just to maintain the existing connection, but also to upgrade it to support higher-demand applications at a nominal pace. But because these companies have an effective monopoly on the right of ways to your house -- a monopoly granted to them by municipalities, there is no competition and thus no incentive to do so. So they have been making a huge profit by delaying or avoiding upgrading. As anyone who has been a network administrator will tell you, the network will run without any problems until it gets very close to or at maximum capacity. And the moment it reaches that threshold, everything goes to hell. That's what started happening globally at major ISPs in this country over the past few years.</p><p>If they had been progressively upgrading -- as rising aggregate network utilization suggested they should, this wouldn't be a problem. But they decided to place short term profit over long term sustainability and now we're paying the price: We are locked into using their service (or none at all) and they are raising prices to pay for those upgrades now. In the midst of an economic depression unlike any seen since before WWII, Comcast and other major ISPs have been reporting enormous profits. The average profit a business makes is about 5\% -- the rest is production cost and administration (including labor costs). Comcast's profitability last quarter? It rose <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704013004574515133100359344.html" title="wsj.com">22\% in Q3 2009</a> [wsj.com], and it's overall profit margins are about 20\%.</p><p>Now explain to me how a company has a profit margin that increases by 22\% when the unemployment rate in this country is at record levels and we're in the middle of a several-year long dry spell. Monopoly power, pure and simple. They've got tens of millions of customers paying through the nose because they don't have any alternative. Does that 250GB cap seem so reasonable now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your post does n't take into account that as our computers have increased in complexity , our need for bandwidth has risen lock in step with that .
We 're paying them not just to maintain the existing connection , but also to upgrade it to support higher-demand applications at a nominal pace .
But because these companies have an effective monopoly on the right of ways to your house -- a monopoly granted to them by municipalities , there is no competition and thus no incentive to do so .
So they have been making a huge profit by delaying or avoiding upgrading .
As anyone who has been a network administrator will tell you , the network will run without any problems until it gets very close to or at maximum capacity .
And the moment it reaches that threshold , everything goes to hell .
That 's what started happening globally at major ISPs in this country over the past few years.If they had been progressively upgrading -- as rising aggregate network utilization suggested they should , this would n't be a problem .
But they decided to place short term profit over long term sustainability and now we 're paying the price : We are locked into using their service ( or none at all ) and they are raising prices to pay for those upgrades now .
In the midst of an economic depression unlike any seen since before WWII , Comcast and other major ISPs have been reporting enormous profits .
The average profit a business makes is about 5 \ % -- the rest is production cost and administration ( including labor costs ) .
Comcast 's profitability last quarter ?
It rose 22 \ % in Q3 2009 [ wsj.com ] , and it 's overall profit margins are about 20 \ % .Now explain to me how a company has a profit margin that increases by 22 \ % when the unemployment rate in this country is at record levels and we 're in the middle of a several-year long dry spell .
Monopoly power , pure and simple .
They 've got tens of millions of customers paying through the nose because they do n't have any alternative .
Does that 250GB cap seem so reasonable now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your post doesn't take into account that as our computers have increased in complexity, our need for bandwidth has risen lock in step with that.
We're paying them not just to maintain the existing connection, but also to upgrade it to support higher-demand applications at a nominal pace.
But because these companies have an effective monopoly on the right of ways to your house -- a monopoly granted to them by municipalities, there is no competition and thus no incentive to do so.
So they have been making a huge profit by delaying or avoiding upgrading.
As anyone who has been a network administrator will tell you, the network will run without any problems until it gets very close to or at maximum capacity.
And the moment it reaches that threshold, everything goes to hell.
That's what started happening globally at major ISPs in this country over the past few years.If they had been progressively upgrading -- as rising aggregate network utilization suggested they should, this wouldn't be a problem.
But they decided to place short term profit over long term sustainability and now we're paying the price: We are locked into using their service (or none at all) and they are raising prices to pay for those upgrades now.
In the midst of an economic depression unlike any seen since before WWII, Comcast and other major ISPs have been reporting enormous profits.
The average profit a business makes is about 5\% -- the rest is production cost and administration (including labor costs).
Comcast's profitability last quarter?
It rose 22\% in Q3 2009 [wsj.com], and it's overall profit margins are about 20\%.Now explain to me how a company has a profit margin that increases by 22\% when the unemployment rate in this country is at record levels and we're in the middle of a several-year long dry spell.
Monopoly power, pure and simple.
They've got tens of millions of customers paying through the nose because they don't have any alternative.
Does that 250GB cap seem so reasonable now?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30550492</id>
	<title>No, not high gain.</title>
	<author>serviscope\_minor</author>
	<datestamp>1261749000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They do not have a high gain antenna, despite the claims. They have a high efficicncy omnidirectional antenna. There is big difference. In the world of antennae, high gain *MEANS* directional.</p><p>A high gain antenna is good for a point to point link and useless for an area access point. Some access points have moderate gain "omnis" which emit 360 degrees in plane and maybe 20 out of plane. These are not good for multi storey houses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They do not have a high gain antenna , despite the claims .
They have a high efficicncy omnidirectional antenna .
There is big difference .
In the world of antennae , high gain * MEANS * directional.A high gain antenna is good for a point to point link and useless for an area access point .
Some access points have moderate gain " omnis " which emit 360 degrees in plane and maybe 20 out of plane .
These are not good for multi storey houses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They do not have a high gain antenna, despite the claims.
They have a high efficicncy omnidirectional antenna.
There is big difference.
In the world of antennae, high gain *MEANS* directional.A high gain antenna is good for a point to point link and useless for an area access point.
Some access points have moderate gain "omnis" which emit 360 degrees in plane and maybe 20 out of plane.
These are not good for multi storey houses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548838</id>
	<title>Re:I love some of their plans</title>
	<author>alanshot</author>
	<datestamp>1261671720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"Max"</p><p>"Max Plus"</p><p>"Max Turbo"</p><p>Do these people even know what the word "maximum" means?</p></div><p>THe same marketing genuses that think that "small" doesnt exist anymore:</p><p>Me: "... and a small fry."<br>McWorker: "I'm sorry, we dont have small. Only Medium, Large, and Extra Large."<br>Me:"um, you cant technincally have a medium without a small as medium generally means 'in the middle'. Since there is nothing smaller than a medium, medium cant really be a medium size and is really a small."<br>McWorker: *confused look*<br>Me: "fine, gimme a goddamned "medium" then!<br>(And of course when I get my order, the paper envelope that is holding my fry is the same size it was 20 years ago when it was a small.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Max " " Max Plus " " Max Turbo " Do these people even know what the word " maximum " means ? THe same marketing genuses that think that " small " doesnt exist anymore : Me : " ... and a small fry .
" McWorker : " I 'm sorry , we dont have small .
Only Medium , Large , and Extra Large .
" Me : " um , you cant technincally have a medium without a small as medium generally means 'in the middle' .
Since there is nothing smaller than a medium , medium cant really be a medium size and is really a small .
" McWorker : * confused look * Me : " fine , gim me a goddamned " medium " then !
( And of course when I get my order , the paper envelope that is holding my fry is the same size it was 20 years ago when it was a small .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Max""Max Plus""Max Turbo"Do these people even know what the word "maximum" means?THe same marketing genuses that think that "small" doesnt exist anymore:Me: "... and a small fry.
"McWorker: "I'm sorry, we dont have small.
Only Medium, Large, and Extra Large.
"Me:"um, you cant technincally have a medium without a small as medium generally means 'in the middle'.
Since there is nothing smaller than a medium, medium cant really be a medium size and is really a small.
"McWorker: *confused look*Me: "fine, gimme a goddamned "medium" then!
(And of course when I get my order, the paper envelope that is holding my fry is the same size it was 20 years ago when it was a small.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547764</id>
	<title>Re:0\_0</title>
	<author>omgarthas</author>
	<datestamp>1261656480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Biggest lie in ages</htmltext>
<tokenext>Biggest lie in ages</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Biggest lie in ages</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30549142</id>
	<title>Re:I love some of their plans</title>
	<author>ColaMan</author>
	<datestamp>1261676100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have Austar, a satellite pay-tv service here in Australia. They have a channel called, "Discovery Turbo Max". I'm waiting for them to tack an "Extreme!" in there somewhere.</p><p>I must be getting too old for their target demographic or something, all the "awesome" "extreme" "to the max, woo!" etc that they sprinkle liberally throughout all the Discovery Channel shows really grates on me. They had a show on the other week about those giant crystals in a cave in south America somewhere. It's hot in the cave, some 50 degrees C. Fair enough, it's bloody hot and you can keel over pretty damn quick from heat stroke. But literally 90\% of the show was about how EXTREMELY hot it was, how they only had MINUTES before they DIED IN THERE, and how they were SECONDS AWAY FROM DEATH whilst taking core samples, how their CORE BODY TEMPERATURE was RISING RAPIDLY towards the FATAL ZONE and then how they got out JUST IN TIME BEFORE THEY DIED.</p><p>But I suppose if they cut out all the hyperbole, they'd have to fill the show with boring old facts, and who wants that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have Austar , a satellite pay-tv service here in Australia .
They have a channel called , " Discovery Turbo Max " .
I 'm waiting for them to tack an " Extreme !
" in there somewhere.I must be getting too old for their target demographic or something , all the " awesome " " extreme " " to the max , woo !
" etc that they sprinkle liberally throughout all the Discovery Channel shows really grates on me .
They had a show on the other week about those giant crystals in a cave in south America somewhere .
It 's hot in the cave , some 50 degrees C. Fair enough , it 's bloody hot and you can keel over pretty damn quick from heat stroke .
But literally 90 \ % of the show was about how EXTREMELY hot it was , how they only had MINUTES before they DIED IN THERE , and how they were SECONDS AWAY FROM DEATH whilst taking core samples , how their CORE BODY TEMPERATURE was RISING RAPIDLY towards the FATAL ZONE and then how they got out JUST IN TIME BEFORE THEY DIED.But I suppose if they cut out all the hyperbole , they 'd have to fill the show with boring old facts , and who wants that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have Austar, a satellite pay-tv service here in Australia.
They have a channel called, "Discovery Turbo Max".
I'm waiting for them to tack an "Extreme!
" in there somewhere.I must be getting too old for their target demographic or something, all the "awesome" "extreme" "to the max, woo!
" etc that they sprinkle liberally throughout all the Discovery Channel shows really grates on me.
They had a show on the other week about those giant crystals in a cave in south America somewhere.
It's hot in the cave, some 50 degrees C. Fair enough, it's bloody hot and you can keel over pretty damn quick from heat stroke.
But literally 90\% of the show was about how EXTREMELY hot it was, how they only had MINUTES before they DIED IN THERE, and how they were SECONDS AWAY FROM DEATH whilst taking core samples, how their CORE BODY TEMPERATURE was RISING RAPIDLY towards the FATAL ZONE and then how they got out JUST IN TIME BEFORE THEY DIED.But I suppose if they cut out all the hyperbole, they'd have to fill the show with boring old facts, and who wants that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547686</id>
	<title>Re:Facebook bloat</title>
	<author>Joce640k</author>
	<datestamp>1261655700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I used Facebook on a 56k modem the other day...didn't take long to uncheck "automatically load images".</p><p>I logged into Yoville for a laugh and it took 20 minutes to enter the first room, so, yeah, it's not too far off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used Facebook on a 56k modem the other day...did n't take long to uncheck " automatically load images " .I logged into Yoville for a laugh and it took 20 minutes to enter the first room , so , yeah , it 's not too far off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used Facebook on a 56k modem the other day...didn't take long to uncheck "automatically load images".I logged into Yoville for a laugh and it took 20 minutes to enter the first room, so, yeah, it's not too far off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30553856</id>
	<title>Re:The sad part</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261756020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LoLZ, you have no idea when you have it good. You bitch about how much more other people have than you, but you have NO IDEA how much less other people do. I bet this applies to all areas of life, not just your broadband.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LoLZ , you have no idea when you have it good .
You bitch about how much more other people have than you , but you have NO IDEA how much less other people do .
I bet this applies to all areas of life , not just your broadband .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LoLZ, you have no idea when you have it good.
You bitch about how much more other people have than you, but you have NO IDEA how much less other people do.
I bet this applies to all areas of life, not just your broadband.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30549502</id>
	<title>Re:No kidding!</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1261681860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Out of curiosity, have you ever actually visited Facebook? It's actually very bandwidth-conservative as far as sites go. You'll never see more than one video per-page, nor will you ever encounter background music, and I have no idea if it can even do Slideshows, but if it can you have to click-through to them.</p><p>In short, you're full of crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Out of curiosity , have you ever actually visited Facebook ?
It 's actually very bandwidth-conservative as far as sites go .
You 'll never see more than one video per-page , nor will you ever encounter background music , and I have no idea if it can even do Slideshows , but if it can you have to click-through to them.In short , you 're full of crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Out of curiosity, have you ever actually visited Facebook?
It's actually very bandwidth-conservative as far as sites go.
You'll never see more than one video per-page, nor will you ever encounter background music, and I have no idea if it can even do Slideshows, but if it can you have to click-through to them.In short, you're full of crap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547572</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30561316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30550548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30549834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30550410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30549328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30549606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30550050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30553856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30549204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30549128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30553526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30551234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30549362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30549642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30550450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30549142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30550310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30549132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30550286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30550362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30552466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30549502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30557874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30553038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30549410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30553564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30551190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30551142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30550492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30549618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30550456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30549342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30549660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30551018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_24_2114242_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30549080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_2114242.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548378
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30549204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30549618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30549362
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_2114242.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547458
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548032
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_2114242.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30549350
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_2114242.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30550450
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30549642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547720
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547742
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30561316
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_2114242.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30550050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30551142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30549132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548518
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_2114242.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547958
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_2114242.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548400
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_2114242.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547570
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30550548
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30549342
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548484
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547932
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30550286
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30550410
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548352
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30553564
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30549142
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30551234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547714
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547928
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548084
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548044
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547606
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548346
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_2114242.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547920
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_2114242.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547846
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_2114242.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30549328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30550310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547866
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30551018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548300
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30553526
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_2114242.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547602
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_2114242.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547752
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30550362
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30552466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30549080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548508
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30557874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30551190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548234
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_2114242.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547498
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30549660
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30549606
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548662
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_2114242.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30549128
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_2114242.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547756
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_2114242.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547572
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30549502
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_2114242.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30550492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548466
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_2114242.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547598
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547956
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548382
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548982
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30549410
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548638
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30550456
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30553856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548358
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_2114242.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548406
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30553038
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_2114242.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30549944
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_2114242.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548368
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_2114242.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30548258
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30549834
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_24_2114242.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_24_2114242.30547792
</commentlist>
</conversation>
