<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_27_1340259</id>
	<title>Critics Call For NASA TV To "Liven Up"</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1261929120000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An article in the LA Times calls NASA out for failing to make broadcasts on their dedicated television network as entertaining as they can be. The author, David Ferrell, complains that <a href="http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-ca-nasa27-2009dec27,0,4620995,full.story">fascinating subject matter is often fraught with boring commentary</a> and frequent, extended silences, making most people quickly lose interest. Quoting:
<i>"Witness one recent segment about the recovery of a Soyuz capsule upon its return to Earth. The dark, bullet-like object landed in the featureless steppes of Kazakhstan, about 50 miles outside the unheard-of town of Arkalyk. Coverage consisted of video shot from an all-terrain vehicle approaching it &mdash; mostly soundless footage of tall grass going by &mdash; with an occasional word by an unnamed commentator. 'You can see the antenna that deployed shortly after landing,' the commentator said in that deadpan tone shared by scientists and golf announcers. The camera chronicled the tedious extraction of three crew members weakened by spending six months in orbit; they were loaded one by one onto stretchers. 'Again, a rather methodical process,' the commentator noted, as if grasping for something &mdash; anything &mdash; to say. Later: 'The official landing time has been revised to 1:15 and 34 seconds a.m., Central Time. The official time was recorded at the Russian Mission Control Center . . . by the Russian flight-control team.' ... Where is Carl Sagan when you need him?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An article in the LA Times calls NASA out for failing to make broadcasts on their dedicated television network as entertaining as they can be .
The author , David Ferrell , complains that fascinating subject matter is often fraught with boring commentary and frequent , extended silences , making most people quickly lose interest .
Quoting : " Witness one recent segment about the recovery of a Soyuz capsule upon its return to Earth .
The dark , bullet-like object landed in the featureless steppes of Kazakhstan , about 50 miles outside the unheard-of town of Arkalyk .
Coverage consisted of video shot from an all-terrain vehicle approaching it    mostly soundless footage of tall grass going by    with an occasional word by an unnamed commentator .
'You can see the antenna that deployed shortly after landing, ' the commentator said in that deadpan tone shared by scientists and golf announcers .
The camera chronicled the tedious extraction of three crew members weakened by spending six months in orbit ; they were loaded one by one onto stretchers .
'Again , a rather methodical process, ' the commentator noted , as if grasping for something    anything    to say .
Later : 'The official landing time has been revised to 1 : 15 and 34 seconds a.m. , Central Time .
The official time was recorded at the Russian Mission Control Center .
. .
by the Russian flight-control team .
' ... Where is Carl Sagan when you need him ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An article in the LA Times calls NASA out for failing to make broadcasts on their dedicated television network as entertaining as they can be.
The author, David Ferrell, complains that fascinating subject matter is often fraught with boring commentary and frequent, extended silences, making most people quickly lose interest.
Quoting:
"Witness one recent segment about the recovery of a Soyuz capsule upon its return to Earth.
The dark, bullet-like object landed in the featureless steppes of Kazakhstan, about 50 miles outside the unheard-of town of Arkalyk.
Coverage consisted of video shot from an all-terrain vehicle approaching it — mostly soundless footage of tall grass going by — with an occasional word by an unnamed commentator.
'You can see the antenna that deployed shortly after landing,' the commentator said in that deadpan tone shared by scientists and golf announcers.
The camera chronicled the tedious extraction of three crew members weakened by spending six months in orbit; they were loaded one by one onto stretchers.
'Again, a rather methodical process,' the commentator noted, as if grasping for something — anything — to say.
Later: 'The official landing time has been revised to 1:15 and 34 seconds a.m., Central Time.
The official time was recorded at the Russian Mission Control Center .
. .
by the Russian flight-control team.
' ... Where is Carl Sagan when you need him?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30568316</id>
	<title>Re:multiple feeds?</title>
	<author>Monsuco</author>
	<datestamp>1261935180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The solution could actually be something like better incorporation of multiple feeds. I mean, they could spruce up the NASA TV cable network to make it a bit more appealing to the "brain dead crowd", while at the same time having the raw footage and all the good stuff (which, to non-Slashdotters, is ridiculously boring) on their website. This could probably work quite well for about a year or two under the right management, but unfortunately will inevitably be screwed up by Comcast, much in the same way that G4 screwed up TechTV.</p></div><p>Or you could just mute it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The solution could actually be something like better incorporation of multiple feeds .
I mean , they could spruce up the NASA TV cable network to make it a bit more appealing to the " brain dead crowd " , while at the same time having the raw footage and all the good stuff ( which , to non-Slashdotters , is ridiculously boring ) on their website .
This could probably work quite well for about a year or two under the right management , but unfortunately will inevitably be screwed up by Comcast , much in the same way that G4 screwed up TechTV.Or you could just mute it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The solution could actually be something like better incorporation of multiple feeds.
I mean, they could spruce up the NASA TV cable network to make it a bit more appealing to the "brain dead crowd", while at the same time having the raw footage and all the good stuff (which, to non-Slashdotters, is ridiculously boring) on their website.
This could probably work quite well for about a year or two under the right management, but unfortunately will inevitably be screwed up by Comcast, much in the same way that G4 screwed up TechTV.Or you could just mute it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564182</id>
	<title>Symphony of Science!</title>
	<author>vaderhelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1261940220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>He's off doing mad sweet remixes of Cosmos with Stephen Hawking
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSgiXGELjbc" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSgiXGELjbc</a> [youtube.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's off doing mad sweet remixes of Cosmos with Stephen Hawking http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = zSgiXGELjbc [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's off doing mad sweet remixes of Cosmos with Stephen Hawking
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSgiXGELjbc [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30577850</id>
	<title>Facturacy</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1262009340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's 'critic', not 'critics'. And picking on a bunch of scientists and engineers for not being talking heads is just too straw man for me. You've got pencil pushers pushing penciled in numbers. Aren't the numbers enough? Well, for some things, no. So maybe they shouldn't try to cover everything.</p><p>NASA is constantly battling itself over budget. How are they supposed to hire on-air personalities without someone having to decry having their mission scrubbed?</p><p>Maybe if they had a decent following they could get some talent, as well as get regular news coverage. But the US lost its love affair with space while Walter Cronkite was still sitting at that folding table inland from pad 39. If memory serves, it was only Apollo 13 (pre-explosion) when the US TV networks started neglecting the NASA feed in favor of scheduled programming.</p><p>On the other hand there have been some decent NASA programs in the past. One of the Firesign Theatre guys at the Voyager Neptune fly by for instance. Even then he was pressed into service after having been given a ticket into JPL by one of the mission operators.</p><p>If and when, if and when..... should NASA ever find it in their pockets to hire on air talent (which would by necessity require writing and editing), only one possibility comes to mind, complete with connections to James Oberg and other space pros and amateurs of note: Alan Boyle. He could not only cover the space stuff, but other relevant science stuff, and he has a lot of people to draw on to fill slots with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's 'critic ' , not 'critics' .
And picking on a bunch of scientists and engineers for not being talking heads is just too straw man for me .
You 've got pencil pushers pushing penciled in numbers .
Are n't the numbers enough ?
Well , for some things , no .
So maybe they should n't try to cover everything.NASA is constantly battling itself over budget .
How are they supposed to hire on-air personalities without someone having to decry having their mission scrubbed ? Maybe if they had a decent following they could get some talent , as well as get regular news coverage .
But the US lost its love affair with space while Walter Cronkite was still sitting at that folding table inland from pad 39 .
If memory serves , it was only Apollo 13 ( pre-explosion ) when the US TV networks started neglecting the NASA feed in favor of scheduled programming.On the other hand there have been some decent NASA programs in the past .
One of the Firesign Theatre guys at the Voyager Neptune fly by for instance .
Even then he was pressed into service after having been given a ticket into JPL by one of the mission operators.If and when , if and when..... should NASA ever find it in their pockets to hire on air talent ( which would by necessity require writing and editing ) , only one possibility comes to mind , complete with connections to James Oberg and other space pros and amateurs of note : Alan Boyle .
He could not only cover the space stuff , but other relevant science stuff , and he has a lot of people to draw on to fill slots with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's 'critic', not 'critics'.
And picking on a bunch of scientists and engineers for not being talking heads is just too straw man for me.
You've got pencil pushers pushing penciled in numbers.
Aren't the numbers enough?
Well, for some things, no.
So maybe they shouldn't try to cover everything.NASA is constantly battling itself over budget.
How are they supposed to hire on-air personalities without someone having to decry having their mission scrubbed?Maybe if they had a decent following they could get some talent, as well as get regular news coverage.
But the US lost its love affair with space while Walter Cronkite was still sitting at that folding table inland from pad 39.
If memory serves, it was only Apollo 13 (pre-explosion) when the US TV networks started neglecting the NASA feed in favor of scheduled programming.On the other hand there have been some decent NASA programs in the past.
One of the Firesign Theatre guys at the Voyager Neptune fly by for instance.
Even then he was pressed into service after having been given a ticket into JPL by one of the mission operators.If and when, if and when..... should NASA ever find it in their pockets to hire on air talent (which would by necessity require writing and editing), only one possibility comes to mind, complete with connections to James Oberg and other space pros and amateurs of note: Alan Boyle.
He could not only cover the space stuff, but other relevant science stuff, and he has a lot of people to draw on to fill slots with.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30565596</id>
	<title>Re:leave nasa alone</title>
	<author>Svartormr</author>
	<datestamp>1261908780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Right on!  I remember many of the major network broadcast of the space missions of the 1960's and 1970's.  And the network commentators talked way too much, overexplaining.  When there was a live feed with the astronauts and the CapCom and the ground controllers talking, they should have just left the cameras on and save the comments to after.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Right on !
I remember many of the major network broadcast of the space missions of the 1960 's and 1970 's .
And the network commentators talked way too much , overexplaining .
When there was a live feed with the astronauts and the CapCom and the ground controllers talking , they should have just left the cameras on and save the comments to after .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right on!
I remember many of the major network broadcast of the space missions of the 1960's and 1970's.
And the network commentators talked way too much, overexplaining.
When there was a live feed with the astronauts and the CapCom and the ground controllers talking, they should have just left the cameras on and save the comments to after.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564090</id>
	<title>Re:This ain't MTV!</title>
	<author>Comatose51</author>
	<datestamp>1261939260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The Discovery Channel used to be educational... now it's "how can we use science to blow shit up?"</p><p>You know how bad it is now?  It's so damn unwatchable and stupid that I change the channel to ESPN instead.  Yes, I've decided watching football is more realistic and informative than watching the scripted drama on Discovery Channel.  National Geographics and the History channel are both following the same trend from what I can tell.  God, I hate that stupid dog whisperer show!</p><p>At least Discovery Channel has pushed me to discover the great game of football.  Wish I had known about it earlier.  It's actually a very fun game to watch on TV, unlike most other sports, which tend to be fun in person or as actual participants.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The Discovery Channel used to be educational... now it 's " how can we use science to blow shit up ?
" You know how bad it is now ?
It 's so damn unwatchable and stupid that I change the channel to ESPN instead .
Yes , I 've decided watching football is more realistic and informative than watching the scripted drama on Discovery Channel .
National Geographics and the History channel are both following the same trend from what I can tell .
God , I hate that stupid dog whisperer show ! At least Discovery Channel has pushed me to discover the great game of football .
Wish I had known about it earlier .
It 's actually a very fun game to watch on TV , unlike most other sports , which tend to be fun in person or as actual participants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The Discovery Channel used to be educational... now it's "how can we use science to blow shit up?
"You know how bad it is now?
It's so damn unwatchable and stupid that I change the channel to ESPN instead.
Yes, I've decided watching football is more realistic and informative than watching the scripted drama on Discovery Channel.
National Geographics and the History channel are both following the same trend from what I can tell.
God, I hate that stupid dog whisperer show!At least Discovery Channel has pushed me to discover the great game of football.
Wish I had known about it earlier.
It's actually a very fun game to watch on TV, unlike most other sports, which tend to be fun in person or as actual participants.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30568946</id>
	<title>More interesting != less intelligent</title>
	<author>grimsnaggle</author>
	<datestamp>1262032320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It really can also get boring after a while. You see only live video. There are no explanatory diagrams, no alternative camera angles, and prolonged silences of many minutes where almost nothing happens. When there is commentary, it's giving useless minutiae that I couldn't care less about.</p><p>NASA TV needs some good prepared commentary to explain what's going on and some good diagrams to go with it. They also need commentators that don't just tell me the obvious or fill in some numbers, but rather make it clear what I'm watching, why it's important, who is involved, and what we're going to learn from it.</p><p>This is simple stuff to increase the intellectual value of the content. It's not "dumbing it down". If you want dumb "educational" content, watch today's Discovery, TLC, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It really can also get boring after a while .
You see only live video .
There are no explanatory diagrams , no alternative camera angles , and prolonged silences of many minutes where almost nothing happens .
When there is commentary , it 's giving useless minutiae that I could n't care less about.NASA TV needs some good prepared commentary to explain what 's going on and some good diagrams to go with it .
They also need commentators that do n't just tell me the obvious or fill in some numbers , but rather make it clear what I 'm watching , why it 's important , who is involved , and what we 're going to learn from it.This is simple stuff to increase the intellectual value of the content .
It 's not " dumbing it down " .
If you want dumb " educational " content , watch today 's Discovery , TLC , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It really can also get boring after a while.
You see only live video.
There are no explanatory diagrams, no alternative camera angles, and prolonged silences of many minutes where almost nothing happens.
When there is commentary, it's giving useless minutiae that I couldn't care less about.NASA TV needs some good prepared commentary to explain what's going on and some good diagrams to go with it.
They also need commentators that don't just tell me the obvious or fill in some numbers, but rather make it clear what I'm watching, why it's important, who is involved, and what we're going to learn from it.This is simple stuff to increase the intellectual value of the content.
It's not "dumbing it down".
If you want dumb "educational" content, watch today's Discovery, TLC, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30567418</id>
	<title>Hire Bill Nye</title>
	<author>OrangeTide</author>
	<datestamp>1261924680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yea, Bill Nye is goofy and lame. But at least he would be running around shouting and being excited about science.</p><p>As for complaints about NASA TV's quality, when you want professional programs with polish and entertainment you'll have to hire a pretty expensive crew to do so. Instead of the current system where a skeleton A/V crew along with a few managers and scientists manages to put together footage and get it pumped out into international syndication.</p><p>Sorry but for the relatively small amount of money spent on NASA TV I dare anyone to do better. Feel free to write your congressperson and double their budget though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yea , Bill Nye is goofy and lame .
But at least he would be running around shouting and being excited about science.As for complaints about NASA TV 's quality , when you want professional programs with polish and entertainment you 'll have to hire a pretty expensive crew to do so .
Instead of the current system where a skeleton A/V crew along with a few managers and scientists manages to put together footage and get it pumped out into international syndication.Sorry but for the relatively small amount of money spent on NASA TV I dare anyone to do better .
Feel free to write your congressperson and double their budget though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yea, Bill Nye is goofy and lame.
But at least he would be running around shouting and being excited about science.As for complaints about NASA TV's quality, when you want professional programs with polish and entertainment you'll have to hire a pretty expensive crew to do so.
Instead of the current system where a skeleton A/V crew along with a few managers and scientists manages to put together footage and get it pumped out into international syndication.Sorry but for the relatively small amount of money spent on NASA TV I dare anyone to do better.
Feel free to write your congressperson and double their budget though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563472</id>
	<title>That was a pretty good simpsons episode</title>
	<author>seth</author>
	<datestamp>1261933200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>n/t</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>n/t</tokentext>
<sentencetext>n/t</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563938</id>
	<title>Re:I like NASA TV how it is.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261937760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I like NASA TV the way it is. If you have ADD and need constant sound effects and graphics or everything dumbed down and edited into some fake reality, filled with game shows and so on, then channels like Discovery are for you. I like NASA because of its raw unedited nature and it is more of a direct access thing to NASA data rather than another discovery network. Do I want NASA TV to be another heavily commercialised pop culture discovery channel for people who have short attention spans and few brain cells? No.</p></div><p>Moreover, anything that is funded with the public's taxes should be raw, unvarnished truth.  No salesmanship.  No splashy effects.  Just high-quality information, and, potentially, art.</p><p>As an educated, voting taxpayer, I *love* that C-SPAN has the uncensored coverage of our congress (at least it used to last time I watched); I *adore* that PBS produces commercial-free high-quality educational and entertainment shows like NOVA (what we were promised TLC would expertly take over and provide), Nature, Sesame Street, and Frontline.  It is *imperative* that NASA TV be boring, because most of a mission is like that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like NASA TV the way it is .
If you have ADD and need constant sound effects and graphics or everything dumbed down and edited into some fake reality , filled with game shows and so on , then channels like Discovery are for you .
I like NASA because of its raw unedited nature and it is more of a direct access thing to NASA data rather than another discovery network .
Do I want NASA TV to be another heavily commercialised pop culture discovery channel for people who have short attention spans and few brain cells ?
No.Moreover , anything that is funded with the public 's taxes should be raw , unvarnished truth .
No salesmanship .
No splashy effects .
Just high-quality information , and , potentially , art.As an educated , voting taxpayer , I * love * that C-SPAN has the uncensored coverage of our congress ( at least it used to last time I watched ) ; I * adore * that PBS produces commercial-free high-quality educational and entertainment shows like NOVA ( what we were promised TLC would expertly take over and provide ) , Nature , Sesame Street , and Frontline .
It is * imperative * that NASA TV be boring , because most of a mission is like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like NASA TV the way it is.
If you have ADD and need constant sound effects and graphics or everything dumbed down and edited into some fake reality, filled with game shows and so on, then channels like Discovery are for you.
I like NASA because of its raw unedited nature and it is more of a direct access thing to NASA data rather than another discovery network.
Do I want NASA TV to be another heavily commercialised pop culture discovery channel for people who have short attention spans and few brain cells?
No.Moreover, anything that is funded with the public's taxes should be raw, unvarnished truth.
No salesmanship.
No splashy effects.
Just high-quality information, and, potentially, art.As an educated, voting taxpayer, I *love* that C-SPAN has the uncensored coverage of our congress (at least it used to last time I watched); I *adore* that PBS produces commercial-free high-quality educational and entertainment shows like NOVA (what we were promised TLC would expertly take over and provide), Nature, Sesame Street, and Frontline.
It is *imperative* that NASA TV be boring, because most of a mission is like that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30566176</id>
	<title>Re:I like NASA TV how it is.</title>
	<author>Eravnrekaree</author>
	<datestamp>1261913700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I second that. I like the raw unfiltered nature of those things and the educational nature of PBS. PBS programs do use sound and graphics in their programs to make a presentation but they do so in a way not to make it pop culturish and still convey powerful information. One of the favourite things i like about C-SPAN is the call in segements, which unlike CNN and so on which are heavily scripted and fox etc which are blatantly biased, one gets to hear different sides of the issue from real, common people rather than media spin masters. CSPAN does a wonderful job of presenting unedited data and as well allowing for public commentary, nearly missing in the mainstream coverage, which tries to put everything into a manipulated edited package as if to slant peoples perspective on things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I second that .
I like the raw unfiltered nature of those things and the educational nature of PBS .
PBS programs do use sound and graphics in their programs to make a presentation but they do so in a way not to make it pop culturish and still convey powerful information .
One of the favourite things i like about C-SPAN is the call in segements , which unlike CNN and so on which are heavily scripted and fox etc which are blatantly biased , one gets to hear different sides of the issue from real , common people rather than media spin masters .
CSPAN does a wonderful job of presenting unedited data and as well allowing for public commentary , nearly missing in the mainstream coverage , which tries to put everything into a manipulated edited package as if to slant peoples perspective on things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I second that.
I like the raw unfiltered nature of those things and the educational nature of PBS.
PBS programs do use sound and graphics in their programs to make a presentation but they do so in a way not to make it pop culturish and still convey powerful information.
One of the favourite things i like about C-SPAN is the call in segements, which unlike CNN and so on which are heavily scripted and fox etc which are blatantly biased, one gets to hear different sides of the issue from real, common people rather than media spin masters.
CSPAN does a wonderful job of presenting unedited data and as well allowing for public commentary, nearly missing in the mainstream coverage, which tries to put everything into a manipulated edited package as if to slant peoples perspective on things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564212</id>
	<title>Re:If you want to know what's wrong with "lively".</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261940460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're totally right. I watched a US-made doco about the solar system a while back and was shocked at the over-dramatisation that was used. While the content was (in general) good it had lines like "it's a massive ball of fire, shooting high speed particles at the Earth", etc. In most episodes was a reference to how the subject-matter could destroy life on Earth. The other amazing thing was the rate of video cuts - there was about 1 scene cut per second. It was really distracting, and gave the show an almost hysterical air. I also hated the narrator - sounded like his usual job was voicing movie trailers.</p><p>I think it was "the universe" from the history channel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're totally right .
I watched a US-made doco about the solar system a while back and was shocked at the over-dramatisation that was used .
While the content was ( in general ) good it had lines like " it 's a massive ball of fire , shooting high speed particles at the Earth " , etc .
In most episodes was a reference to how the subject-matter could destroy life on Earth .
The other amazing thing was the rate of video cuts - there was about 1 scene cut per second .
It was really distracting , and gave the show an almost hysterical air .
I also hated the narrator - sounded like his usual job was voicing movie trailers.I think it was " the universe " from the history channel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're totally right.
I watched a US-made doco about the solar system a while back and was shocked at the over-dramatisation that was used.
While the content was (in general) good it had lines like "it's a massive ball of fire, shooting high speed particles at the Earth", etc.
In most episodes was a reference to how the subject-matter could destroy life on Earth.
The other amazing thing was the rate of video cuts - there was about 1 scene cut per second.
It was really distracting, and gave the show an almost hysterical air.
I also hated the narrator - sounded like his usual job was voicing movie trailers.I think it was "the universe" from the history channel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564066</id>
	<title>Re:I like NASA TV how it is.</title>
	<author>tonycheese</author>
	<datestamp>1261938960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First of all, there's too much of this polarizing on slashdot that I see happen all the time. Yes, it's true that there are a lot of really crappy reality shows and game shows and reality game shows that I have 0 interest in and don't go anywhere near, but there are also some trashy TV shows that are just fun to watch, for whatever reason. I don't have to have "ADD" or "few brain cells" to watch shows on the Discovery channel - what I do in my free time to relax is my business and you don't have any reason or need to judge that.</p><p>The problem with this discussion is that the people who like NASA TV the way it is now are very enthusiastic about it and bring on the comments and mod points, whereas the people who find NASA TV to be boring... well, aren't very interested in the discussion.</p><p>I don't watch NASA TV because, yeah, it's boring. I don't really have time to sit there for 2 hours and have next to nothing going on. At most I could have it running in the background while I'm doing something else if something exciting is supposed to be happening.</p><p>Of course, again, I don't watch NASA TV so I can't really say much on the topic. I'm not sure if it's supposed to be more of a raw feed of everything or more pander to the general public to watch historic events unfolding.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all , there 's too much of this polarizing on slashdot that I see happen all the time .
Yes , it 's true that there are a lot of really crappy reality shows and game shows and reality game shows that I have 0 interest in and do n't go anywhere near , but there are also some trashy TV shows that are just fun to watch , for whatever reason .
I do n't have to have " ADD " or " few brain cells " to watch shows on the Discovery channel - what I do in my free time to relax is my business and you do n't have any reason or need to judge that.The problem with this discussion is that the people who like NASA TV the way it is now are very enthusiastic about it and bring on the comments and mod points , whereas the people who find NASA TV to be boring... well , are n't very interested in the discussion.I do n't watch NASA TV because , yeah , it 's boring .
I do n't really have time to sit there for 2 hours and have next to nothing going on .
At most I could have it running in the background while I 'm doing something else if something exciting is supposed to be happening.Of course , again , I do n't watch NASA TV so I ca n't really say much on the topic .
I 'm not sure if it 's supposed to be more of a raw feed of everything or more pander to the general public to watch historic events unfolding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all, there's too much of this polarizing on slashdot that I see happen all the time.
Yes, it's true that there are a lot of really crappy reality shows and game shows and reality game shows that I have 0 interest in and don't go anywhere near, but there are also some trashy TV shows that are just fun to watch, for whatever reason.
I don't have to have "ADD" or "few brain cells" to watch shows on the Discovery channel - what I do in my free time to relax is my business and you don't have any reason or need to judge that.The problem with this discussion is that the people who like NASA TV the way it is now are very enthusiastic about it and bring on the comments and mod points, whereas the people who find NASA TV to be boring... well, aren't very interested in the discussion.I don't watch NASA TV because, yeah, it's boring.
I don't really have time to sit there for 2 hours and have next to nothing going on.
At most I could have it running in the background while I'm doing something else if something exciting is supposed to be happening.Of course, again, I don't watch NASA TV so I can't really say much on the topic.
I'm not sure if it's supposed to be more of a raw feed of everything or more pander to the general public to watch historic events unfolding.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564622</id>
	<title>Re:Budget, etc.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261944420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NASA TV does A LOT more with that money than others do anyway. Most of the money is spent for *educational* programming that is geared towards kids science education. That programming tends to actually be quite good and entertaining, if I was a kid. Hell of a lot more interesting for an 8 year old than some of the shit on the other networks!</p><p>Regarding "Breaking news" coverage, NASA's coverage is the best. Other networks have crap, mostly NASA feed for 30 seconds and 10 minutes of clap-trap action without any substance. NASA's coverage is top notch. I especially enjoy that commentators do not start talking about bullshit and repeating stuff over and over and over and over and over again and making up stories for "entertainment purposes". The role of the commentator is to relay news. If there is nothing going on, simple summary of current state every 10-15 minutes is more than enough. And that's only for the people that just tuned in.</p><p>NASA TV has the *best* live coverage of events of any space agency. I still remember their coverage for Mars landers and the first signals that came back. Anticipation and exhilaration upon reception of the first transmission came through NASA TV. On the other networks, it was utter garbage. There was no anticipation - there was just voice of the commentators talking shit.</p><p>so, LA Times,</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; !!! LEAVE NASA TV ALONE !!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NASA TV does A LOT more with that money than others do anyway .
Most of the money is spent for * educational * programming that is geared towards kids science education .
That programming tends to actually be quite good and entertaining , if I was a kid .
Hell of a lot more interesting for an 8 year old than some of the shit on the other networks ! Regarding " Breaking news " coverage , NASA 's coverage is the best .
Other networks have crap , mostly NASA feed for 30 seconds and 10 minutes of clap-trap action without any substance .
NASA 's coverage is top notch .
I especially enjoy that commentators do not start talking about bullshit and repeating stuff over and over and over and over and over again and making up stories for " entertainment purposes " .
The role of the commentator is to relay news .
If there is nothing going on , simple summary of current state every 10-15 minutes is more than enough .
And that 's only for the people that just tuned in.NASA TV has the * best * live coverage of events of any space agency .
I still remember their coverage for Mars landers and the first signals that came back .
Anticipation and exhilaration upon reception of the first transmission came through NASA TV .
On the other networks , it was utter garbage .
There was no anticipation - there was just voice of the commentators talking shit.so , LA Times ,         ! ! !
LEAVE NASA TV ALONE ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NASA TV does A LOT more with that money than others do anyway.
Most of the money is spent for *educational* programming that is geared towards kids science education.
That programming tends to actually be quite good and entertaining, if I was a kid.
Hell of a lot more interesting for an 8 year old than some of the shit on the other networks!Regarding "Breaking news" coverage, NASA's coverage is the best.
Other networks have crap, mostly NASA feed for 30 seconds and 10 minutes of clap-trap action without any substance.
NASA's coverage is top notch.
I especially enjoy that commentators do not start talking about bullshit and repeating stuff over and over and over and over and over again and making up stories for "entertainment purposes".
The role of the commentator is to relay news.
If there is nothing going on, simple summary of current state every 10-15 minutes is more than enough.
And that's only for the people that just tuned in.NASA TV has the *best* live coverage of events of any space agency.
I still remember their coverage for Mars landers and the first signals that came back.
Anticipation and exhilaration upon reception of the first transmission came through NASA TV.
On the other networks, it was utter garbage.
There was no anticipation - there was just voice of the commentators talking shit.so, LA Times,
        !!!
LEAVE NASA TV ALONE !!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564828</id>
	<title>Reality shows!</title>
	<author>Aokisensei</author>
	<datestamp>1261946700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They seem to have worked well for MTV....I can see it now.

"Who will get voted off of the Space Station this week?  Tune in to NASA TV tonight for the season finale of SURVIVOR! Space"</htmltext>
<tokenext>They seem to have worked well for MTV....I can see it now .
" Who will get voted off of the Space Station this week ?
Tune in to NASA TV tonight for the season finale of SURVIVOR !
Space "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They seem to have worked well for MTV....I can see it now.
"Who will get voted off of the Space Station this week?
Tune in to NASA TV tonight for the season finale of SURVIVOR!
Space"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563888</id>
	<title>Tell a story</title>
	<author>minstrelmike</author>
	<datestamp>1261937280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>People listen to stories because they entertain in some fashion. NASA and most scientists do not know how to tell a story and even "think" to themselves that a story is fictional or that if it becomes popular, it will lose some cachet.
<br> <br>
Perhaps, but politicians know that they can't get funding for stuff that doesn't tell a good story. Any hack ad writer could have written a 2-page in-depth personal profile on what it feels like to return to Earth and have to be carried off in a stretcher. It would demonstrate heroism and stoicism and the dangers and excitement of space and of research in general.
<br> <br>
I wonder how those teams competing for X-prizes pitch their idea to venture capitalists (spend 10 million to make 1 million ain't gonna work).</htmltext>
<tokenext>People listen to stories because they entertain in some fashion .
NASA and most scientists do not know how to tell a story and even " think " to themselves that a story is fictional or that if it becomes popular , it will lose some cachet .
Perhaps , but politicians know that they ca n't get funding for stuff that does n't tell a good story .
Any hack ad writer could have written a 2-page in-depth personal profile on what it feels like to return to Earth and have to be carried off in a stretcher .
It would demonstrate heroism and stoicism and the dangers and excitement of space and of research in general .
I wonder how those teams competing for X-prizes pitch their idea to venture capitalists ( spend 10 million to make 1 million ai n't gon na work ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People listen to stories because they entertain in some fashion.
NASA and most scientists do not know how to tell a story and even "think" to themselves that a story is fictional or that if it becomes popular, it will lose some cachet.
Perhaps, but politicians know that they can't get funding for stuff that doesn't tell a good story.
Any hack ad writer could have written a 2-page in-depth personal profile on what it feels like to return to Earth and have to be carried off in a stretcher.
It would demonstrate heroism and stoicism and the dangers and excitement of space and of research in general.
I wonder how those teams competing for X-prizes pitch their idea to venture capitalists (spend 10 million to make 1 million ain't gonna work).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30566350</id>
	<title>PC programming is boring</title>
	<author>amightywind</author>
	<datestamp>1261915320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Launch day on NASA TV is outstanding, especially the replays of the engineering views. But the day to day ISS "we are the world" happy talk and video of the pointless activities on the ISS, and the politically correct, diverse, children's educational programming are an utter waste.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Launch day on NASA TV is outstanding , especially the replays of the engineering views .
But the day to day ISS " we are the world " happy talk and video of the pointless activities on the ISS , and the politically correct , diverse , children 's educational programming are an utter waste .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Launch day on NASA TV is outstanding, especially the replays of the engineering views.
But the day to day ISS "we are the world" happy talk and video of the pointless activities on the ISS, and the politically correct, diverse, children's educational programming are an utter waste.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30566616</id>
	<title>Re:Where is Carl Sagan when you need him?</title>
	<author>mcneely.mike</author>
	<datestamp>1261917660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>He didn't die, he experienced a phase transition and is now at a higher entropy level.</i>
<br>
His entropy level now reaches 'Billions and Billions'.</htmltext>
<tokenext>He did n't die , he experienced a phase transition and is now at a higher entropy level .
His entropy level now reaches 'Billions and Billions' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He didn't die, he experienced a phase transition and is now at a higher entropy level.
His entropy level now reaches 'Billions and Billions'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563712</id>
	<title>I agree with this, to a point</title>
	<author>phillymjs</author>
	<datestamp>1261935840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The last time I watched NASA TV was when they did the moon impact back in October. And here's the comment I posted when it was over:</p><p>-----<br>Well, I watched it on NASA TV, and all I have to say is, "Where was the kaboom???"<br>I saw no plume, no nothing, just a close-up of the crater which never changed, even after they said impact had occurred and started congratulating each other. Only NASA could make crashing something into the moon boring!<br>Hopefully there will be actual video where I can -see- something posted from somewhere else.<br>-----</p><p>They don't have to go too crazy, but a little color commentary would be nice-- especially when the viewer doesn't get to see anything good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The last time I watched NASA TV was when they did the moon impact back in October .
And here 's the comment I posted when it was over : -----Well , I watched it on NASA TV , and all I have to say is , " Where was the kaboom ? ? ?
" I saw no plume , no nothing , just a close-up of the crater which never changed , even after they said impact had occurred and started congratulating each other .
Only NASA could make crashing something into the moon boring ! Hopefully there will be actual video where I can -see- something posted from somewhere else.-----They do n't have to go too crazy , but a little color commentary would be nice-- especially when the viewer does n't get to see anything good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The last time I watched NASA TV was when they did the moon impact back in October.
And here's the comment I posted when it was over:-----Well, I watched it on NASA TV, and all I have to say is, "Where was the kaboom???
"I saw no plume, no nothing, just a close-up of the crater which never changed, even after they said impact had occurred and started congratulating each other.
Only NASA could make crashing something into the moon boring!Hopefully there will be actual video where I can -see- something posted from somewhere else.-----They don't have to go too crazy, but a little color commentary would be nice-- especially when the viewer doesn't get to see anything good.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30576674</id>
	<title>Re:NASA TV Is NOT boring...</title>
	<author>bobsledbob</author>
	<datestamp>1262000580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm just imagining the flood of Google Image queries you've spawned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm just imagining the flood of Google Image queries you 've spawned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm just imagining the flood of Google Image queries you've spawned.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563630</id>
	<title>multiple feeds?</title>
	<author>cashman73</author>
	<datestamp>1261934820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The solution could actually be something like better incorporation of multiple feeds. I mean, they could spruce up the NASA TV cable network to make it a bit more appealing to the "brain dead crowd", while at the same time having the raw footage and all the good stuff (which, to non-Slashdotters, is ridiculously boring) on their website. This could probably work quite well for about a year or two under the right management, but unfortunately will inevitably be screwed up by Comcast, much in the same way that G4 screwed up TechTV.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The solution could actually be something like better incorporation of multiple feeds .
I mean , they could spruce up the NASA TV cable network to make it a bit more appealing to the " brain dead crowd " , while at the same time having the raw footage and all the good stuff ( which , to non-Slashdotters , is ridiculously boring ) on their website .
This could probably work quite well for about a year or two under the right management , but unfortunately will inevitably be screwed up by Comcast , much in the same way that G4 screwed up TechTV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The solution could actually be something like better incorporation of multiple feeds.
I mean, they could spruce up the NASA TV cable network to make it a bit more appealing to the "brain dead crowd", while at the same time having the raw footage and all the good stuff (which, to non-Slashdotters, is ridiculously boring) on their website.
This could probably work quite well for about a year or two under the right management, but unfortunately will inevitably be screwed up by Comcast, much in the same way that G4 screwed up TechTV.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563468</id>
	<title>NASA TV for Dummies?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261933200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, thanks.</p><p>I already fell like I'm living inside "Idocracy" when I happen to see any given network news show.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , thanks.I already fell like I 'm living inside " Idocracy " when I happen to see any given network news show .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, thanks.I already fell like I'm living inside "Idocracy" when I happen to see any given network news show.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563564</id>
	<title>Orange County Shuttles</title>
	<author>HNS-I</author>
	<datestamp>1261934220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe they want it more like <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KA0QlqNUTV8" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">this</a> [youtube.com].

You know when discovery channel started it was really good. Now discovery is what music is for mtv.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe they want it more like this [ youtube.com ] .
You know when discovery channel started it was really good .
Now discovery is what music is for mtv .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe they want it more like this [youtube.com].
You know when discovery channel started it was really good.
Now discovery is what music is for mtv.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563478</id>
	<title>Here here!</title>
	<author>datadigit</author>
	<datestamp>1261933260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here here!  I'm a huge space fan and NASA's broadcasts still put me to sleep... it's like watching some public access broadcast from the 80s.  I can't imagine it's doing much for those that need to be convinced space exploration is 'cool.'</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here here !
I 'm a huge space fan and NASA 's broadcasts still put me to sleep... it 's like watching some public access broadcast from the 80s .
I ca n't imagine it 's doing much for those that need to be convinced space exploration is 'cool .
'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here here!
I'm a huge space fan and NASA's broadcasts still put me to sleep... it's like watching some public access broadcast from the 80s.
I can't imagine it's doing much for those that need to be convinced space exploration is 'cool.
'</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30568792</id>
	<title>Re:Where is Carl Sagan when you need him?</title>
	<author>aomoore3</author>
	<datestamp>1261943160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Carl Sagan, what a sorry excuse for a scientist.  He made money by popularizing it (translation: dumbing it down) and being a skeptic.  Can't we do better for role models in America?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Carl Sagan , what a sorry excuse for a scientist .
He made money by popularizing it ( translation : dumbing it down ) and being a skeptic .
Ca n't we do better for role models in America ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Carl Sagan, what a sorry excuse for a scientist.
He made money by popularizing it (translation: dumbing it down) and being a skeptic.
Can't we do better for role models in America?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563846</id>
	<title>Get Phil Plait of Bad Astronomy</title>
	<author>Picass0</author>
	<datestamp>1261936920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Brains and entertaining. Get him to cover big events.</p><p>Don't let "TV Pros" anywhere near NASA tv.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Brains and entertaining .
Get him to cover big events.Do n't let " TV Pros " anywhere near NASA tv .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Brains and entertaining.
Get him to cover big events.Don't let "TV Pros" anywhere near NASA tv.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564342</id>
	<title>Re:multiple feeds?</title>
	<author>Martin Blank</author>
	<datestamp>1261941600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>His proposal <i>is</i> giving you your one channel.  It's giving those that want something a little more hopped up their channel, which may lead them to understand why it is that you like your channel.  This is trivial to do with a webcast, which is how I usually watch NasaTV, as I have no idea what channel it's on for me (or if it's even available).</p><p>There are commentators that can do a good job of explaining what's happening while also making it a little more entertaining.  Think of the way that Neil deGrasse Tyson or Michio Kaku approach their descriptions of science.  That kind of approach could do NasaTV some good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>His proposal is giving you your one channel .
It 's giving those that want something a little more hopped up their channel , which may lead them to understand why it is that you like your channel .
This is trivial to do with a webcast , which is how I usually watch NasaTV , as I have no idea what channel it 's on for me ( or if it 's even available ) .There are commentators that can do a good job of explaining what 's happening while also making it a little more entertaining .
Think of the way that Neil deGrasse Tyson or Michio Kaku approach their descriptions of science .
That kind of approach could do NasaTV some good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>His proposal is giving you your one channel.
It's giving those that want something a little more hopped up their channel, which may lead them to understand why it is that you like your channel.
This is trivial to do with a webcast, which is how I usually watch NasaTV, as I have no idea what channel it's on for me (or if it's even available).There are commentators that can do a good job of explaining what's happening while also making it a little more entertaining.
Think of the way that Neil deGrasse Tyson or Michio Kaku approach their descriptions of science.
That kind of approach could do NasaTV some good.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564196</id>
	<title>Ehhhh... Leave it be.</title>
	<author>JD770</author>
	<datestamp>1261940400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm of the opinion that the farther away from "Hollywood" it is, the better. Leave it be. And stay off my lawn you damned, dirty hippies!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm of the opinion that the farther away from " Hollywood " it is , the better .
Leave it be .
And stay off my lawn you damned , dirty hippies !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm of the opinion that the farther away from "Hollywood" it is, the better.
Leave it be.
And stay off my lawn you damned, dirty hippies!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564660</id>
	<title>Re:Budget, etc.</title>
	<author>GrumblyStuff</author>
	<datestamp>1261944900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, they should not be comparing Discovery to this.  Ok, ok, maaayyybe if it was to, say, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet\_Earth\_(TV\_series)" title="wikipedia.org">Planet Earth</a> [wikipedia.org] but what about the other shows like... A Haunting, Cash Cab (1 hour a day is enough. 6 fucking hours is a bit much), Destroyed in Seconds, Ghost Lab, and whatever paranormal and/or reality TV.</p><p>Mythbusters is starting to tire me and that's pretty much the only reason I turn on the TV since It Takes a Thief and How It's Made disappeared from the line up and replaced by marathon after marathon other shows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , they should not be comparing Discovery to this .
Ok , ok , maaayyybe if it was to , say , Planet Earth [ wikipedia.org ] but what about the other shows like... A Haunting , Cash Cab ( 1 hour a day is enough .
6 fucking hours is a bit much ) , Destroyed in Seconds , Ghost Lab , and whatever paranormal and/or reality TV.Mythbusters is starting to tire me and that 's pretty much the only reason I turn on the TV since It Takes a Thief and How It 's Made disappeared from the line up and replaced by marathon after marathon other shows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, they should not be comparing Discovery to this.
Ok, ok, maaayyybe if it was to, say, Planet Earth [wikipedia.org] but what about the other shows like... A Haunting, Cash Cab (1 hour a day is enough.
6 fucking hours is a bit much), Destroyed in Seconds, Ghost Lab, and whatever paranormal and/or reality TV.Mythbusters is starting to tire me and that's pretty much the only reason I turn on the TV since It Takes a Thief and How It's Made disappeared from the line up and replaced by marathon after marathon other shows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30576398</id>
	<title>When you can't produce, criticize.</title>
	<author>Duggeek</author>
	<datestamp>1261998600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's rather well-accepted that critics know the least about making good TV, rather just how to point-out bad TV.</p><p>Now, I'll give them the basic gist; NASA-TV is a yawn-fest. The LCROSS press conferences have been an excellent example of this. Aside from live events, the produced segments also leave quite a bit to be desired. (TFA puts the point nicely with the Soyuz bit)</p><p>We don't need Simon Cowell or Ryan Seacrest to make it interesting. Here's an idea; take the producers from any of the "Most [insert hyperbolic and/or categorical adjective] Videos" shows and let them have at it. They have all the video-toaster effects down, they have an "extreme" narrator and they're well versed at making spilled milk into a world-shaking event. Ba-da boom, NASA-TV becomes as over-hyped as the rest of basic cable, blending in perfectly.</p><p>It's not science, people. It's just good TV.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's rather well-accepted that critics know the least about making good TV , rather just how to point-out bad TV.Now , I 'll give them the basic gist ; NASA-TV is a yawn-fest .
The LCROSS press conferences have been an excellent example of this .
Aside from live events , the produced segments also leave quite a bit to be desired .
( TFA puts the point nicely with the Soyuz bit ) We do n't need Simon Cowell or Ryan Seacrest to make it interesting .
Here 's an idea ; take the producers from any of the " Most [ insert hyperbolic and/or categorical adjective ] Videos " shows and let them have at it .
They have all the video-toaster effects down , they have an " extreme " narrator and they 're well versed at making spilled milk into a world-shaking event .
Ba-da boom , NASA-TV becomes as over-hyped as the rest of basic cable , blending in perfectly.It 's not science , people .
It 's just good TV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's rather well-accepted that critics know the least about making good TV, rather just how to point-out bad TV.Now, I'll give them the basic gist; NASA-TV is a yawn-fest.
The LCROSS press conferences have been an excellent example of this.
Aside from live events, the produced segments also leave quite a bit to be desired.
(TFA puts the point nicely with the Soyuz bit)We don't need Simon Cowell or Ryan Seacrest to make it interesting.
Here's an idea; take the producers from any of the "Most [insert hyperbolic and/or categorical adjective] Videos" shows and let them have at it.
They have all the video-toaster effects down, they have an "extreme" narrator and they're well versed at making spilled milk into a world-shaking event.
Ba-da boom, NASA-TV becomes as over-hyped as the rest of basic cable, blending in perfectly.It's not science, people.
It's just good TV.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30568336</id>
	<title>Re:This ain't MTV!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261935480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they want to put out a Spanish language version of the channel they can always hire some of those football (soccer) announcers. If they can make football sound exciting they should be able to do wonders with the space program!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they want to put out a Spanish language version of the channel they can always hire some of those football ( soccer ) announcers .
If they can make football sound exciting they should be able to do wonders with the space program !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they want to put out a Spanish language version of the channel they can always hire some of those football (soccer) announcers.
If they can make football sound exciting they should be able to do wonders with the space program!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30567722</id>
	<title>NASA TV is OK, but ....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261927680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...they seriously need to ditch the stupid tag lines that they superimpose over the launch of every vehicle.</p><p>I mean, really - you have an n-million lb. ship belching n+2-million lbs of fiery loud thrust, shaking toward the heavens faster than a bullet fired out of a gun, and NASA sees this as the *best* time to cut in PR commentary!?! "Liftoff of the Space Shuttle Discovery, delivering the toilet to the ISS to build the true throne room of the Gods!" or some similar nonsense.</p><p>I want to see, hear, and feel the launch in full HD surround sound glory, dammit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...they seriously need to ditch the stupid tag lines that they superimpose over the launch of every vehicle.I mean , really - you have an n-million lb .
ship belching n + 2-million lbs of fiery loud thrust , shaking toward the heavens faster than a bullet fired out of a gun , and NASA sees this as the * best * time to cut in PR commentary ! ? !
" Liftoff of the Space Shuttle Discovery , delivering the toilet to the ISS to build the true throne room of the Gods !
" or some similar nonsense.I want to see , hear , and feel the launch in full HD surround sound glory , dammit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...they seriously need to ditch the stupid tag lines that they superimpose over the launch of every vehicle.I mean, really - you have an n-million lb.
ship belching n+2-million lbs of fiery loud thrust, shaking toward the heavens faster than a bullet fired out of a gun, and NASA sees this as the *best* time to cut in PR commentary!?!
"Liftoff of the Space Shuttle Discovery, delivering the toilet to the ISS to build the true throne room of the Gods!
" or some similar nonsense.I want to see, hear, and feel the launch in full HD surround sound glory, dammit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30568242</id>
	<title>Re:This ain't MTV!</title>
	<author>Cyner</author>
	<datestamp>1261934160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're not asking for the MTV version of NASA. It simply would be nice to get a little mix going. Sure, sometimes you want to see every detail of how they drove into a field an picked up 3 cosmonauts for hours on end. Other times it might be nice if they cut it down to the technically interesting parts. There is a happy medium in between the two extremes you have proposed. One where the die-hards still get their detail fix; and the rest of us intellectuals can learn something without being bored to tears. You are right that it we're looking for the 10 second version at a 2nd grade reading level we need to flip over to CNN.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're not asking for the MTV version of NASA .
It simply would be nice to get a little mix going .
Sure , sometimes you want to see every detail of how they drove into a field an picked up 3 cosmonauts for hours on end .
Other times it might be nice if they cut it down to the technically interesting parts .
There is a happy medium in between the two extremes you have proposed .
One where the die-hards still get their detail fix ; and the rest of us intellectuals can learn something without being bored to tears .
You are right that it we 're looking for the 10 second version at a 2nd grade reading level we need to flip over to CNN .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're not asking for the MTV version of NASA.
It simply would be nice to get a little mix going.
Sure, sometimes you want to see every detail of how they drove into a field an picked up 3 cosmonauts for hours on end.
Other times it might be nice if they cut it down to the technically interesting parts.
There is a happy medium in between the two extremes you have proposed.
One where the die-hards still get their detail fix; and the rest of us intellectuals can learn something without being bored to tears.
You are right that it we're looking for the 10 second version at a 2nd grade reading level we need to flip over to CNN.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563708</id>
	<title>I can see it now</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1261935780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just let Rupert and his team manage it...</p><p>NEXT on FOX NASA - TERRORISTS IN SPACE</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Could Iranian sleeper agents be infiltrating NASA? We'll explore classified documents that show a government cover up of a plot to fly the next space shuttle into DOWNTOWN NEW YORK. Millions of people will be killed, and the government doesn't want you to know. STAY TUNED...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just let Rupert and his team manage it...NEXT on FOX NASA - TERRORISTS IN SPACE       Could Iranian sleeper agents be infiltrating NASA ?
We 'll explore classified documents that show a government cover up of a plot to fly the next space shuttle into DOWNTOWN NEW YORK .
Millions of people will be killed , and the government does n't want you to know .
STAY TUNED.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just let Rupert and his team manage it...NEXT on FOX NASA - TERRORISTS IN SPACE
      Could Iranian sleeper agents be infiltrating NASA?
We'll explore classified documents that show a government cover up of a plot to fly the next space shuttle into DOWNTOWN NEW YORK.
Millions of people will be killed, and the government doesn't want you to know.
STAY TUNED...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30569316</id>
	<title>edmsing</title>
	<author>edmsing</author>
	<datestamp>1261995960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It would be nice if the NASA channel did not display and on screen logo...</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be nice if the NASA channel did not display and on screen logo.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be nice if the NASA channel did not display and on screen logo...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563760</id>
	<title>Budget, etc.</title>
	<author>v1x</author>
	<datestamp>1261936260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The network's budget -- $1.5 million a year -- is a pittance even compared with certain programs on National Public Radio, he said, and NASA TV's full-time staff of 18 people, based in Washington, D.C., cannot hope to create the sort of polished productions that grace "Nova" and the Discovery Channel.</p></div> </blockquote><p>
That about explains it all for me. Given their budget, does it really surprise anyone that their programming isn't as 'lively' as some of the other networks? In addition, there are people like myself who simply prefer getting the facts, and find more recent programming from networks like Discovery to be somewhat sensational and lightweight in content.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The network 's budget -- $ 1.5 million a year -- is a pittance even compared with certain programs on National Public Radio , he said , and NASA TV 's full-time staff of 18 people , based in Washington , D.C. , can not hope to create the sort of polished productions that grace " Nova " and the Discovery Channel .
That about explains it all for me .
Given their budget , does it really surprise anyone that their programming is n't as 'lively ' as some of the other networks ?
In addition , there are people like myself who simply prefer getting the facts , and find more recent programming from networks like Discovery to be somewhat sensational and lightweight in content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The network's budget -- $1.5 million a year -- is a pittance even compared with certain programs on National Public Radio, he said, and NASA TV's full-time staff of 18 people, based in Washington, D.C., cannot hope to create the sort of polished productions that grace "Nova" and the Discovery Channel.
That about explains it all for me.
Given their budget, does it really surprise anyone that their programming isn't as 'lively' as some of the other networks?
In addition, there are people like myself who simply prefer getting the facts, and find more recent programming from networks like Discovery to be somewhat sensational and lightweight in content.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563592</id>
	<title>Raw science IS entertaining</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261934400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We don't need NASA TV to end up like Mythbusters TV...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We do n't need NASA TV to end up like Mythbusters TV.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We don't need NASA TV to end up like Mythbusters TV...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563636</id>
	<title>Re:This ain't MTV!</title>
	<author>bertoelcon</author>
	<datestamp>1261934940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Discovery Channel used to be educational... now it's "how can we use science to blow shit up?"</p></div><p>They have Dirty Jobs too not just Mythbusters.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Discovery Channel used to be educational... now it 's " how can we use science to blow shit up ?
" They have Dirty Jobs too not just Mythbusters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Discovery Channel used to be educational... now it's "how can we use science to blow shit up?
"They have Dirty Jobs too not just Mythbusters.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564690</id>
	<title>Re:This ain't MTV!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261945380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Usually a good documentary does not have any comment, just environment sound!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Usually a good documentary does not have any comment , just environment sound !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Usually a good documentary does not have any comment, just environment sound!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564482</id>
	<title>Everyone stand back!</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1261943040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a job for... SAGAN-MAN!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a job for... SAGAN-MAN !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a job for... SAGAN-MAN!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30566274</id>
	<title>Re:If you want to know what's wrong with "lively".</title>
	<author>Nebulious</author>
	<datestamp>1261914480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"More lively" does not mean "complete other end of the spectrum."  It means "something more engaging and able to garner more public interest, which is the objective of NASA TV,"  in other words, make it watchable.  That's why the submitter mentions Carl Sagan; he was able to mix science, inspiration, and entertainment so that people still watch Cosmos today.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" More lively " does not mean " complete other end of the spectrum .
" It means " something more engaging and able to garner more public interest , which is the objective of NASA TV , " in other words , make it watchable .
That 's why the submitter mentions Carl Sagan ; he was able to mix science , inspiration , and entertainment so that people still watch Cosmos today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"More lively" does not mean "complete other end of the spectrum.
"  It means "something more engaging and able to garner more public interest, which is the objective of NASA TV,"  in other words, make it watchable.
That's why the submitter mentions Carl Sagan; he was able to mix science, inspiration, and entertainment so that people still watch Cosmos today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30565056</id>
	<title>forget Carl Sagan...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261905120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... we need to get someone like Steve Irwing!<br>"Crikey! Look at the size of that capsule!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... we need to get someone like Steve Irwing ! " Crikey !
Look at the size of that capsule !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... we need to get someone like Steve Irwing!"Crikey!
Look at the size of that capsule!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30569616</id>
	<title>Solution: MKV (aka seperate audio streams)</title>
	<author>RichiH</author>
	<datestamp>1262002380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure, add some OMGPONIES track if you think that will give you more viewers, thus exposure, thus money. But please please please let the nerdy rest of us keep the simple fact version.</p><p>If they are driving towards a Soyuz, I don't need someone telling me that. I can see it. Some call it boring, I call it blissful silence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , add some OMGPONIES track if you think that will give you more viewers , thus exposure , thus money .
But please please please let the nerdy rest of us keep the simple fact version.If they are driving towards a Soyuz , I do n't need someone telling me that .
I can see it .
Some call it boring , I call it blissful silence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, add some OMGPONIES track if you think that will give you more viewers, thus exposure, thus money.
But please please please let the nerdy rest of us keep the simple fact version.If they are driving towards a Soyuz, I don't need someone telling me that.
I can see it.
Some call it boring, I call it blissful silence.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30566612</id>
	<title>This rings of truthiness</title>
	<author>humanitysfriend</author>
	<datestamp>1261917600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Between budgetary restrictions and the 18 dry NASA workers who run it, I can understand why it's very minimal.  However, just like a great teacher or any organization, NASA needs to be able to market to and engage the people who are funding it.  That doesn't mean turning it into infotainment, but there certainly needs to be a more human face on NASA endeavors.  Dumbing down of some sort is absolutely necessary if NASA hopes to expand its audience and gather more interest and funding in its missions. If only NASA could do this and not cross into the dark side of modern broadcast media.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Between budgetary restrictions and the 18 dry NASA workers who run it , I can understand why it 's very minimal .
However , just like a great teacher or any organization , NASA needs to be able to market to and engage the people who are funding it .
That does n't mean turning it into infotainment , but there certainly needs to be a more human face on NASA endeavors .
Dumbing down of some sort is absolutely necessary if NASA hopes to expand its audience and gather more interest and funding in its missions .
If only NASA could do this and not cross into the dark side of modern broadcast media .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Between budgetary restrictions and the 18 dry NASA workers who run it, I can understand why it's very minimal.
However, just like a great teacher or any organization, NASA needs to be able to market to and engage the people who are funding it.
That doesn't mean turning it into infotainment, but there certainly needs to be a more human face on NASA endeavors.
Dumbing down of some sort is absolutely necessary if NASA hopes to expand its audience and gather more interest and funding in its missions.
If only NASA could do this and not cross into the dark side of modern broadcast media.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563810</id>
	<title>Re:Needs more controversy</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1261936740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Explosions! (easy one, just loosen safety standard)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Explosions !
( easy one , just loosen safety standard )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Explosions!
(easy one, just loosen safety standard)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564434</id>
	<title>It's WORSE when they try to make it "interesting"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261942560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know what's worse:<br>
- mission specialists trying to be whimsical (Oooo you brought a Buzz Lightyear action figure up with you to the ISS - that's so funny! That only costs, what, $500 in rocket fuel?)<br>
- fifth-rate commentator/comedian/tv personality types interviewing NASA personnel and defense/space contractors and trying to make relevant jokes ("Boy, I bet you'd have no trouble putting the star on the Christmas tree with that robotic arm, huh?")<br>
- computer-animated "music videos" showing the magic of space.<br>
Etc. etc. etc.<br>
Stick with the science folks. Remember - If you don't have a sense of humor, don't try to be funny!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know what 's worse : - mission specialists trying to be whimsical ( Oooo you brought a Buzz Lightyear action figure up with you to the ISS - that 's so funny !
That only costs , what , $ 500 in rocket fuel ?
) - fifth-rate commentator/comedian/tv personality types interviewing NASA personnel and defense/space contractors and trying to make relevant jokes ( " Boy , I bet you 'd have no trouble putting the star on the Christmas tree with that robotic arm , huh ?
" ) - computer-animated " music videos " showing the magic of space .
Etc. etc .
etc . Stick with the science folks .
Remember - If you do n't have a sense of humor , do n't try to be funny !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know what's worse:
- mission specialists trying to be whimsical (Oooo you brought a Buzz Lightyear action figure up with you to the ISS - that's so funny!
That only costs, what, $500 in rocket fuel?
)
- fifth-rate commentator/comedian/tv personality types interviewing NASA personnel and defense/space contractors and trying to make relevant jokes ("Boy, I bet you'd have no trouble putting the star on the Christmas tree with that robotic arm, huh?
")
- computer-animated "music videos" showing the magic of space.
Etc. etc.
etc.
Stick with the science folks.
Remember - If you don't have a sense of humor, don't try to be funny!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563732</id>
	<title>In fact...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261936080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...isn't NASA TV public domain like other NASA IP? If so, if some dude is unhappy about the broadcasts not being shiny enough, he can just make his own. Hell, if his opinion isn't utter bullshit, he can even profit from it! What is he waiting for?????</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...is n't NASA TV public domain like other NASA IP ?
If so , if some dude is unhappy about the broadcasts not being shiny enough , he can just make his own .
Hell , if his opinion is n't utter bullshit , he can even profit from it !
What is he waiting for ? ? ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...isn't NASA TV public domain like other NASA IP?
If so, if some dude is unhappy about the broadcasts not being shiny enough, he can just make his own.
Hell, if his opinion isn't utter bullshit, he can even profit from it!
What is he waiting for????
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30566234</id>
	<title>Middle Ground</title>
	<author>Nightspirit</author>
	<datestamp>1261914120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps there is a middle ground between 20 minutes of silence and MTV NEWSBLAST? What about insightful commentary about the mission, what it means/significance/future projects that involve the mission, or was this already included?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps there is a middle ground between 20 minutes of silence and MTV NEWSBLAST ?
What about insightful commentary about the mission , what it means/significance/future projects that involve the mission , or was this already included ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps there is a middle ground between 20 minutes of silence and MTV NEWSBLAST?
What about insightful commentary about the mission, what it means/significance/future projects that involve the mission, or was this already included?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563440</id>
	<title>If you want to know what's wrong with "lively"...</title>
	<author>Gordonjcp</author>
	<datestamp>1261932840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... just watch a weather report on American TV.  "ZOMG IT'S THE BIG ONE EVERYBODY RUN FOR COVER WINDS WILL REACH 50MPH IN PLACES!" and so on.  We don't need it, thanks.</p><p>Watch one of David Attenborough's natural history programmes.  Get your ideas from that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... just watch a weather report on American TV .
" ZOMG IT 'S THE BIG ONE EVERYBODY RUN FOR COVER WINDS WILL REACH 50MPH IN PLACES !
" and so on .
We do n't need it , thanks.Watch one of David Attenborough 's natural history programmes .
Get your ideas from that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... just watch a weather report on American TV.
"ZOMG IT'S THE BIG ONE EVERYBODY RUN FOR COVER WINDS WILL REACH 50MPH IN PLACES!
" and so on.
We don't need it, thanks.Watch one of David Attenborough's natural history programmes.
Get your ideas from that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564458</id>
	<title>Re:multiple feeds?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261942860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're absolutely right, man.  Look, we're living in the 21st century!  We have HDTV, now!  Just give the channel two different feeds, one with just the basic picture and boring audio, and an 'enhanced' feed with a bit more to it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're absolutely right , man .
Look , we 're living in the 21st century !
We have HDTV , now !
Just give the channel two different feeds , one with just the basic picture and boring audio , and an 'enhanced ' feed with a bit more to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're absolutely right, man.
Look, we're living in the 21st century!
We have HDTV, now!
Just give the channel two different feeds, one with just the basic picture and boring audio, and an 'enhanced' feed with a bit more to it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564092</id>
	<title>Re:NASA TV for Dummies?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261939320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No, thanks.</p><p>I already fell like I'm living inside "Idocracy" when I happen to see any given network news show.</p></div><p>You talk like a fag.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , thanks.I already fell like I 'm living inside " Idocracy " when I happen to see any given network news show.You talk like a fag .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, thanks.I already fell like I'm living inside "Idocracy" when I happen to see any given network news show.You talk like a fag.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30565300</id>
	<title>Listen without browser</title>
	<author>digitalhermit</author>
	<datestamp>1261906560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Listen to the feeds directly...</p><p>I bookmark the NASA feeds directly in VLC on Linux so I can play them without a browser opened. To do so, open the following in VLC or your media player:</p><p><a href="http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/isslivestream.asx" title="nasa.gov">http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/isslivestream.asx</a> [nasa.gov]</p><p><a href="http://www.nasa.gov/178952main\_Mission\_Audio\_UP.asx" title="nasa.gov">http://www.nasa.gov/178952main\_Mission\_Audio\_UP.asx</a> [nasa.gov]</p><p>I actually have the players embedded into my desktop which has lots of blinken lights, wireframe space animations and krellm monitors on an Apollo background.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Listen to the feeds directly...I bookmark the NASA feeds directly in VLC on Linux so I can play them without a browser opened .
To do so , open the following in VLC or your media player : http : //www.nasa.gov/multimedia/isslivestream.asx [ nasa.gov ] http : //www.nasa.gov/178952main \ _Mission \ _Audio \ _UP.asx [ nasa.gov ] I actually have the players embedded into my desktop which has lots of blinken lights , wireframe space animations and krellm monitors on an Apollo background .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Listen to the feeds directly...I bookmark the NASA feeds directly in VLC on Linux so I can play them without a browser opened.
To do so, open the following in VLC or your media player:http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/isslivestream.asx [nasa.gov]http://www.nasa.gov/178952main\_Mission\_Audio\_UP.asx [nasa.gov]I actually have the players embedded into my desktop which has lots of blinken lights, wireframe space animations and krellm monitors on an Apollo background.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564908</id>
	<title>Excitement Through Advertising Promotions...</title>
	<author>Xin Jing</author>
	<datestamp>1261947360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The new ad-sponsored "exciting" NASA broadcasts:</p><p>Narrator: Our astronauts are assissted out of the capsule onto awaiting medical stretchers and swaddled by soft and simple 100\% cotton blankets from the Martha Stewart Collection.  Folks, these blankets feature a traditional basketweave design for a causal look you'll love to cozy up to after travelling away from home in the coldness of space or settling down at home right here on Earth.</p><p>Parched by the dust of stars and daily life in space, the astronauts will replentish vital bodily fluids with a 500ml bottle of Fiji Water.  You see, Fiji naturally flavored tropical rain water is filtered for hundreds of years through volcanic stone.  Weather you're an astronaut quenching your thirst in the harsh environment of space or working up a thirst right here on Earth, you can taste the purity of Fiji Water in every sip.</p><p>Now let's join Phil in the Crew Recovery Vehicle, where our returning astronauts will be examined by NASA physicians and administered body care using Olay Regenerist Daily Regenerating Serum.  This skin replentishing treatments containing a concentrated Amino-Peptide Complex and are fragrance free.  Each treatment delivers several anti-aging ingredients such as Vitamin B3, Vitamin E, Pro-vitamin B5, green tea extract, and allantoin.</p><p>For our folks at home on Earth who are just joining in, all of these exciting products that our honored astronauts are benefiting from can all be ordered direct at Amazon.com with free shipping!  Just reference the promotional code "NASA LANDING 2009" before January 1 2010.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The new ad-sponsored " exciting " NASA broadcasts : Narrator : Our astronauts are assissted out of the capsule onto awaiting medical stretchers and swaddled by soft and simple 100 \ % cotton blankets from the Martha Stewart Collection .
Folks , these blankets feature a traditional basketweave design for a causal look you 'll love to cozy up to after travelling away from home in the coldness of space or settling down at home right here on Earth.Parched by the dust of stars and daily life in space , the astronauts will replentish vital bodily fluids with a 500ml bottle of Fiji Water .
You see , Fiji naturally flavored tropical rain water is filtered for hundreds of years through volcanic stone .
Weather you 're an astronaut quenching your thirst in the harsh environment of space or working up a thirst right here on Earth , you can taste the purity of Fiji Water in every sip.Now let 's join Phil in the Crew Recovery Vehicle , where our returning astronauts will be examined by NASA physicians and administered body care using Olay Regenerist Daily Regenerating Serum .
This skin replentishing treatments containing a concentrated Amino-Peptide Complex and are fragrance free .
Each treatment delivers several anti-aging ingredients such as Vitamin B3 , Vitamin E , Pro-vitamin B5 , green tea extract , and allantoin.For our folks at home on Earth who are just joining in , all of these exciting products that our honored astronauts are benefiting from can all be ordered direct at Amazon.com with free shipping !
Just reference the promotional code " NASA LANDING 2009 " before January 1 2010 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The new ad-sponsored "exciting" NASA broadcasts:Narrator: Our astronauts are assissted out of the capsule onto awaiting medical stretchers and swaddled by soft and simple 100\% cotton blankets from the Martha Stewart Collection.
Folks, these blankets feature a traditional basketweave design for a causal look you'll love to cozy up to after travelling away from home in the coldness of space or settling down at home right here on Earth.Parched by the dust of stars and daily life in space, the astronauts will replentish vital bodily fluids with a 500ml bottle of Fiji Water.
You see, Fiji naturally flavored tropical rain water is filtered for hundreds of years through volcanic stone.
Weather you're an astronaut quenching your thirst in the harsh environment of space or working up a thirst right here on Earth, you can taste the purity of Fiji Water in every sip.Now let's join Phil in the Crew Recovery Vehicle, where our returning astronauts will be examined by NASA physicians and administered body care using Olay Regenerist Daily Regenerating Serum.
This skin replentishing treatments containing a concentrated Amino-Peptide Complex and are fragrance free.
Each treatment delivers several anti-aging ingredients such as Vitamin B3, Vitamin E, Pro-vitamin B5, green tea extract, and allantoin.For our folks at home on Earth who are just joining in, all of these exciting products that our honored astronauts are benefiting from can all be ordered direct at Amazon.com with free shipping!
Just reference the promotional code "NASA LANDING 2009" before January 1 2010.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563464</id>
	<title>Needs more controversy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261933140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They should introduce a controversial character into the mix. Maybe have a mouthy Russian hang out with the straitlaced American scientists. Or a breakout character like Puck to pull everyone's strings to the breaking point.</p><p>Or they could introduce some kind of challenge that the characters have to overcome. See which astronaut can escape fastest from a burning capsule. Or who can eat the most astronaut food without getting sick.</p><p>Science TV is the ultimate reality TV.</p><p>Or we can read this article as an indictment of the lack of attention span of the average American TV viewer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They should introduce a controversial character into the mix .
Maybe have a mouthy Russian hang out with the straitlaced American scientists .
Or a breakout character like Puck to pull everyone 's strings to the breaking point.Or they could introduce some kind of challenge that the characters have to overcome .
See which astronaut can escape fastest from a burning capsule .
Or who can eat the most astronaut food without getting sick.Science TV is the ultimate reality TV.Or we can read this article as an indictment of the lack of attention span of the average American TV viewer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They should introduce a controversial character into the mix.
Maybe have a mouthy Russian hang out with the straitlaced American scientists.
Or a breakout character like Puck to pull everyone's strings to the breaking point.Or they could introduce some kind of challenge that the characters have to overcome.
See which astronaut can escape fastest from a burning capsule.
Or who can eat the most astronaut food without getting sick.Science TV is the ultimate reality TV.Or we can read this article as an indictment of the lack of attention span of the average American TV viewer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563574</id>
	<title>Re:This ain't MTV!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261934340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agreed.<br> <br>If some LA movie town reporter thinks a NASA edutainment channel should exist, he can reach out to his LA contacts for financing and operations and <b>create</b> such a channel. And, don't forget to pay royalties to NASA for the footage  -- just like the actors who receive residuals.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
If some LA movie town reporter thinks a NASA edutainment channel should exist , he can reach out to his LA contacts for financing and operations and create such a channel .
And , do n't forget to pay royalties to NASA for the footage -- just like the actors who receive residuals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
If some LA movie town reporter thinks a NASA edutainment channel should exist, he can reach out to his LA contacts for financing and operations and create such a channel.
And, don't forget to pay royalties to NASA for the footage  -- just like the actors who receive residuals.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564600</id>
	<title>Re:multiple feeds?</title>
	<author>Voyager529</author>
	<datestamp>1261944180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem I see with the naysayers and "keep-it-the-way-it-is" argument is this: It only provides relevant information to an individual who is both interested and educated. NASA TV's holy grail would be to create a lineup of shows that address all four combinations: interested and educated (live, raw footage of noteworthy events), educated but not interested (I don't know what fits this audience that isn't some sort of rote entertainment), interested but not educated (something like a shuttle landing, cut down to its highlights with a voiceover {Morgan Freeman or James Earl Jones?} declaring what's happening and why it's relevant to the launch in simplistic terms), and neither interested nor educated (again, don't know what fits here short of some rote entertainment such as a Hollywood bad-science-but-space-related movie). Slashdot is likely to draw a much bigger crowd in the first group than the last three, and I'm certain that a Facebook poll would reflect that. In my opinion, it doesn't take making a cheesed up reality show on a fake space shuttle set to make a show that is cut down to the details that are relevant to someone with a much lower amount of background information and interest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem I see with the naysayers and " keep-it-the-way-it-is " argument is this : It only provides relevant information to an individual who is both interested and educated .
NASA TV 's holy grail would be to create a lineup of shows that address all four combinations : interested and educated ( live , raw footage of noteworthy events ) , educated but not interested ( I do n't know what fits this audience that is n't some sort of rote entertainment ) , interested but not educated ( something like a shuttle landing , cut down to its highlights with a voiceover { Morgan Freeman or James Earl Jones ?
} declaring what 's happening and why it 's relevant to the launch in simplistic terms ) , and neither interested nor educated ( again , do n't know what fits here short of some rote entertainment such as a Hollywood bad-science-but-space-related movie ) .
Slashdot is likely to draw a much bigger crowd in the first group than the last three , and I 'm certain that a Facebook poll would reflect that .
In my opinion , it does n't take making a cheesed up reality show on a fake space shuttle set to make a show that is cut down to the details that are relevant to someone with a much lower amount of background information and interest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem I see with the naysayers and "keep-it-the-way-it-is" argument is this: It only provides relevant information to an individual who is both interested and educated.
NASA TV's holy grail would be to create a lineup of shows that address all four combinations: interested and educated (live, raw footage of noteworthy events), educated but not interested (I don't know what fits this audience that isn't some sort of rote entertainment), interested but not educated (something like a shuttle landing, cut down to its highlights with a voiceover {Morgan Freeman or James Earl Jones?
} declaring what's happening and why it's relevant to the launch in simplistic terms), and neither interested nor educated (again, don't know what fits here short of some rote entertainment such as a Hollywood bad-science-but-space-related movie).
Slashdot is likely to draw a much bigger crowd in the first group than the last three, and I'm certain that a Facebook poll would reflect that.
In my opinion, it doesn't take making a cheesed up reality show on a fake space shuttle set to make a show that is cut down to the details that are relevant to someone with a much lower amount of background information and interest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563766</id>
	<title>Re:Needs more controversy</title>
	<author>PizzaAnalogyGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1261936320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Adding made-up controversy to a technical tv program would be like baking a pizza in a french fries deep-frier. Result might taste great, but the pizza just doesn't fit in it.<br>
<br>
This is why I like Man v. Food. No matter if you like <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jT5eYEBwWH8" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">sandwiches</a> [youtube.com], <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-b0VPl8s8#t=0m20sec" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">hot dogs</a> [youtube.com] or <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O45PX\_b2ft4#t=2m20sec" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">hamburgers</a> [youtube.com], I know there will never be anything as good food as hawaiian style pan pizza with barbeque sauce. But the show is entertaining, so I enjoy watching it, while knowing its not always technically correct.<br>
<br>
In Naples we used to have these pizza baking competitions between my father and his cousins place next to us. They would give slices of pizzas to everyone walking past and ask which one is better. This usually ended up with them yelling at each other in their white cooking dresses, but more people gathered around to watch what was going on and because it was entertaining, they ended up ordering pizzas too. Win win for all, except for me who had to serve them as a little boy while I would wanted to be playing soccer with my friends.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Adding made-up controversy to a technical tv program would be like baking a pizza in a french fries deep-frier .
Result might taste great , but the pizza just does n't fit in it .
This is why I like Man v. Food. No matter if you like sandwiches [ youtube.com ] , hot dogs [ youtube.com ] or hamburgers [ youtube.com ] , I know there will never be anything as good food as hawaiian style pan pizza with barbeque sauce .
But the show is entertaining , so I enjoy watching it , while knowing its not always technically correct .
In Naples we used to have these pizza baking competitions between my father and his cousins place next to us .
They would give slices of pizzas to everyone walking past and ask which one is better .
This usually ended up with them yelling at each other in their white cooking dresses , but more people gathered around to watch what was going on and because it was entertaining , they ended up ordering pizzas too .
Win win for all , except for me who had to serve them as a little boy while I would wanted to be playing soccer with my friends .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Adding made-up controversy to a technical tv program would be like baking a pizza in a french fries deep-frier.
Result might taste great, but the pizza just doesn't fit in it.
This is why I like Man v. Food. No matter if you like sandwiches [youtube.com], hot dogs [youtube.com] or hamburgers [youtube.com], I know there will never be anything as good food as hawaiian style pan pizza with barbeque sauce.
But the show is entertaining, so I enjoy watching it, while knowing its not always technically correct.
In Naples we used to have these pizza baking competitions between my father and his cousins place next to us.
They would give slices of pizzas to everyone walking past and ask which one is better.
This usually ended up with them yelling at each other in their white cooking dresses, but more people gathered around to watch what was going on and because it was entertaining, they ended up ordering pizzas too.
Win win for all, except for me who had to serve them as a little boy while I would wanted to be playing soccer with my friends.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563982</id>
	<title>Silence is nice to have.</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1261938120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is an annoying thing in American media that every second has to have some sort of sound in it.  Really, its almost like welfare for sound people that work in media.  But honestly, I like that NASA TV goes for long stretches of silence. I don't want talking heads jabbering on about stupid shit.  If I want people jabbering and pontificating  about stupid shit, I'll just jack into slashdot, and that way I can be one of them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is an annoying thing in American media that every second has to have some sort of sound in it .
Really , its almost like welfare for sound people that work in media .
But honestly , I like that NASA TV goes for long stretches of silence .
I do n't want talking heads jabbering on about stupid shit .
If I want people jabbering and pontificating about stupid shit , I 'll just jack into slashdot , and that way I can be one of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is an annoying thing in American media that every second has to have some sort of sound in it.
Really, its almost like welfare for sound people that work in media.
But honestly, I like that NASA TV goes for long stretches of silence.
I don't want talking heads jabbering on about stupid shit.
If I want people jabbering and pontificating  about stupid shit, I'll just jack into slashdot, and that way I can be one of them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564360</id>
	<title>Re:I like NASA TV how it is.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261941720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I like NASA TV the way it is. If you have ADD and need constant sound effects and graphics or everything dumbed down and edited into some fake reality, filled with game shows and so on, then channels like Discovery are for you.</p></div><p>But even the regular lemmings don't watch that channel much either.</p><p>And this is why NASA has the interest from the public that it has now, along with most space related companies across the other countries. (UK here...)<br>Survival of the fittest has never meant the best survives.<br>If these space agencies don't want to bring it down a notch to capture the hearts of all the kiddies and perhaps the Average Joe, they are going to lose out.</p><p>Nobody said that they need to talk about bullshit and create nice colorful animations for the ADD people, just explain things to those who aren't in the know with all the technical terms.<br>As "pz" said below, while most of the missions are boring, you don't need to sit there in absolute silence through the whole thing.<br>Where did all the chatty people go to in these fields?  Seriously, it is almost depressing at times seeing things like this.<br>And this is coming from a person who is NOT much of a chatty person, but i would still chat about it just for the sake of keeping the attention of people who were watching.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like NASA TV the way it is .
If you have ADD and need constant sound effects and graphics or everything dumbed down and edited into some fake reality , filled with game shows and so on , then channels like Discovery are for you.But even the regular lemmings do n't watch that channel much either.And this is why NASA has the interest from the public that it has now , along with most space related companies across the other countries .
( UK here... ) Survival of the fittest has never meant the best survives.If these space agencies do n't want to bring it down a notch to capture the hearts of all the kiddies and perhaps the Average Joe , they are going to lose out.Nobody said that they need to talk about bullshit and create nice colorful animations for the ADD people , just explain things to those who are n't in the know with all the technical terms.As " pz " said below , while most of the missions are boring , you do n't need to sit there in absolute silence through the whole thing.Where did all the chatty people go to in these fields ?
Seriously , it is almost depressing at times seeing things like this.And this is coming from a person who is NOT much of a chatty person , but i would still chat about it just for the sake of keeping the attention of people who were watching .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like NASA TV the way it is.
If you have ADD and need constant sound effects and graphics or everything dumbed down and edited into some fake reality, filled with game shows and so on, then channels like Discovery are for you.But even the regular lemmings don't watch that channel much either.And this is why NASA has the interest from the public that it has now, along with most space related companies across the other countries.
(UK here...)Survival of the fittest has never meant the best survives.If these space agencies don't want to bring it down a notch to capture the hearts of all the kiddies and perhaps the Average Joe, they are going to lose out.Nobody said that they need to talk about bullshit and create nice colorful animations for the ADD people, just explain things to those who aren't in the know with all the technical terms.As "pz" said below, while most of the missions are boring, you don't need to sit there in absolute silence through the whole thing.Where did all the chatty people go to in these fields?
Seriously, it is almost depressing at times seeing things like this.And this is coming from a person who is NOT much of a chatty person, but i would still chat about it just for the sake of keeping the attention of people who were watching.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564306</id>
	<title>Well if NASA is looking for a spokesperson...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261941360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey NASA, if you are reading this then your problem is solved.  Hire me.  Why you say?  Well first off passion.  I have been excited by the space sciences since I was a little boy. I am an average Joe with the ability to explain play by play what is happening in a way that could take the NASA TV back to being the hot topic at the office water cooler.  I understand technology and can talk about it in a way that would make Carl Sagan proud!  I have a talent for show and theater with a creative streak that would reach out to the masses and keep them coming back for more.  Need more reasons?  I am from the mid-west so not only do I work hard but I get along great with people.  Why else... well, I don't have a job to come home to after yet another deployment to Iraq.   So in recap:  I have passion, knowledge, like-ability, talent, drive, and desperation... what more could you ask for?  How about how to contact me?  ebnflow at hotmail dot com.  I look forward to being your new final frontiersman!  -E-</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey NASA , if you are reading this then your problem is solved .
Hire me .
Why you say ?
Well first off passion .
I have been excited by the space sciences since I was a little boy .
I am an average Joe with the ability to explain play by play what is happening in a way that could take the NASA TV back to being the hot topic at the office water cooler .
I understand technology and can talk about it in a way that would make Carl Sagan proud !
I have a talent for show and theater with a creative streak that would reach out to the masses and keep them coming back for more .
Need more reasons ?
I am from the mid-west so not only do I work hard but I get along great with people .
Why else... well , I do n't have a job to come home to after yet another deployment to Iraq .
So in recap : I have passion , knowledge , like-ability , talent , drive , and desperation... what more could you ask for ?
How about how to contact me ?
ebnflow at hotmail dot com .
I look forward to being your new final frontiersman !
-E-</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey NASA, if you are reading this then your problem is solved.
Hire me.
Why you say?
Well first off passion.
I have been excited by the space sciences since I was a little boy.
I am an average Joe with the ability to explain play by play what is happening in a way that could take the NASA TV back to being the hot topic at the office water cooler.
I understand technology and can talk about it in a way that would make Carl Sagan proud!
I have a talent for show and theater with a creative streak that would reach out to the masses and keep them coming back for more.
Need more reasons?
I am from the mid-west so not only do I work hard but I get along great with people.
Why else... well, I don't have a job to come home to after yet another deployment to Iraq.
So in recap:  I have passion, knowledge, like-ability, talent, drive, and desperation... what more could you ask for?
How about how to contact me?
ebnflow at hotmail dot com.
I look forward to being your new final frontiersman!
-E-</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563926</id>
	<title>Remains: Buried, Lakeview Cemetery, Ithaca, NY</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261937640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.nndb.com/people/324/000022258/" title="nndb.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.nndb.com/people/324/000022258/</a> [nndb.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.nndb.com/people/324/000022258/ [ nndb.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.nndb.com/people/324/000022258/ [nndb.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30567578</id>
	<title>Re:I like NASA TV how it is.</title>
	<author>judolphin</author>
	<datestamp>1261926240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But Nova can (and often is) interesting. NASA TV apparently is not if this is a representative sample.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But Nova can ( and often is ) interesting .
NASA TV apparently is not if this is a representative sample .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But Nova can (and often is) interesting.
NASA TV apparently is not if this is a representative sample.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564970</id>
	<title>What we don't need</title>
	<author>Snaller</author>
	<datestamp>1261904580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are some of those over energetic sales men who sound like they are getting a blowjob whilst they are reading their manuscript!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are some of those over energetic sales men who sound like they are getting a blowjob whilst they are reading their manuscript !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are some of those over energetic sales men who sound like they are getting a blowjob whilst they are reading their manuscript!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563706</id>
	<title>HEAR HEAR!!!</title>
	<author>crovira</author>
	<datestamp>1261935660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Next, he'd be asking that the NASA scientists all be replaced by nubile eighteen year old actresses who do a slow strip while discussing solid-rocket "bustier."</p><p>Keep your low-grade opinion to yourself, Hollywood, and buy at least a high-school education and get some math, physics, astronomy and computer skills, so you don't [expletive deleted] insult us with plot devices that are obvious balsa wood and paint pretending to be "Spaceships from 'Planet Voltron' or some such ignorant twadle".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Next , he 'd be asking that the NASA scientists all be replaced by nubile eighteen year old actresses who do a slow strip while discussing solid-rocket " bustier .
" Keep your low-grade opinion to yourself , Hollywood , and buy at least a high-school education and get some math , physics , astronomy and computer skills , so you do n't [ expletive deleted ] insult us with plot devices that are obvious balsa wood and paint pretending to be " Spaceships from 'Planet Voltron ' or some such ignorant twadle " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Next, he'd be asking that the NASA scientists all be replaced by nubile eighteen year old actresses who do a slow strip while discussing solid-rocket "bustier.
"Keep your low-grade opinion to yourself, Hollywood, and buy at least a high-school education and get some math, physics, astronomy and computer skills, so you don't [expletive deleted] insult us with plot devices that are obvious balsa wood and paint pretending to be "Spaceships from 'Planet Voltron' or some such ignorant twadle".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564384</id>
	<title>what?</title>
	<author>AnAdventurer</author>
	<datestamp>1261942020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sounds great to me. My favorite sound is grass going by on a four-wheeler. I love the Russian steppes, The savanna, Serengeti,  The tioga, you name it; the big open quiet. I would have watched if I jad know it was like that!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds great to me .
My favorite sound is grass going by on a four-wheeler .
I love the Russian steppes , The savanna , Serengeti , The tioga , you name it ; the big open quiet .
I would have watched if I jad know it was like that !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds great to me.
My favorite sound is grass going by on a four-wheeler.
I love the Russian steppes, The savanna, Serengeti,  The tioga, you name it; the big open quiet.
I would have watched if I jad know it was like that!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563684</id>
	<title>Re:multiple feeds?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261935480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nope.  The 'brain dead crowd' has quite enough of their own channels.  Give us folks who have yet to flat line at least ONE channel.  It's not too much to ask since we, on the average, pay most of the damned taxes anyway.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope .
The 'brain dead crowd ' has quite enough of their own channels .
Give us folks who have yet to flat line at least ONE channel .
It 's not too much to ask since we , on the average , pay most of the damned taxes anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope.
The 'brain dead crowd' has quite enough of their own channels.
Give us folks who have yet to flat line at least ONE channel.
It's not too much to ask since we, on the average, pay most of the damned taxes anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563670</id>
	<title>Re:I like NASA TV how it is.</title>
	<author>illumastorm</author>
	<datestamp>1261935240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have ADD and NASA TV can capture my attention for hours.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have ADD and NASA TV can capture my attention for hours .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have ADD and NASA TV can capture my attention for hours.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563946</id>
	<title>It's good as it is.</title>
	<author>bytesex</author>
	<datestamp>1261937820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What do they want ?  American newscaster style where they go on and on back to that same old recording with completely mindless commentary ?  Some things take time, and if you can't accept that, go back to living inside your game/movie world.  Or grow up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What do they want ?
American newscaster style where they go on and on back to that same old recording with completely mindless commentary ?
Some things take time , and if you ca n't accept that , go back to living inside your game/movie world .
Or grow up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do they want ?
American newscaster style where they go on and on back to that same old recording with completely mindless commentary ?
Some things take time, and if you can't accept that, go back to living inside your game/movie world.
Or grow up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564556</id>
	<title>Propaganda from Space</title>
	<author>Sleen</author>
	<datestamp>1261943760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remember, NASA is the Amtrak of space and they need to advertize objectives and constantly engage in consistent public communications to indicate money isn't being wasted.  NASA does not generate revenue so take your pick- boy scouts in space doing favors, amtrak etc.  Its a gov service that in principle is no different than how the US collects taxes, fights wars or delivers mail.  Imagine the postal guys up there trying to turn a torx with fat frigid fingers in zero g.  Or maybe some people from DMV to staff the mission control center.  Sounds ridiculous, but the difference is merely training and certification.  Why have postal guys or volunteers wage warfare?  The gov becomes a service provider like any other, only as the default, a really bad one.</p><p>The channel first of all doesn't always work.  When there is some video it is a placeholder for activity.  There is hardly any editing and summarization unless it supports something the agency needs to advertize.  Its after all -</p><p>-PROPAGANDA FROM SPACE-</p><p>Will you actually learn anything new from the video feed?  I highly doubt it.  Its a hose for space branding and a tit to keep TV culture complacent and uncritical.</p><p>Should SpaceTV be entertaining?  Should the news be entertaining?  Maybe engaging and relevant is a better expectation.  And NASA has always had problems in the relevancy department.</p><p>But then there is the reality that space is actually not the interesting.  After all, its just -</p><p>-S P A C E-</p><p>Once money wealth and freedom is possible for individuals up there, it will get interesting because then there will be individual superobjective in that context.  There is none currently - its like watching the FBI surveil child porn.  Protecting the nation - RIGHT - the only reason usenet still exists is so the FBI can swap pix.</p><p>NASA definitely has zero g sex tapes - think we can tune into that?  Or how about a webcam session in space where the gals face is all puffy from no gravity.</p><p>What you get to see on NASA TV is what little they can air that does not make them look like fools.  Where is FBI TV or CIA TV?  Nowhere because it would only document their mistakes, incompetence and panic.</p><p>Space shit on TV all got started with JFK and NASA is still entirely dependent on donations, public opinion and PITY.  They don't produce anything and have never made a strong case for why people need to be in space that doesn't ultimately come from fear of other people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember , NASA is the Amtrak of space and they need to advertize objectives and constantly engage in consistent public communications to indicate money is n't being wasted .
NASA does not generate revenue so take your pick- boy scouts in space doing favors , amtrak etc .
Its a gov service that in principle is no different than how the US collects taxes , fights wars or delivers mail .
Imagine the postal guys up there trying to turn a torx with fat frigid fingers in zero g. Or maybe some people from DMV to staff the mission control center .
Sounds ridiculous , but the difference is merely training and certification .
Why have postal guys or volunteers wage warfare ?
The gov becomes a service provider like any other , only as the default , a really bad one.The channel first of all does n't always work .
When there is some video it is a placeholder for activity .
There is hardly any editing and summarization unless it supports something the agency needs to advertize .
Its after all --PROPAGANDA FROM SPACE-Will you actually learn anything new from the video feed ?
I highly doubt it .
Its a hose for space branding and a tit to keep TV culture complacent and uncritical.Should SpaceTV be entertaining ?
Should the news be entertaining ?
Maybe engaging and relevant is a better expectation .
And NASA has always had problems in the relevancy department.But then there is the reality that space is actually not the interesting .
After all , its just --S P A C E-Once money wealth and freedom is possible for individuals up there , it will get interesting because then there will be individual superobjective in that context .
There is none currently - its like watching the FBI surveil child porn .
Protecting the nation - RIGHT - the only reason usenet still exists is so the FBI can swap pix.NASA definitely has zero g sex tapes - think we can tune into that ?
Or how about a webcam session in space where the gals face is all puffy from no gravity.What you get to see on NASA TV is what little they can air that does not make them look like fools .
Where is FBI TV or CIA TV ?
Nowhere because it would only document their mistakes , incompetence and panic.Space shit on TV all got started with JFK and NASA is still entirely dependent on donations , public opinion and PITY .
They do n't produce anything and have never made a strong case for why people need to be in space that does n't ultimately come from fear of other people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember, NASA is the Amtrak of space and they need to advertize objectives and constantly engage in consistent public communications to indicate money isn't being wasted.
NASA does not generate revenue so take your pick- boy scouts in space doing favors, amtrak etc.
Its a gov service that in principle is no different than how the US collects taxes, fights wars or delivers mail.
Imagine the postal guys up there trying to turn a torx with fat frigid fingers in zero g.  Or maybe some people from DMV to staff the mission control center.
Sounds ridiculous, but the difference is merely training and certification.
Why have postal guys or volunteers wage warfare?
The gov becomes a service provider like any other, only as the default, a really bad one.The channel first of all doesn't always work.
When there is some video it is a placeholder for activity.
There is hardly any editing and summarization unless it supports something the agency needs to advertize.
Its after all --PROPAGANDA FROM SPACE-Will you actually learn anything new from the video feed?
I highly doubt it.
Its a hose for space branding and a tit to keep TV culture complacent and uncritical.Should SpaceTV be entertaining?
Should the news be entertaining?
Maybe engaging and relevant is a better expectation.
And NASA has always had problems in the relevancy department.But then there is the reality that space is actually not the interesting.
After all, its just --S P A C E-Once money wealth and freedom is possible for individuals up there, it will get interesting because then there will be individual superobjective in that context.
There is none currently - its like watching the FBI surveil child porn.
Protecting the nation - RIGHT - the only reason usenet still exists is so the FBI can swap pix.NASA definitely has zero g sex tapes - think we can tune into that?
Or how about a webcam session in space where the gals face is all puffy from no gravity.What you get to see on NASA TV is what little they can air that does not make them look like fools.
Where is FBI TV or CIA TV?
Nowhere because it would only document their mistakes, incompetence and panic.Space shit on TV all got started with JFK and NASA is still entirely dependent on donations, public opinion and PITY.
They don't produce anything and have never made a strong case for why people need to be in space that doesn't ultimately come from fear of other people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30566766</id>
	<title>Re:This ain't MTV!</title>
	<author>Patch86</author>
	<datestamp>1261919100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I thoroughly agree with your sentiments, I'm not sure I understand all of the fury (not just yours) at TFA.</p><p>There is nothing wrong with saying that NASA TV lacks presentation. There is a marked difference between an engrossing, in depth documentary and a dull monotone monologue, and a marked difference again from dumbed down trash.</p><p>As mentioned by a poster above, try to catch some of the BBC's excellent documentaries commentated by the likes of David Attenborough. No-one can accuse them of being dumbed down, but equally they're far from bland.</p><p>If NASA TV is really guilty of poorly written commentary, long camera shots that show nothing of relevance, and periods of prolonged silence which serve no purpose, they should shape up. There's no excuse for shoddy productions, not least when riding on public funding.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I thoroughly agree with your sentiments , I 'm not sure I understand all of the fury ( not just yours ) at TFA.There is nothing wrong with saying that NASA TV lacks presentation .
There is a marked difference between an engrossing , in depth documentary and a dull monotone monologue , and a marked difference again from dumbed down trash.As mentioned by a poster above , try to catch some of the BBC 's excellent documentaries commentated by the likes of David Attenborough .
No-one can accuse them of being dumbed down , but equally they 're far from bland.If NASA TV is really guilty of poorly written commentary , long camera shots that show nothing of relevance , and periods of prolonged silence which serve no purpose , they should shape up .
There 's no excuse for shoddy productions , not least when riding on public funding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I thoroughly agree with your sentiments, I'm not sure I understand all of the fury (not just yours) at TFA.There is nothing wrong with saying that NASA TV lacks presentation.
There is a marked difference between an engrossing, in depth documentary and a dull monotone monologue, and a marked difference again from dumbed down trash.As mentioned by a poster above, try to catch some of the BBC's excellent documentaries commentated by the likes of David Attenborough.
No-one can accuse them of being dumbed down, but equally they're far from bland.If NASA TV is really guilty of poorly written commentary, long camera shots that show nothing of relevance, and periods of prolonged silence which serve no purpose, they should shape up.
There's no excuse for shoddy productions, not least when riding on public funding.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30569996</id>
	<title>Try supporting linux</title>
	<author>spaceman375</author>
	<datestamp>1262008140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd love to comment on the format of nasaTV. I'd love to just watch it. But they don't support ANY non-proprietary formats, nor do they support watching in a browser under linux.</p><p>Major fail, especially given their inherent nerd appeal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd love to comment on the format of nasaTV .
I 'd love to just watch it .
But they do n't support ANY non-proprietary formats , nor do they support watching in a browser under linux.Major fail , especially given their inherent nerd appeal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd love to comment on the format of nasaTV.
I'd love to just watch it.
But they don't support ANY non-proprietary formats, nor do they support watching in a browser under linux.Major fail, especially given their inherent nerd appeal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30570692</id>
	<title>Re:If you want to know what's wrong with "lively".</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262013720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had a similar experience with The History Channel. I saw a doco about Nikola Tesla - and whilst the content seemed like it had legs (the subject matter is interesting, the research was solid and the interviewees seemed to know their stuff), the presentation was appalling. I simply couldn't stomach more than 10 minutes of it. It was as you describe - exposition-al, dramatic, inaccurate and hysterical. It boggles my mind - if you wanted "pizzazz", why would you watch an educational TV show (moreover, how could educational TV hope to compete with regular TV in terms of "pizzazz")? Surely the core audience (boring farts like me) would be alienated by this, and with all the MTV-heads watching MTV and whatnot, they'd end up with a net loss of viewers?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had a similar experience with The History Channel .
I saw a doco about Nikola Tesla - and whilst the content seemed like it had legs ( the subject matter is interesting , the research was solid and the interviewees seemed to know their stuff ) , the presentation was appalling .
I simply could n't stomach more than 10 minutes of it .
It was as you describe - exposition-al , dramatic , inaccurate and hysterical .
It boggles my mind - if you wanted " pizzazz " , why would you watch an educational TV show ( moreover , how could educational TV hope to compete with regular TV in terms of " pizzazz " ) ?
Surely the core audience ( boring farts like me ) would be alienated by this , and with all the MTV-heads watching MTV and whatnot , they 'd end up with a net loss of viewers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had a similar experience with The History Channel.
I saw a doco about Nikola Tesla - and whilst the content seemed like it had legs (the subject matter is interesting, the research was solid and the interviewees seemed to know their stuff), the presentation was appalling.
I simply couldn't stomach more than 10 minutes of it.
It was as you describe - exposition-al, dramatic, inaccurate and hysterical.
It boggles my mind - if you wanted "pizzazz", why would you watch an educational TV show (moreover, how could educational TV hope to compete with regular TV in terms of "pizzazz")?
Surely the core audience (boring farts like me) would be alienated by this, and with all the MTV-heads watching MTV and whatnot, they'd end up with a net loss of viewers?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563532</id>
	<title>I watch NasaTV</title>
	<author>quixote9</author>
	<datestamp>1261933740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>precisely so I won't have to listen to breathless drivel about astronaut hair styles, or some damn thing.  Just the facts, ma'am.  (Why, yes, I am a scientist.  Why do you ask?)</htmltext>
<tokenext>precisely so I wo n't have to listen to breathless drivel about astronaut hair styles , or some damn thing .
Just the facts , ma'am .
( Why , yes , I am a scientist .
Why do you ask ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>precisely so I won't have to listen to breathless drivel about astronaut hair styles, or some damn thing.
Just the facts, ma'am.
(Why, yes, I am a scientist.
Why do you ask?
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564496</id>
	<title>Re:I like NASA TV how it is.</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1261943160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the assumption is that if all NASA TV looked like the current bastardized version of Transformers, then more kids would be encouraged to get into science and maths.  The problem is that such TV watching does not prepare one for the drudgery of drawing free body diagrams, solving zero net force trusses, working out the proof of the quadratic formula, and the like.  It is like the science classes where they do cool things like make carbon black penises out of carbon, but no one knows how to do collision problems.
<p>
Now, many would say, so what.  At least they learned something in science class, at least if NASA TV is cool then they might support the funding.  But I think there is something morally wrong with this intellectual bait and switch.   If we are talking about actually educating kids to do this sort of work, then the sort of kids you want are those who are those who enjoy watching silent aircraft moving across a tundra, especially if they then are forced to create the dialog themselves.  I would hate to see anyone who cannot create excitement out of nothing have to solve dozens of free body diagrams during thier first term of college, or hundreds of derivatives.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the assumption is that if all NASA TV looked like the current bastardized version of Transformers , then more kids would be encouraged to get into science and maths .
The problem is that such TV watching does not prepare one for the drudgery of drawing free body diagrams , solving zero net force trusses , working out the proof of the quadratic formula , and the like .
It is like the science classes where they do cool things like make carbon black penises out of carbon , but no one knows how to do collision problems .
Now , many would say , so what .
At least they learned something in science class , at least if NASA TV is cool then they might support the funding .
But I think there is something morally wrong with this intellectual bait and switch .
If we are talking about actually educating kids to do this sort of work , then the sort of kids you want are those who are those who enjoy watching silent aircraft moving across a tundra , especially if they then are forced to create the dialog themselves .
I would hate to see anyone who can not create excitement out of nothing have to solve dozens of free body diagrams during thier first term of college , or hundreds of derivatives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the assumption is that if all NASA TV looked like the current bastardized version of Transformers, then more kids would be encouraged to get into science and maths.
The problem is that such TV watching does not prepare one for the drudgery of drawing free body diagrams, solving zero net force trusses, working out the proof of the quadratic formula, and the like.
It is like the science classes where they do cool things like make carbon black penises out of carbon, but no one knows how to do collision problems.
Now, many would say, so what.
At least they learned something in science class, at least if NASA TV is cool then they might support the funding.
But I think there is something morally wrong with this intellectual bait and switch.
If we are talking about actually educating kids to do this sort of work, then the sort of kids you want are those who are those who enjoy watching silent aircraft moving across a tundra, especially if they then are forced to create the dialog themselves.
I would hate to see anyone who cannot create excitement out of nothing have to solve dozens of free body diagrams during thier first term of college, or hundreds of derivatives.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30568800</id>
	<title>Re:This ain't MTV!</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1261943220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Robert Heinlein was a guest commentator for Apollo 11, beside Walter Cronkite.  Boring and like clockwork is how the teams should handle space missions.  But to make the coverage by commentators bland and uninteresting is neither necessary nor helpful.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Robert Heinlein was a guest commentator for Apollo 11 , beside Walter Cronkite .
Boring and like clockwork is how the teams should handle space missions .
But to make the coverage by commentators bland and uninteresting is neither necessary nor helpful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Robert Heinlein was a guest commentator for Apollo 11, beside Walter Cronkite.
Boring and like clockwork is how the teams should handle space missions.
But to make the coverage by commentators bland and uninteresting is neither necessary nor helpful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564810</id>
	<title>Re:multiple feeds?</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1261946580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The solution could actually be something like better incorporation of multiple feeds. I mean, they could spruce up the NASA TV cable network to make it a bit more appealing to the "brain dead crowd",</i></p><p>First of all, you're being insulting. Because I don't like raw footage of a SUV driving through tall grass in silence, means I'm "brain dead"? Fuck you.</p><p><i>while at the same time having the raw footage and all the good stuff (which, to non-Slashdotters, is ridiculously boring)</i></p><p>I'm a Slashdotter, and I find the channel boring as shit. I can't watch it for longer than 5-10 minutes, and that's assuming that they're playing the radio chatter. (Oftentimes, they aren't even playing that.)</p><p>Look, the real point is that NASA does have a lot of information to convey and a lot to say and a lot of people to say it-- but their editing is shit. They don't need Spike TV's commentators, they need Spike TV's control room staff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The solution could actually be something like better incorporation of multiple feeds .
I mean , they could spruce up the NASA TV cable network to make it a bit more appealing to the " brain dead crowd " ,First of all , you 're being insulting .
Because I do n't like raw footage of a SUV driving through tall grass in silence , means I 'm " brain dead " ?
Fuck you.while at the same time having the raw footage and all the good stuff ( which , to non-Slashdotters , is ridiculously boring ) I 'm a Slashdotter , and I find the channel boring as shit .
I ca n't watch it for longer than 5-10 minutes , and that 's assuming that they 're playing the radio chatter .
( Oftentimes , they are n't even playing that .
) Look , the real point is that NASA does have a lot of information to convey and a lot to say and a lot of people to say it-- but their editing is shit .
They do n't need Spike TV 's commentators , they need Spike TV 's control room staff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The solution could actually be something like better incorporation of multiple feeds.
I mean, they could spruce up the NASA TV cable network to make it a bit more appealing to the "brain dead crowd",First of all, you're being insulting.
Because I don't like raw footage of a SUV driving through tall grass in silence, means I'm "brain dead"?
Fuck you.while at the same time having the raw footage and all the good stuff (which, to non-Slashdotters, is ridiculously boring)I'm a Slashdotter, and I find the channel boring as shit.
I can't watch it for longer than 5-10 minutes, and that's assuming that they're playing the radio chatter.
(Oftentimes, they aren't even playing that.
)Look, the real point is that NASA does have a lot of information to convey and a lot to say and a lot of people to say it-- but their editing is shit.
They don't need Spike TV's commentators, they need Spike TV's control room staff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30571150</id>
	<title>There's room for both</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1262016240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wouldn't mind a 5 minute highlight video of the best NASA events of the day. I also don't mind the current NASA TV coverage. There's room for improvement without making it MOREAWESOMEHUGER!!! That shouty motorcycle show is a good bad example. There's plenty of interesting stuff that goes into fabricating a bike. You don't really need to punch it up with histrionics and screaming. But that's exactly what they do and the information content rapidly approaches zero. The tech podcasts are a good positive example of how it can go. You've got personable hosts who can present good, solid information in an engaging fashion. Techzilla, Geekbrief, Security Now, This Week in Tech, nice info-nuggets to digest. If you want exacting detail, there's websites to read for the nitty gritty. But those shows are excellent digests that will let you know a topic even exists so that you can then go research it more thoroughly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't mind a 5 minute highlight video of the best NASA events of the day .
I also do n't mind the current NASA TV coverage .
There 's room for improvement without making it MOREAWESOMEHUGER ! ! !
That shouty motorcycle show is a good bad example .
There 's plenty of interesting stuff that goes into fabricating a bike .
You do n't really need to punch it up with histrionics and screaming .
But that 's exactly what they do and the information content rapidly approaches zero .
The tech podcasts are a good positive example of how it can go .
You 've got personable hosts who can present good , solid information in an engaging fashion .
Techzilla , Geekbrief , Security Now , This Week in Tech , nice info-nuggets to digest .
If you want exacting detail , there 's websites to read for the nitty gritty .
But those shows are excellent digests that will let you know a topic even exists so that you can then go research it more thoroughly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't mind a 5 minute highlight video of the best NASA events of the day.
I also don't mind the current NASA TV coverage.
There's room for improvement without making it MOREAWESOMEHUGER!!!
That shouty motorcycle show is a good bad example.
There's plenty of interesting stuff that goes into fabricating a bike.
You don't really need to punch it up with histrionics and screaming.
But that's exactly what they do and the information content rapidly approaches zero.
The tech podcasts are a good positive example of how it can go.
You've got personable hosts who can present good, solid information in an engaging fashion.
Techzilla, Geekbrief, Security Now, This Week in Tech, nice info-nuggets to digest.
If you want exacting detail, there's websites to read for the nitty gritty.
But those shows are excellent digests that will let you know a topic even exists so that you can then go research it more thoroughly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30567444</id>
	<title>Re:Improved broadcasting does not equal dumbed dow</title>
	<author>kent\_eh</author>
	<datestamp>1261924860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why is everyone on here assuming that making the broadcasts 'better' 'spruced up' and 'more interesting' equates to them being dumbed down?</p>  </div><p>Because we have seen that particular experiment done many times, and to expect a different result the next time seems crazy?<br>
<br>
When "Robot Wars" first started (back when Jamie H and Grant I were competitors), there were some interesting interviews with the builders. They actually talked about what made their machines work. <br>After a couple of seasons they hired some former pro wrestler to add "excitement". And they encouraged the contestants to spend most of their time trash talking the opposition.<br> <br>
I stopped watching soon after.<br> <br>
When Junkyard Wars (re-branded versions of the UK Scrapheap Challenge) was first aired, they actually spent some time explaining the history of the type of machines they were trying to build, and talked about the physics and trade-offs of the designs. <br>
After they started producing the US made shows, they upped the trash talk, and cut the "how and why it works" content to about 30 seconds in the hour show.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is everyone on here assuming that making the broadcasts 'better ' 'spruced up ' and 'more interesting ' equates to them being dumbed down ?
Because we have seen that particular experiment done many times , and to expect a different result the next time seems crazy ?
When " Robot Wars " first started ( back when Jamie H and Grant I were competitors ) , there were some interesting interviews with the builders .
They actually talked about what made their machines work .
After a couple of seasons they hired some former pro wrestler to add " excitement " .
And they encouraged the contestants to spend most of their time trash talking the opposition .
I stopped watching soon after .
When Junkyard Wars ( re-branded versions of the UK Scrapheap Challenge ) was first aired , they actually spent some time explaining the history of the type of machines they were trying to build , and talked about the physics and trade-offs of the designs .
After they started producing the US made shows , they upped the trash talk , and cut the " how and why it works " content to about 30 seconds in the hour show .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is everyone on here assuming that making the broadcasts 'better' 'spruced up' and 'more interesting' equates to them being dumbed down?
Because we have seen that particular experiment done many times, and to expect a different result the next time seems crazy?
When "Robot Wars" first started (back when Jamie H and Grant I were competitors), there were some interesting interviews with the builders.
They actually talked about what made their machines work.
After a couple of seasons they hired some former pro wrestler to add "excitement".
And they encouraged the contestants to spend most of their time trash talking the opposition.
I stopped watching soon after.
When Junkyard Wars (re-branded versions of the UK Scrapheap Challenge) was first aired, they actually spent some time explaining the history of the type of machines they were trying to build, and talked about the physics and trade-offs of the designs.
After they started producing the US made shows, they upped the trash talk, and cut the "how and why it works" content to about 30 seconds in the hour show.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563566</id>
	<title>leave nasa alone</title>
	<author>p51d007</author>
	<datestamp>1261934220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>PLEASE don't turn NASA TV into cnn/abc/cbs/fox/pbs etc...
I watch the nasa tv channel when something is going on for the opposite reason.
THEY SHUT THE F*CK UP!  Their comments are only when the ground to space loop is
QUIET.  They don't talk over the controllers or astronauts.
The other "talking heads" think they have to blab 24/7.
If I wanted that crap, I'd watch the regular channels.</htmltext>
<tokenext>PLEASE do n't turn NASA TV into cnn/abc/cbs/fox/pbs etc.. . I watch the nasa tv channel when something is going on for the opposite reason .
THEY SHUT THE F * CK UP !
Their comments are only when the ground to space loop is QUIET .
They do n't talk over the controllers or astronauts .
The other " talking heads " think they have to blab 24/7 .
If I wanted that crap , I 'd watch the regular channels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PLEASE don't turn NASA TV into cnn/abc/cbs/fox/pbs etc...
I watch the nasa tv channel when something is going on for the opposite reason.
THEY SHUT THE F*CK UP!
Their comments are only when the ground to space loop is
QUIET.
They don't talk over the controllers or astronauts.
The other "talking heads" think they have to blab 24/7.
If I wanted that crap, I'd watch the regular channels.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563848</id>
	<title>How about makeing it HD 24/7 vs very part time?</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1261936980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about makeing it HD 24/7 vs very part time?b</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about makeing it HD 24/7 vs very part time ? b</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about makeing it HD 24/7 vs very part time?b</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30568132</id>
	<title>Re:I like NASA TV how it is.</title>
	<author>TheModelEskimo</author>
	<datestamp>1261932600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I *love* that C-SPAN has the uncensored coverage of our congress</p></div></blockquote><p>Uh, actually C-SPAN censor stuff whenever they like (or are required to). They censored a guest's (interesting, perhaps even insightful) speculation on nuclear war from a panel discussion on the deteriorating economy back in October 2008. There have been other discussions about this phenomenon elsewhere on the net.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I * love * that C-SPAN has the uncensored coverage of our congressUh , actually C-SPAN censor stuff whenever they like ( or are required to ) .
They censored a guest 's ( interesting , perhaps even insightful ) speculation on nuclear war from a panel discussion on the deteriorating economy back in October 2008 .
There have been other discussions about this phenomenon elsewhere on the net .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I *love* that C-SPAN has the uncensored coverage of our congressUh, actually C-SPAN censor stuff whenever they like (or are required to).
They censored a guest's (interesting, perhaps even insightful) speculation on nuclear war from a panel discussion on the deteriorating economy back in October 2008.
There have been other discussions about this phenomenon elsewhere on the net.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563960</id>
	<title>Re:I like NASA TV how it is.</title>
	<author>rHBa</author>
	<datestamp>1261937940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you have ADD and need constant sound effects and graphics or everything dumbed down and edited into some fake reality, filled with game shows and so on, then channels like Discovery are for you</p></div><p>
Exactly, did David Attenborough gain fame and fortune, not to mention <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David\_attenborough#Achievements.2C\_awards\_and\_recognition" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">many awards, including 2 BAFTAs</a> [wikipedia.org] using sensationalist voice-overs and special effects?<br> <br>
Granted, they did make the most of high frame-rate shots slowed down to show nature in action but at the end of the day the subject matter was interesting enough on it's own.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have ADD and need constant sound effects and graphics or everything dumbed down and edited into some fake reality , filled with game shows and so on , then channels like Discovery are for you Exactly , did David Attenborough gain fame and fortune , not to mention many awards , including 2 BAFTAs [ wikipedia.org ] using sensationalist voice-overs and special effects ?
Granted , they did make the most of high frame-rate shots slowed down to show nature in action but at the end of the day the subject matter was interesting enough on it 's own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you have ADD and need constant sound effects and graphics or everything dumbed down and edited into some fake reality, filled with game shows and so on, then channels like Discovery are for you
Exactly, did David Attenborough gain fame and fortune, not to mention many awards, including 2 BAFTAs [wikipedia.org] using sensationalist voice-overs and special effects?
Granted, they did make the most of high frame-rate shots slowed down to show nature in action but at the end of the day the subject matter was interesting enough on it's own.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30565574</id>
	<title>Re:I watch NasaTV</title>
	<author>tuxicle</author>
	<datestamp>1261908720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oblig. Futurama quote:</p><p> <i>Oh oh! It's Hubert Farnsworth! He's looking fab in a standard white lab coat and dark slacks! His wristwatch is a Casio.</i> </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oblig .
Futurama quote : Oh oh !
It 's Hubert Farnsworth !
He 's looking fab in a standard white lab coat and dark slacks !
His wristwatch is a Casio .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oblig.
Futurama quote: Oh oh!
It's Hubert Farnsworth!
He's looking fab in a standard white lab coat and dark slacks!
His wristwatch is a Casio. 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564298</id>
	<title>Re:Raw science IS entertaining</title>
	<author>pclminion</author>
	<datestamp>1261941180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Curious what you think is wrong with MythBusters. As far as I've ever seen, there's no interpersonal drama, although some of the characters are a bit goofy. Are you objecting to the fact that it's not dry and boring, or something else? Seriously, I want to know. As long as you don't delude yourself into thinking they are conducting scientific experiments, I've always thought it's interesting and quite worth watching.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Curious what you think is wrong with MythBusters .
As far as I 've ever seen , there 's no interpersonal drama , although some of the characters are a bit goofy .
Are you objecting to the fact that it 's not dry and boring , or something else ?
Seriously , I want to know .
As long as you do n't delude yourself into thinking they are conducting scientific experiments , I 've always thought it 's interesting and quite worth watching .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Curious what you think is wrong with MythBusters.
As far as I've ever seen, there's no interpersonal drama, although some of the characters are a bit goofy.
Are you objecting to the fact that it's not dry and boring, or something else?
Seriously, I want to know.
As long as you don't delude yourself into thinking they are conducting scientific experiments, I've always thought it's interesting and quite worth watching.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30566658</id>
	<title>Re:If you want to know what's wrong with "lively".</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261918080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGrQcQ9fWLc&amp;feature=related</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = KGrQcQ9fWLc&amp;feature = related</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGrQcQ9fWLc&amp;feature=related</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564350</id>
	<title>Um, why?</title>
	<author>HalAtWork</author>
	<datestamp>1261941660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why does NASA have to enrapture every last television viewer?  What if some aren't interested in the subject matter?  Does every single show have to strive for 100\% viewership?  If that's the case, isn't it a contest on who can make the loudest noise and most flashy lights at the cost of the actual content of the program?  And we're supposed to encourage this?  Why am I asking you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does NASA have to enrapture every last television viewer ?
What if some are n't interested in the subject matter ?
Does every single show have to strive for 100 \ % viewership ?
If that 's the case , is n't it a contest on who can make the loudest noise and most flashy lights at the cost of the actual content of the program ?
And we 're supposed to encourage this ?
Why am I asking you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does NASA have to enrapture every last television viewer?
What if some aren't interested in the subject matter?
Does every single show have to strive for 100\% viewership?
If that's the case, isn't it a contest on who can make the loudest noise and most flashy lights at the cost of the actual content of the program?
And we're supposed to encourage this?
Why am I asking you?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564180</id>
	<title>pr0n</title>
	<author>Sheen</author>
	<datestamp>1261940220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would like to see weightless sex please.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would like to see weightless sex please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would like to see weightless sex please.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564454</id>
	<title>NASA TV? What's that?</title>
	<author>PingXao</author>
	<datestamp>1261942800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NASA TV or NASA Select, whatever they're calling it these days, is not carried by my local cable company. This is a cable company that serves millions in the NY Metropolitan area (outside of NYC itself). Several of my friends and I have called them requesting that they carry it every few months for years now. Nothing. Before dumbing down the content for the Dancing Survivor crowd they should focus on getting more cable companies to carry the damn channel in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NASA TV or NASA Select , whatever they 're calling it these days , is not carried by my local cable company .
This is a cable company that serves millions in the NY Metropolitan area ( outside of NYC itself ) .
Several of my friends and I have called them requesting that they carry it every few months for years now .
Nothing. Before dumbing down the content for the Dancing Survivor crowd they should focus on getting more cable companies to carry the damn channel in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NASA TV or NASA Select, whatever they're calling it these days, is not carried by my local cable company.
This is a cable company that serves millions in the NY Metropolitan area (outside of NYC itself).
Several of my friends and I have called them requesting that they carry it every few months for years now.
Nothing. Before dumbing down the content for the Dancing Survivor crowd they should focus on getting more cable companies to carry the damn channel in the first place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563752</id>
	<title>mission control</title>
	<author>binarybum</author>
	<datestamp>1261936200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i think they should use the mission control channel on somafm as background music throughout the day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i think they should use the mission control channel on somafm as background music throughout the day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i think they should use the mission control channel on somafm as background music throughout the day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30569860</id>
	<title>Re:This ain't MTV!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262006340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And thank god for that. We have more than enough fake-enthusiasm, for-commercial-use enunciation. Injecting it into NASA TV would be horrid. Dave's EVA to replace the "faulty" AE-35 unit needed no breathless commentary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And thank god for that .
We have more than enough fake-enthusiasm , for-commercial-use enunciation .
Injecting it into NASA TV would be horrid .
Dave 's EVA to replace the " faulty " AE-35 unit needed no breathless commentary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And thank god for that.
We have more than enough fake-enthusiasm, for-commercial-use enunciation.
Injecting it into NASA TV would be horrid.
Dave's EVA to replace the "faulty" AE-35 unit needed no breathless commentary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564478</id>
	<title>Re:I like NASA TV how it is.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261943040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they really want to <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDAWszeZtNg" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">throw some of us dumb monkeys a bone, they could add some classical music</a> [youtube.com] for ambience instead of having dead silence on the audio. At least then it wouldn't seem as boring, and it necessarily wouldn't dumb things down for the smarter folks.</p><p>It worked for Kubric, didn't it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they really want to throw some of us dumb monkeys a bone , they could add some classical music [ youtube.com ] for ambience instead of having dead silence on the audio .
At least then it would n't seem as boring , and it necessarily would n't dumb things down for the smarter folks.It worked for Kubric , did n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they really want to throw some of us dumb monkeys a bone, they could add some classical music [youtube.com] for ambience instead of having dead silence on the audio.
At least then it wouldn't seem as boring, and it necessarily wouldn't dumb things down for the smarter folks.It worked for Kubric, didn't it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30567656</id>
	<title>Re:Where is Carl Sagan when you need him?</title>
	<author>TCPhotography</author>
	<datestamp>1261927080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As any man who thought it was a good idea to model the Earth's climate as if it were a smooth, rock sphere with no oceans, and no plant life so his model would generate "Nuclear Winter" should be.</p><p>May the fraud never rest in peace.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As any man who thought it was a good idea to model the Earth 's climate as if it were a smooth , rock sphere with no oceans , and no plant life so his model would generate " Nuclear Winter " should be.May the fraud never rest in peace .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As any man who thought it was a good idea to model the Earth's climate as if it were a smooth, rock sphere with no oceans, and no plant life so his model would generate "Nuclear Winter" should be.May the fraud never rest in peace.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30567872</id>
	<title>Re:If you want to know what's wrong with "lively".</title>
	<author>Dwonis</author>
	<datestamp>1261929300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Have you seen NASA TV?  I have, and I thought it was just a live, unedited satellite feed of, well, something.  I'm surprised it <em>has</em> an Executive Producer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you seen NASA TV ?
I have , and I thought it was just a live , unedited satellite feed of , well , something .
I 'm surprised it has an Executive Producer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you seen NASA TV?
I have, and I thought it was just a live, unedited satellite feed of, well, something.
I'm surprised it has an Executive Producer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30566438</id>
	<title>Re:Where is Carl Sagan when you need him?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261916100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Carl Sagan Lives.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Carl Sagan Lives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Carl Sagan Lives.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563786</id>
	<title>Welcome to the party...</title>
	<author>Saint Ego</author>
	<datestamp>1261936500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NASA wants the same thing that everyone else does: for their program to encounter some phenomenon so remarkable that it captures our attention.</p><p>I suppose they could always fake up a few alien spacecraft for us all and just get the wait over with regarding staring at the sky, but that just wouldn't be sporting, would it?</p><p>In other news, deer blind owners complain about the boredom of hunting...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NASA wants the same thing that everyone else does : for their program to encounter some phenomenon so remarkable that it captures our attention.I suppose they could always fake up a few alien spacecraft for us all and just get the wait over with regarding staring at the sky , but that just would n't be sporting , would it ? In other news , deer blind owners complain about the boredom of hunting.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NASA wants the same thing that everyone else does: for their program to encounter some phenomenon so remarkable that it captures our attention.I suppose they could always fake up a few alien spacecraft for us all and just get the wait over with regarding staring at the sky, but that just wouldn't be sporting, would it?In other news, deer blind owners complain about the boredom of hunting...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564064</id>
	<title>OMFG are they kidding?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261938960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Three letters: DVR</p><p>I watched a lot, I mean *a lot*, of NASA TV from the time I bought my first ReplayTV in the fall of 2000 until mid-2002 (around the time I met and started dating a woman, but I'm sure that had nothing to do with cutting my TV watching time way down), and I recorded even more than I watched. Whenever the shuttle was up there I was recording 6 hour stretches and playing them back later on fast forward looking for video of interesting things. And when interesting things weren't happening, like the times when it was just a shot from a camera in the payload bay pointing down at Earth, they became interesting--and very beautiful--at higher playback speed. I especially enjoyed trying to figure out what they were flying over now at any given moment, without looking at the tracking map. Sometimes it was easy (like Italy, e.g.) and sometimes it was near impossible. Some things, like shuttle/ISS dockings were worth watching twice, once at normal speed with sound, and once sped up.</p><p>I have long since given up Dish Network. I miss NASA TV.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Three letters : DVRI watched a lot , I mean * a lot * , of NASA TV from the time I bought my first ReplayTV in the fall of 2000 until mid-2002 ( around the time I met and started dating a woman , but I 'm sure that had nothing to do with cutting my TV watching time way down ) , and I recorded even more than I watched .
Whenever the shuttle was up there I was recording 6 hour stretches and playing them back later on fast forward looking for video of interesting things .
And when interesting things were n't happening , like the times when it was just a shot from a camera in the payload bay pointing down at Earth , they became interesting--and very beautiful--at higher playback speed .
I especially enjoyed trying to figure out what they were flying over now at any given moment , without looking at the tracking map .
Sometimes it was easy ( like Italy , e.g .
) and sometimes it was near impossible .
Some things , like shuttle/ISS dockings were worth watching twice , once at normal speed with sound , and once sped up.I have long since given up Dish Network .
I miss NASA TV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Three letters: DVRI watched a lot, I mean *a lot*, of NASA TV from the time I bought my first ReplayTV in the fall of 2000 until mid-2002 (around the time I met and started dating a woman, but I'm sure that had nothing to do with cutting my TV watching time way down), and I recorded even more than I watched.
Whenever the shuttle was up there I was recording 6 hour stretches and playing them back later on fast forward looking for video of interesting things.
And when interesting things weren't happening, like the times when it was just a shot from a camera in the payload bay pointing down at Earth, they became interesting--and very beautiful--at higher playback speed.
I especially enjoyed trying to figure out what they were flying over now at any given moment, without looking at the tracking map.
Sometimes it was easy (like Italy, e.g.
) and sometimes it was near impossible.
Some things, like shuttle/ISS dockings were worth watching twice, once at normal speed with sound, and once sped up.I have long since given up Dish Network.
I miss NASA TV.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563548</id>
	<title>Re:This ain't MTV!</title>
	<author>YrWrstNtmr</author>
	<datestamp>1261933980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The Discovery Channel used to be educational... now it's "how can we use science to blow shit up?" </i> <br> <br>Indeed. Its sister channel, TLC, has gone from The Learning Channel to The Ladies Channel.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Discovery Channel used to be educational... now it 's " how can we use science to blow shit up ?
" Indeed .
Its sister channel , TLC , has gone from The Learning Channel to The Ladies Channel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Discovery Channel used to be educational... now it's "how can we use science to blow shit up?
"   Indeed.
Its sister channel, TLC, has gone from The Learning Channel to The Ladies Channel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30570590</id>
	<title>Discovery Channel</title>
	<author>volpe</author>
	<datestamp>1262012940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The Discovery Channel used to be educational... now it's "how can we use science to blow shit up?"</p></div> </blockquote><p>Oh, how I wish it were only that bad. At least blowing shit up is rooted firmly in science. Now they're the channel of phony-science <a href="http://www.yourdiscovery.com/paranormal/ghost\_hunting/first\_ghost\_hunters/index.shtml" title="yourdiscovery.com">ghostbusting</a> [yourdiscovery.com].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Discovery Channel used to be educational... now it 's " how can we use science to blow shit up ?
" Oh , how I wish it were only that bad .
At least blowing shit up is rooted firmly in science .
Now they 're the channel of phony-science ghostbusting [ yourdiscovery.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Discovery Channel used to be educational... now it's "how can we use science to blow shit up?
" Oh, how I wish it were only that bad.
At least blowing shit up is rooted firmly in science.
Now they're the channel of phony-science ghostbusting [yourdiscovery.com].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30567376</id>
	<title>It's a live documentary</title>
	<author>Corson</author>
	<datestamp>1261924320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>NASA TV is a live documentary, so perhaps that's how it should be. It's a not a Sci-Fi movie.</htmltext>
<tokenext>NASA TV is a live documentary , so perhaps that 's how it should be .
It 's a not a Sci-Fi movie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NASA TV is a live documentary, so perhaps that's how it should be.
It's a not a Sci-Fi movie.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563702</id>
	<title>The final frontier ....</title>
	<author>3seas</author>
	<datestamp>1261935660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>.... maybe everyone is just to busy looking at the mess they are in to see, or care, where we are going. including the NASA commentators.</p><p>On the bright side, there are less interesting things to be found on youtube but probably get more viewers.<br>The bright side being, it doesn't, or shouldn't cost a lot for NASA to stream what they do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.... maybe everyone is just to busy looking at the mess they are in to see , or care , where we are going .
including the NASA commentators.On the bright side , there are less interesting things to be found on youtube but probably get more viewers.The bright side being , it does n't , or should n't cost a lot for NASA to stream what they do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.... maybe everyone is just to busy looking at the mess they are in to see, or care, where we are going.
including the NASA commentators.On the bright side, there are less interesting things to be found on youtube but probably get more viewers.The bright side being, it doesn't, or shouldn't cost a lot for NASA to stream what they do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564234</id>
	<title>Re:This ain't MTV!</title>
	<author>ttimes</author>
	<datestamp>1261940640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thank you for this post. I'm tired of processed, sanitized 'reality' and gee-whiz science. You want reality TV? Show me an single mother of three trying to make ends meet, not idiots running an obstacle course through a jungle (curiously plagued with multiple cameras)trying to win a piece of pizza. What we need to do is sell the value of science and not its 'sexiness', so as to make it a worthwhile career not reliant on TV cameras and out sourced labor. Phew! rant over- now THAT would have suited the pr talking heads just fine...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you for this post .
I 'm tired of processed , sanitized 'reality ' and gee-whiz science .
You want reality TV ?
Show me an single mother of three trying to make ends meet , not idiots running an obstacle course through a jungle ( curiously plagued with multiple cameras ) trying to win a piece of pizza .
What we need to do is sell the value of science and not its 'sexiness ' , so as to make it a worthwhile career not reliant on TV cameras and out sourced labor .
Phew ! rant over- now THAT would have suited the pr talking heads just fine.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you for this post.
I'm tired of processed, sanitized 'reality' and gee-whiz science.
You want reality TV?
Show me an single mother of three trying to make ends meet, not idiots running an obstacle course through a jungle (curiously plagued with multiple cameras)trying to win a piece of pizza.
What we need to do is sell the value of science and not its 'sexiness', so as to make it a worthwhile career not reliant on TV cameras and out sourced labor.
Phew! rant over- now THAT would have suited the pr talking heads just fine...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563872</id>
	<title>Re:Where is Carl Sagan when you need him?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261937100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, Pauly Shore is available, not dead, and stoned out of his gourd!  Hire him..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , Pauly Shore is available , not dead , and stoned out of his gourd !
Hire him. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, Pauly Shore is available, not dead, and stoned out of his gourd!
Hire him..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30565058</id>
	<title>Re:This ain't MTV!</title>
	<author>EvilIdler</author>
	<datestamp>1261905120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, some of us people with an IQ above room temperature (Celcius scale<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;) actually like watching shit blow up!</p><p>But you're right that Discovery has turned into a channel you can't learn much from. Mythbusters have occasionally ended up with science between the explosions, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , some of us people with an IQ above room temperature ( Celcius scale ; ) actually like watching shit blow up ! But you 're right that Discovery has turned into a channel you ca n't learn much from .
Mythbusters have occasionally ended up with science between the explosions , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, some of us people with an IQ above room temperature (Celcius scale ;) actually like watching shit blow up!But you're right that Discovery has turned into a channel you can't learn much from.
Mythbusters have occasionally ended up with science between the explosions, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564566</id>
	<title>Favorite NASA-TV broadcast</title>
	<author>JaneTheIgnorantSlut</author>
	<datestamp>1261943880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From time to time, when there was shuttle flying and nothing important was happening, they used to simply point the camera at the earth and just broadcast that shot. I would watch it and try to figure out what part of the earth was in view. It is a lot harder than you think.</htmltext>
<tokenext>From time to time , when there was shuttle flying and nothing important was happening , they used to simply point the camera at the earth and just broadcast that shot .
I would watch it and try to figure out what part of the earth was in view .
It is a lot harder than you think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From time to time, when there was shuttle flying and nothing important was happening, they used to simply point the camera at the earth and just broadcast that shot.
I would watch it and try to figure out what part of the earth was in view.
It is a lot harder than you think.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30565954</id>
	<title>Re:If you want to know what's wrong with "lively".</title>
	<author>SoupIsGoodFood\_42</author>
	<datestamp>1261911840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There was a more recent DVD about our solar system that I watched a few months ago. The updated graphics and facts were amazing. But I'd never buy it or watch it again because someone (at ABC, IIRC) decided that it had to be more "lively" and dumbed-down. Such a shame. Such a waste of potential -- wasted to make it more appealing to people who aren't that interested in the subject to begin with. It seems to be a problem with most of the American science docos at my (non-US) library. Thankfully there is still the BBC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There was a more recent DVD about our solar system that I watched a few months ago .
The updated graphics and facts were amazing .
But I 'd never buy it or watch it again because someone ( at ABC , IIRC ) decided that it had to be more " lively " and dumbed-down .
Such a shame .
Such a waste of potential -- wasted to make it more appealing to people who are n't that interested in the subject to begin with .
It seems to be a problem with most of the American science docos at my ( non-US ) library .
Thankfully there is still the BBC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was a more recent DVD about our solar system that I watched a few months ago.
The updated graphics and facts were amazing.
But I'd never buy it or watch it again because someone (at ABC, IIRC) decided that it had to be more "lively" and dumbed-down.
Such a shame.
Such a waste of potential -- wasted to make it more appealing to people who aren't that interested in the subject to begin with.
It seems to be a problem with most of the American science docos at my (non-US) library.
Thankfully there is still the BBC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564668</id>
	<title>Re:If you want to know what's wrong with "lively".</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261945080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, do watch David Attenborogh. At an age when a lot of peoples main hobby is drooling on themselves, he is as engaging as ever. When he commentates on something, you really feel like you are being shown something wonderful. Like being a child and your favourite uncle shows you all the different types of bugs down the bottom of your garden, but the experience doesn't get tired (largely because Attenborough has a camera crew and a budget, and can show you so much more).</p><p>He may not cover every frame with speech, he does interject often, and when he does its with excellent deliver and content.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , do watch David Attenborogh .
At an age when a lot of peoples main hobby is drooling on themselves , he is as engaging as ever .
When he commentates on something , you really feel like you are being shown something wonderful .
Like being a child and your favourite uncle shows you all the different types of bugs down the bottom of your garden , but the experience does n't get tired ( largely because Attenborough has a camera crew and a budget , and can show you so much more ) .He may not cover every frame with speech , he does interject often , and when he does its with excellent deliver and content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, do watch David Attenborogh.
At an age when a lot of peoples main hobby is drooling on themselves, he is as engaging as ever.
When he commentates on something, you really feel like you are being shown something wonderful.
Like being a child and your favourite uncle shows you all the different types of bugs down the bottom of your garden, but the experience doesn't get tired (largely because Attenborough has a camera crew and a budget, and can show you so much more).He may not cover every frame with speech, he does interject often, and when he does its with excellent deliver and content.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30574788</id>
	<title>Re:Improved broadcasting does not equal dumbed dow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262033520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank you, I agree with your point.</p><p>No one said to make it sensationalistic or stupid. But there is so much potential for really interesting stuff that they clearly don't take advantage of.</p><p>I started watching NASA TV when the Rovers first landed. That was probably the most exciting thing they've ever had on NASA TV, yet the whole time I thought how much better it could all be done. NASA TV really looks like my suburb's local programming channel. Very amateurish.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you , I agree with your point.No one said to make it sensationalistic or stupid .
But there is so much potential for really interesting stuff that they clearly do n't take advantage of.I started watching NASA TV when the Rovers first landed .
That was probably the most exciting thing they 've ever had on NASA TV , yet the whole time I thought how much better it could all be done .
NASA TV really looks like my suburb 's local programming channel .
Very amateurish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you, I agree with your point.No one said to make it sensationalistic or stupid.
But there is so much potential for really interesting stuff that they clearly don't take advantage of.I started watching NASA TV when the Rovers first landed.
That was probably the most exciting thing they've ever had on NASA TV, yet the whole time I thought how much better it could all be done.
NASA TV really looks like my suburb's local programming channel.
Very amateurish.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563812</id>
	<title>Space SHOULD be boring</title>
	<author>petes\_PoV</author>
	<datestamp>1261936740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Boring is safe. Boring is predictable. Boring means things are going to plan. This is exactly what you want from a space programme. Drama, hype, exaggeration and crises all have their place - in fiction but in real-life they are a bad thing(TM).
<p>
It sounds like this guy is having difficulty in distinguishing between the two. Maybe the best thing would be to run a few trials on other TV channels. Such as the televising of politics - that could be livened up by dunking congressmen in slime if they lose a vote. How about livening up the footage of trials? It would make quite a good game-show format with every lawyer scoring points (awarded by the judge) for the answers they get to their questions - all with a 30-second time limit. Maybe this illustrates how bad things would be in real-life, with important decisions when the superficial world of entertainment invades these areas.
</p><p>
Still I suppose it would be possible to arrange phone-ins to see who should get voted off the ISS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Boring is safe .
Boring is predictable .
Boring means things are going to plan .
This is exactly what you want from a space programme .
Drama , hype , exaggeration and crises all have their place - in fiction but in real-life they are a bad thing ( TM ) .
It sounds like this guy is having difficulty in distinguishing between the two .
Maybe the best thing would be to run a few trials on other TV channels .
Such as the televising of politics - that could be livened up by dunking congressmen in slime if they lose a vote .
How about livening up the footage of trials ?
It would make quite a good game-show format with every lawyer scoring points ( awarded by the judge ) for the answers they get to their questions - all with a 30-second time limit .
Maybe this illustrates how bad things would be in real-life , with important decisions when the superficial world of entertainment invades these areas .
Still I suppose it would be possible to arrange phone-ins to see who should get voted off the ISS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Boring is safe.
Boring is predictable.
Boring means things are going to plan.
This is exactly what you want from a space programme.
Drama, hype, exaggeration and crises all have their place - in fiction but in real-life they are a bad thing(TM).
It sounds like this guy is having difficulty in distinguishing between the two.
Maybe the best thing would be to run a few trials on other TV channels.
Such as the televising of politics - that could be livened up by dunking congressmen in slime if they lose a vote.
How about livening up the footage of trials?
It would make quite a good game-show format with every lawyer scoring points (awarded by the judge) for the answers they get to their questions - all with a 30-second time limit.
Maybe this illustrates how bad things would be in real-life, with important decisions when the superficial world of entertainment invades these areas.
Still I suppose it would be possible to arrange phone-ins to see who should get voted off the ISS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30565540</id>
	<title>Re:I like NASA TV how it is.</title>
	<author>tuxicle</author>
	<datestamp>1261908420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It is *imperative* that NASA TV be boring, because most of a mission is like that.</p></div><p>A side benefit of this is that it keeps away people with short attention spans from having delusions of working at NASA and having an "exciting" career. This way, NASA won't have to blow big bucks to hire and train them, only for them to leave disillusioned after a few months. I have talked to some meteorologists who say that perhaps the worst thing to happen was the movie "Twister", which brought in hordes of new undergrads who thought all they did was chase storms.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is * imperative * that NASA TV be boring , because most of a mission is like that.A side benefit of this is that it keeps away people with short attention spans from having delusions of working at NASA and having an " exciting " career .
This way , NASA wo n't have to blow big bucks to hire and train them , only for them to leave disillusioned after a few months .
I have talked to some meteorologists who say that perhaps the worst thing to happen was the movie " Twister " , which brought in hordes of new undergrads who thought all they did was chase storms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is *imperative* that NASA TV be boring, because most of a mission is like that.A side benefit of this is that it keeps away people with short attention spans from having delusions of working at NASA and having an "exciting" career.
This way, NASA won't have to blow big bucks to hire and train them, only for them to leave disillusioned after a few months.
I have talked to some meteorologists who say that perhaps the worst thing to happen was the movie "Twister", which brought in hordes of new undergrads who thought all they did was chase storms.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564436</id>
	<title>Re:leave nasa alone</title>
	<author>SBFCOblivion</author>
	<datestamp>1261942620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Out of curiosity (honestly), what is wrong with pbs? The NOVA stuff is too similar to the other channels for you? Too dumbed down?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Out of curiosity ( honestly ) , what is wrong with pbs ?
The NOVA stuff is too similar to the other channels for you ?
Too dumbed down ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Out of curiosity (honestly), what is wrong with pbs?
The NOVA stuff is too similar to the other channels for you?
Too dumbed down?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563442</id>
	<title>Where is Carl Sagan when you need him?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261932840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564026</id>
	<title>Re:Where is Carl Sagan when you need him?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261938540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Dead.</p></div><p>More accurately, he's dead and burning in Hell.</p><p>"I'm agnostic." --Carl Sagan</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dead.More accurately , he 's dead and burning in Hell .
" I 'm agnostic .
" --Carl Sagan</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dead.More accurately, he's dead and burning in Hell.
"I'm agnostic.
" --Carl Sagan
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30569590</id>
	<title>Nothing wrong with "lively", if it's done right</title>
	<author>AliasMarlowe</author>
	<datestamp>1262001840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For an example of what NASA TV should have as filler between live stories, try this <a href="http://www.vimeo.com/7852885" title="vimeo.com">http://www.vimeo.com/7852885</a> [vimeo.com] The first few minutes are slow-paced, then it's all action.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For an example of what NASA TV should have as filler between live stories , try this http : //www.vimeo.com/7852885 [ vimeo.com ] The first few minutes are slow-paced , then it 's all action .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For an example of what NASA TV should have as filler between live stories, try this http://www.vimeo.com/7852885 [vimeo.com] The first few minutes are slow-paced, then it's all action.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563466</id>
	<title>This ain't MTV!</title>
	<author>bziman</author>
	<datestamp>1261933140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't WANT NASA TV to appeal to the lowest common denominator.  The Discovery Channel used to be educational... now it's "how can we use science to blow shit up?"  MTV used to be music videos... now it's the Shiny Things Network(c).  I tune to NASA TV when I actually want to see what's ACTUALLY going on, narrated by someone who actually has some idea of what they're talking about, without going through an "audience is retarded" filter.  If you don't find it interesting, fine, wait a few days, and read the brain-dead version in one of the mass media outlets.  CNN will be happy to distill six hours of interesting live coverage down to a 30 second clip that you can digest will drinking your Starbucks.  NASA TV is what it is for a good reason.  The cameras are always on, and when something interesting, but unexpected happens, you get to watch it unfold.  Keep your Hollywood ideas off my Nerdovision.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't WANT NASA TV to appeal to the lowest common denominator .
The Discovery Channel used to be educational... now it 's " how can we use science to blow shit up ?
" MTV used to be music videos... now it 's the Shiny Things Network ( c ) .
I tune to NASA TV when I actually want to see what 's ACTUALLY going on , narrated by someone who actually has some idea of what they 're talking about , without going through an " audience is retarded " filter .
If you do n't find it interesting , fine , wait a few days , and read the brain-dead version in one of the mass media outlets .
CNN will be happy to distill six hours of interesting live coverage down to a 30 second clip that you can digest will drinking your Starbucks .
NASA TV is what it is for a good reason .
The cameras are always on , and when something interesting , but unexpected happens , you get to watch it unfold .
Keep your Hollywood ideas off my Nerdovision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't WANT NASA TV to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
The Discovery Channel used to be educational... now it's "how can we use science to blow shit up?
"  MTV used to be music videos... now it's the Shiny Things Network(c).
I tune to NASA TV when I actually want to see what's ACTUALLY going on, narrated by someone who actually has some idea of what they're talking about, without going through an "audience is retarded" filter.
If you don't find it interesting, fine, wait a few days, and read the brain-dead version in one of the mass media outlets.
CNN will be happy to distill six hours of interesting live coverage down to a 30 second clip that you can digest will drinking your Starbucks.
NASA TV is what it is for a good reason.
The cameras are always on, and when something interesting, but unexpected happens, you get to watch it unfold.
Keep your Hollywood ideas off my Nerdovision.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564740</id>
	<title>Always has been very boring</title>
	<author>strangemachinex</author>
	<datestamp>1261945860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Growing up, the monotony of the NASA channel was always a running joke between my friends and I. The majority of the time, all the channel showed was a wide shot of alot of people in a control center working, with no sound or commentary whatsoever. I don't see how that could be interesting to anyone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Growing up , the monotony of the NASA channel was always a running joke between my friends and I. The majority of the time , all the channel showed was a wide shot of alot of people in a control center working , with no sound or commentary whatsoever .
I do n't see how that could be interesting to anyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Growing up, the monotony of the NASA channel was always a running joke between my friends and I. The majority of the time, all the channel showed was a wide shot of alot of people in a control center working, with no sound or commentary whatsoever.
I don't see how that could be interesting to anyone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30568300</id>
	<title>Re:Budget, etc.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261935000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm surprised they can run the station at all on that budget, especally considering the myriad of hardware upgrades needed recently.  I'm pretty sure some local public access stations have a larger budget than that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm surprised they can run the station at all on that budget , especally considering the myriad of hardware upgrades needed recently .
I 'm pretty sure some local public access stations have a larger budget than that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm surprised they can run the station at all on that budget, especally considering the myriad of hardware upgrades needed recently.
I'm pretty sure some local public access stations have a larger budget than that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30569634</id>
	<title>Re:Where is Carl Sagan when you need him?</title>
	<author>Gerafix</author>
	<datestamp>1262002860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Recent sources have disclosed that Carl Sagan is in fact hanging out with Elvis Presley somewhere in the vicinity of Betelgeuse.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Recent sources have disclosed that Carl Sagan is in fact hanging out with Elvis Presley somewhere in the vicinity of Betelgeuse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Recent sources have disclosed that Carl Sagan is in fact hanging out with Elvis Presley somewhere in the vicinity of Betelgeuse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563904</id>
	<title>The L.A. Times is still in business?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261937460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe NASA can add a rapping dog, or maybe hire Paris Hilton to host the whole channel.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe NASA can add a rapping dog , or maybe hire Paris Hilton to host the whole channel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe NASA can add a rapping dog, or maybe hire Paris Hilton to host the whole channel.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563476</id>
	<title>I like NASA TV how it is.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261933260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like NASA TV the way it is. If you have ADD and need constant sound effects and graphics or everything dumbed down and edited into some fake reality, filled with game shows and so on, then channels like Discovery are for you. I like NASA because of its raw unedited nature and it is more of a direct access thing to NASA data rather than another discovery network. Do I want NASA TV to be another heavily commercialised pop culture discovery channel for people who have short attention spans and few brain cells? No.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like NASA TV the way it is .
If you have ADD and need constant sound effects and graphics or everything dumbed down and edited into some fake reality , filled with game shows and so on , then channels like Discovery are for you .
I like NASA because of its raw unedited nature and it is more of a direct access thing to NASA data rather than another discovery network .
Do I want NASA TV to be another heavily commercialised pop culture discovery channel for people who have short attention spans and few brain cells ?
No .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like NASA TV the way it is.
If you have ADD and need constant sound effects and graphics or everything dumbed down and edited into some fake reality, filled with game shows and so on, then channels like Discovery are for you.
I like NASA because of its raw unedited nature and it is more of a direct access thing to NASA data rather than another discovery network.
Do I want NASA TV to be another heavily commercialised pop culture discovery channel for people who have short attention spans and few brain cells?
No.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563900</id>
	<title>Agreed</title>
	<author>MightyMartian</author>
	<datestamp>1261937400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NASA really needs to sex things up.  I mean, where's the dancing girls?  Where's the musical interlude by Andy Williams?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NASA really needs to sex things up .
I mean , where 's the dancing girls ?
Where 's the musical interlude by Andy Williams ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NASA really needs to sex things up.
I mean, where's the dancing girls?
Where's the musical interlude by Andy Williams?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564216</id>
	<title>NASA TV Is NOT boring...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261940520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Live feed when astronaut Heidemarie Stefanyshyn-Piper lost her tool bag!</p><p>Nicole Stott's very <b>fine</b> ass in full frame for about 10 minutes as she closed out a hatch!</p><p>Ohh ok, I know I am going to hell for that second reference and I know she is smarter then I am, and no I am not denigrating her, but dayum she <b>does</b> have one nice butt!</p><p>So there you have it, titillation AND adventure, so leave our channel alone!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Live feed when astronaut Heidemarie Stefanyshyn-Piper lost her tool bag ! Nicole Stott 's very fine ass in full frame for about 10 minutes as she closed out a hatch ! Ohh ok , I know I am going to hell for that second reference and I know she is smarter then I am , and no I am not denigrating her , but dayum she does have one nice butt ! So there you have it , titillation AND adventure , so leave our channel alone !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Live feed when astronaut Heidemarie Stefanyshyn-Piper lost her tool bag!Nicole Stott's very fine ass in full frame for about 10 minutes as she closed out a hatch!Ohh ok, I know I am going to hell for that second reference and I know she is smarter then I am, and no I am not denigrating her, but dayum she does have one nice butt!So there you have it, titillation AND adventure, so leave our channel alone!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564364</id>
	<title>NASA TV could use a little more</title>
	<author>yerktoader</author>
	<datestamp>1261941720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>But I certainly agree it does not need "EXTRA BIG ASS FRIES".  Enthusiasm and fun != "Tomorrow's Rehabilitation promises to be even more better!"  For proof, watch <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain\_de\_Cadenet" title="wikipedia.org">Alain De Cadenet</a> [wikipedia.org] on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victory\_By\_Design" title="wikipedia.org">Victory By Design</a> [wikipedia.org] which has a great level of information and entertainment.  And while the cars are loud the sequences of him driving are only interrupted by him speaking on occasion with enthusiasm for the car, giving that feeling of negative space in which you are left to drink in a relative silence and just enjoy what's happening on screen.
<br> <br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_secret\_life\_of\_machines" title="wikipedia.org">The Secret Life of Machines</a> [wikipedia.org] is another great example of how a science and history show can be entertaining without having the endless commentary such as is seen with news casters and sports commentators.
<br> <br>
I don't think anyone wants to see NASA TV turn into TLC or G4, but watching an hour of mostly silent footage of satellite maintenance is like having conversation with an Ent. Let's keep in mind that the latest Star Trek was pretty well received, so it is not impossible to add a bunch of explosions and still be relevant and good.
<br> <br>
Another thing to keep in mind is that many people simply don't have the time to watch an hour of mostly silent satellite maintenance.  It's like the frustration I feel when I talk about music to people who have never been exposed to music outside of corporate owned radio station, MTv, movies and Target.  It's incredibly frustrating, and while you might feel like these people have chosen to ignore what else is out there - and to be sure, many folks want the Clear Channels of the world to decide what they listen to - the fact remains that most of these people have jobs and families, and simply cannot spend their time digging for new things to be interested in.  And considering the state NASA is in with budgets and such, it might just be useful and profitable to attract people to space programming like back in the 50's and 60's.
<br> <br>
Is a happy medium too much to ask?</htmltext>
<tokenext>But I certainly agree it does not need " EXTRA BIG ASS FRIES " .
Enthusiasm and fun ! = " Tomorrow 's Rehabilitation promises to be even more better !
" For proof , watch Alain De Cadenet [ wikipedia.org ] on Victory By Design [ wikipedia.org ] which has a great level of information and entertainment .
And while the cars are loud the sequences of him driving are only interrupted by him speaking on occasion with enthusiasm for the car , giving that feeling of negative space in which you are left to drink in a relative silence and just enjoy what 's happening on screen .
The Secret Life of Machines [ wikipedia.org ] is another great example of how a science and history show can be entertaining without having the endless commentary such as is seen with news casters and sports commentators .
I do n't think anyone wants to see NASA TV turn into TLC or G4 , but watching an hour of mostly silent footage of satellite maintenance is like having conversation with an Ent .
Let 's keep in mind that the latest Star Trek was pretty well received , so it is not impossible to add a bunch of explosions and still be relevant and good .
Another thing to keep in mind is that many people simply do n't have the time to watch an hour of mostly silent satellite maintenance .
It 's like the frustration I feel when I talk about music to people who have never been exposed to music outside of corporate owned radio station , MTv , movies and Target .
It 's incredibly frustrating , and while you might feel like these people have chosen to ignore what else is out there - and to be sure , many folks want the Clear Channels of the world to decide what they listen to - the fact remains that most of these people have jobs and families , and simply can not spend their time digging for new things to be interested in .
And considering the state NASA is in with budgets and such , it might just be useful and profitable to attract people to space programming like back in the 50 's and 60 's .
Is a happy medium too much to ask ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But I certainly agree it does not need "EXTRA BIG ASS FRIES".
Enthusiasm and fun != "Tomorrow's Rehabilitation promises to be even more better!
"  For proof, watch Alain De Cadenet [wikipedia.org] on Victory By Design [wikipedia.org] which has a great level of information and entertainment.
And while the cars are loud the sequences of him driving are only interrupted by him speaking on occasion with enthusiasm for the car, giving that feeling of negative space in which you are left to drink in a relative silence and just enjoy what's happening on screen.
The Secret Life of Machines [wikipedia.org] is another great example of how a science and history show can be entertaining without having the endless commentary such as is seen with news casters and sports commentators.
I don't think anyone wants to see NASA TV turn into TLC or G4, but watching an hour of mostly silent footage of satellite maintenance is like having conversation with an Ent.
Let's keep in mind that the latest Star Trek was pretty well received, so it is not impossible to add a bunch of explosions and still be relevant and good.
Another thing to keep in mind is that many people simply don't have the time to watch an hour of mostly silent satellite maintenance.
It's like the frustration I feel when I talk about music to people who have never been exposed to music outside of corporate owned radio station, MTv, movies and Target.
It's incredibly frustrating, and while you might feel like these people have chosen to ignore what else is out there - and to be sure, many folks want the Clear Channels of the world to decide what they listen to - the fact remains that most of these people have jobs and families, and simply cannot spend their time digging for new things to be interested in.
And considering the state NASA is in with budgets and such, it might just be useful and profitable to attract people to space programming like back in the 50's and 60's.
Is a happy medium too much to ask?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30566016</id>
	<title>Re:If you want to know what's wrong with "lively".</title>
	<author>node 3</author>
	<datestamp>1261912260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The thing that's really awful about such sensationalism in science (especially *space* science) is that the thing they are showing you is *FREAKING OUTER SPACE*. It's already more amazing than pretty much anything a person can say about it. Give us facts, your hyperbole will just pale in comparison. I don't mean it has to be boring, Sagan did a great job of conveying the wonder of science without resorting to idiocracy-level commentary.</p><p>The same goes for NASA TV. I don't need some entertainer-posing-as-commentator talking about what's going on every second of a launch or whatever. I'm *WATCHING A SPACESHIP FLY INTO SPACE*. The current level of commentary is about right. There's the audio from mission control ("secondary boosters nominal&lt;chirp&gt;"), and countdowns, then commentary for specific portions of the event, "the rocket has reached escape velocity, and the second stage of the rocket will detach in about 90 seconds. We are 127 seconds into the flight, and the rocket is 192 miles above the Earth." Then silence for ~75 seconds until, "second stage detach in 10 seconds. 10... 9..." you get the idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing that 's really awful about such sensationalism in science ( especially * space * science ) is that the thing they are showing you is * FREAKING OUTER SPACE * .
It 's already more amazing than pretty much anything a person can say about it .
Give us facts , your hyperbole will just pale in comparison .
I do n't mean it has to be boring , Sagan did a great job of conveying the wonder of science without resorting to idiocracy-level commentary.The same goes for NASA TV .
I do n't need some entertainer-posing-as-commentator talking about what 's going on every second of a launch or whatever .
I 'm * WATCHING A SPACESHIP FLY INTO SPACE * .
The current level of commentary is about right .
There 's the audio from mission control ( " secondary boosters nominal " ) , and countdowns , then commentary for specific portions of the event , " the rocket has reached escape velocity , and the second stage of the rocket will detach in about 90 seconds .
We are 127 seconds into the flight , and the rocket is 192 miles above the Earth .
" Then silence for ~ 75 seconds until , " second stage detach in 10 seconds .
10... 9... " you get the idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing that's really awful about such sensationalism in science (especially *space* science) is that the thing they are showing you is *FREAKING OUTER SPACE*.
It's already more amazing than pretty much anything a person can say about it.
Give us facts, your hyperbole will just pale in comparison.
I don't mean it has to be boring, Sagan did a great job of conveying the wonder of science without resorting to idiocracy-level commentary.The same goes for NASA TV.
I don't need some entertainer-posing-as-commentator talking about what's going on every second of a launch or whatever.
I'm *WATCHING A SPACESHIP FLY INTO SPACE*.
The current level of commentary is about right.
There's the audio from mission control ("secondary boosters nominal"), and countdowns, then commentary for specific portions of the event, "the rocket has reached escape velocity, and the second stage of the rocket will detach in about 90 seconds.
We are 127 seconds into the flight, and the rocket is 192 miles above the Earth.
" Then silence for ~75 seconds until, "second stage detach in 10 seconds.
10... 9..." you get the idea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30569738</id>
	<title>Re:This ain't MTV!</title>
	<author>Dan541</author>
	<datestamp>1262004300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I couldn't agree more. However I recognise the problem that intelligent people are the minority of our society and as a result it is important for NASA to engage public interest or the funding can dry up when the "people" are no longer interested.</p><p>I propose "NASA Dumb-ass Digest" to run as a 1 Hour weekly episode that can be crafted for the dumb masses with all 168hours footage fitted into a single episode. Meanwhile the intellectually superior can continue watching our NASA TV the way we prefer. This seems like a win-win situation to me, we get NASA tv and NASA gets more public support.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I could n't agree more .
However I recognise the problem that intelligent people are the minority of our society and as a result it is important for NASA to engage public interest or the funding can dry up when the " people " are no longer interested.I propose " NASA Dumb-ass Digest " to run as a 1 Hour weekly episode that can be crafted for the dumb masses with all 168hours footage fitted into a single episode .
Meanwhile the intellectually superior can continue watching our NASA TV the way we prefer .
This seems like a win-win situation to me , we get NASA tv and NASA gets more public support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I couldn't agree more.
However I recognise the problem that intelligent people are the minority of our society and as a result it is important for NASA to engage public interest or the funding can dry up when the "people" are no longer interested.I propose "NASA Dumb-ass Digest" to run as a 1 Hour weekly episode that can be crafted for the dumb masses with all 168hours footage fitted into a single episode.
Meanwhile the intellectually superior can continue watching our NASA TV the way we prefer.
This seems like a win-win situation to me, we get NASA tv and NASA gets more public support.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30569404</id>
	<title>Oh good grief....isn't there enough noise on TV?</title>
	<author>DeanOh</author>
	<datestamp>1261997760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...of course this came from the LA Times, where they like the shiny things most of all.</p><p>
&nbsp; Sometimes, real science...and real work...includes stretches of time without sound or pictures. In space operations, there are times when lack of obvious activity is a desired state.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...of course this came from the LA Times , where they like the shiny things most of all .
  Sometimes , real science...and real work...includes stretches of time without sound or pictures .
In space operations , there are times when lack of obvious activity is a desired state .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...of course this came from the LA Times, where they like the shiny things most of all.
  Sometimes, real science...and real work...includes stretches of time without sound or pictures.
In space operations, there are times when lack of obvious activity is a desired state.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563672</id>
	<title>LADIES AND GENTLEMEN!</title>
	<author>Spewns</author>
	<datestamp>1261935300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>THE PRESIDENT of AMERICA! *rockin' music*</htmltext>
<tokenext>THE PRESIDENT of AMERICA !
* rockin ' music *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>THE PRESIDENT of AMERICA!
*rockin' music*</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30567250</id>
	<title>Re:Budget, etc.</title>
	<author>demonlapin</author>
	<datestamp>1261923180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, there are things you can do that are fairly inexpensive.  Example: while watching NASA TV on numerous occasions, you are treated to the View of The Earth From Space. Except that with cloud cover and a low angle, it's really hard to figure out what you're looking at.  How hard would it be to put a graphic showing current ground position up in the corner?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , there are things you can do that are fairly inexpensive .
Example : while watching NASA TV on numerous occasions , you are treated to the View of The Earth From Space .
Except that with cloud cover and a low angle , it 's really hard to figure out what you 're looking at .
How hard would it be to put a graphic showing current ground position up in the corner ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, there are things you can do that are fairly inexpensive.
Example: while watching NASA TV on numerous occasions, you are treated to the View of The Earth From Space.
Except that with cloud cover and a low angle, it's really hard to figure out what you're looking at.
How hard would it be to put a graphic showing current ground position up in the corner?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563948</id>
	<title>Re:This ain't MTV!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261937820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Surely there's some educational content in people walking around with light amplification cameras in the dark pretending to be scared by something going 'bump'...?</p><p>OK, no - we're fucked.</p><p>Frankly there has never been a show on TV that really got the mix between education/entertainment right. At least for me. If there's something on about WWII fighter planes and their engine development, I want to drill down a little and get into specifics, not just skate back and forth between all the models that everyone has seen and heard about over and over. What year did they start including water injection in the Bf 109, and how did it make the plane stack up against it's contemporaries? How would the P&amp;W Wasp Major have changed things for radial engined fighters? I would want to see, from model to model, a comparison of how the engines were altered, and what effect that had on performance and reliability. My favorite tv channel would bore the shit out of everyone else.</p><p>We need a WikiVision channel...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Surely there 's some educational content in people walking around with light amplification cameras in the dark pretending to be scared by something going 'bump'... ? OK , no - we 're fucked.Frankly there has never been a show on TV that really got the mix between education/entertainment right .
At least for me .
If there 's something on about WWII fighter planes and their engine development , I want to drill down a little and get into specifics , not just skate back and forth between all the models that everyone has seen and heard about over and over .
What year did they start including water injection in the Bf 109 , and how did it make the plane stack up against it 's contemporaries ?
How would the P&amp;W Wasp Major have changed things for radial engined fighters ?
I would want to see , from model to model , a comparison of how the engines were altered , and what effect that had on performance and reliability .
My favorite tv channel would bore the shit out of everyone else.We need a WikiVision channel.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surely there's some educational content in people walking around with light amplification cameras in the dark pretending to be scared by something going 'bump'...?OK, no - we're fucked.Frankly there has never been a show on TV that really got the mix between education/entertainment right.
At least for me.
If there's something on about WWII fighter planes and their engine development, I want to drill down a little and get into specifics, not just skate back and forth between all the models that everyone has seen and heard about over and over.
What year did they start including water injection in the Bf 109, and how did it make the plane stack up against it's contemporaries?
How would the P&amp;W Wasp Major have changed things for radial engined fighters?
I would want to see, from model to model, a comparison of how the engines were altered, and what effect that had on performance and reliability.
My favorite tv channel would bore the shit out of everyone else.We need a WikiVision channel...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564146</id>
	<title>Same with C-Span</title>
	<author>MickyTheIdiot</author>
	<datestamp>1261939920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are going to order a new season of "Whose Line is it Anyway."  All those boring Floor and Committee sessions... who gives a shit?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are going to order a new season of " Whose Line is it Anyway .
" All those boring Floor and Committee sessions... who gives a shit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are going to order a new season of "Whose Line is it Anyway.
"  All those boring Floor and Committee sessions... who gives a shit?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563716</id>
	<title>Re:Where is Carl Sagan when you need him?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261935840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Dead</p></div><p>He didn't die, he experienced a phase transition and is now at a higher entropy level.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>DeadHe did n't die , he experienced a phase transition and is now at a higher entropy level .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DeadHe didn't die, he experienced a phase transition and is now at a higher entropy level.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563494</id>
	<title>More explosions!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261933320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Obviously, we need Hollywood to get on board to help liven things up.  When they have a movie that doesn't have much of a plot, they turn it into a summer blockbuster by adding two things: Gratuitous explosions and girls in bikinis.  Hell, watch the bad "giant crocodile attack" B movies on the SciFi channel sometime.  Even those get the occasional explosion, to the extent their budget allows, and always at least a couple of very attractive young ladies wearing as little as they can get away with on a giant crocodile-infested island.
<br> <br>
Since bikinis are not conducive to space travel, mostly due to not being compatible with the pressure helmets (although it would certainly make for some lively experimentation as to support issues), the only alternative is explosions.  NASA should just make sure that more things blow up on screen.  Don't recycle rocket parts, blow them up at the apex of their suborbital flights!  Don't pack waste or garbage back to Earth, blow it up in front of a camera!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously , we need Hollywood to get on board to help liven things up .
When they have a movie that does n't have much of a plot , they turn it into a summer blockbuster by adding two things : Gratuitous explosions and girls in bikinis .
Hell , watch the bad " giant crocodile attack " B movies on the SciFi channel sometime .
Even those get the occasional explosion , to the extent their budget allows , and always at least a couple of very attractive young ladies wearing as little as they can get away with on a giant crocodile-infested island .
Since bikinis are not conducive to space travel , mostly due to not being compatible with the pressure helmets ( although it would certainly make for some lively experimentation as to support issues ) , the only alternative is explosions .
NASA should just make sure that more things blow up on screen .
Do n't recycle rocket parts , blow them up at the apex of their suborbital flights !
Do n't pack waste or garbage back to Earth , blow it up in front of a camera !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously, we need Hollywood to get on board to help liven things up.
When they have a movie that doesn't have much of a plot, they turn it into a summer blockbuster by adding two things: Gratuitous explosions and girls in bikinis.
Hell, watch the bad "giant crocodile attack" B movies on the SciFi channel sometime.
Even those get the occasional explosion, to the extent their budget allows, and always at least a couple of very attractive young ladies wearing as little as they can get away with on a giant crocodile-infested island.
Since bikinis are not conducive to space travel, mostly due to not being compatible with the pressure helmets (although it would certainly make for some lively experimentation as to support issues), the only alternative is explosions.
NASA should just make sure that more things blow up on screen.
Don't recycle rocket parts, blow them up at the apex of their suborbital flights!
Don't pack waste or garbage back to Earth, blow it up in front of a camera!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563610</id>
	<title>ObSimpsons reference</title>
	<author>garg0yle</author>
	<datestamp>1261934640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anybody else read this article and get instantly reminded of the Simpsons episode where Homer became an astronaut?</p><p>Episode <a href="http://www.snpp.com/episodes/1F13.html" title="snpp.com" rel="nofollow">1F13</a> [snpp.com] for those who wish to remember.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anybody else read this article and get instantly reminded of the Simpsons episode where Homer became an astronaut ? Episode 1F13 [ snpp.com ] for those who wish to remember .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anybody else read this article and get instantly reminded of the Simpsons episode where Homer became an astronaut?Episode 1F13 [snpp.com] for those who wish to remember.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564142</id>
	<title>Improved broadcasting does not equal dumbed down!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261939920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why is everyone on here assuming that making the broadcasts 'better' 'spruced up' and 'more interesting' equates to them being dumbed down?  This is an incorrect gross generalization.  <br> <br>
I don't think anyone is suggesting that NASA TV turns into the Discovery Channel 'hey I wonder how big of an explosion we can make with all that liquid h2 and o2'. <br> <br>
Anyone who thinks that the current version of NASA TV is utilizing resources to the best of their ability is sorely out of touch.  There is plenty they could do to make these broadcast a lot more appealing to a wider audience whilst also enhancing their scientific and educational content.  <br> <br>
If you just want to listen to the bare minimum commentary video feed only broadcast I'm sure they can still make this available.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is everyone on here assuming that making the broadcasts 'better ' 'spruced up ' and 'more interesting ' equates to them being dumbed down ?
This is an incorrect gross generalization .
I do n't think anyone is suggesting that NASA TV turns into the Discovery Channel 'hey I wonder how big of an explosion we can make with all that liquid h2 and o2' .
Anyone who thinks that the current version of NASA TV is utilizing resources to the best of their ability is sorely out of touch .
There is plenty they could do to make these broadcast a lot more appealing to a wider audience whilst also enhancing their scientific and educational content .
If you just want to listen to the bare minimum commentary video feed only broadcast I 'm sure they can still make this available .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is everyone on here assuming that making the broadcasts 'better' 'spruced up' and 'more interesting' equates to them being dumbed down?
This is an incorrect gross generalization.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that NASA TV turns into the Discovery Channel 'hey I wonder how big of an explosion we can make with all that liquid h2 and o2'.
Anyone who thinks that the current version of NASA TV is utilizing resources to the best of their ability is sorely out of touch.
There is plenty they could do to make these broadcast a lot more appealing to a wider audience whilst also enhancing their scientific and educational content.
If you just want to listen to the bare minimum commentary video feed only broadcast I'm sure they can still make this available.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563648</id>
	<title>European Space Agency is much worse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261935060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whenever ESA gets around to streaming something live, it's usually some old guys in suits congratulating themselves of a project that went well. No engineers to tell about the technical problems, no scientists to tell what to expect, and absolutely not a single live image coming straight off the probe or lander.</p><p>If they were to get actual scientific or other interesting data, they'll never show it online. They just say "We got first pictures and they're very nice." ARGH.</p><p>(For the record: I like NASA TV as it is; I'll rather take boring and accurate than shiny and wrong)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whenever ESA gets around to streaming something live , it 's usually some old guys in suits congratulating themselves of a project that went well .
No engineers to tell about the technical problems , no scientists to tell what to expect , and absolutely not a single live image coming straight off the probe or lander.If they were to get actual scientific or other interesting data , they 'll never show it online .
They just say " We got first pictures and they 're very nice .
" ARGH .
( For the record : I like NASA TV as it is ; I 'll rather take boring and accurate than shiny and wrong )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whenever ESA gets around to streaming something live, it's usually some old guys in suits congratulating themselves of a project that went well.
No engineers to tell about the technical problems, no scientists to tell what to expect, and absolutely not a single live image coming straight off the probe or lander.If they were to get actual scientific or other interesting data, they'll never show it online.
They just say "We got first pictures and they're very nice.
" ARGH.
(For the record: I like NASA TV as it is; I'll rather take boring and accurate than shiny and wrong)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30566500</id>
	<title>NASA Reality TV</title>
	<author>Donkey\_Hotey</author>
	<datestamp>1261916640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's the set-up: A family of astronauts (father, mother, two teenage girls, and boy) get sent out to, let's say, Alpha Centauri for colonization.  Just so that their little gene pool has some chance for diversity, let's go ahead and include a strapping young military astronaut.  We can even throw in a robot for various domestic chores.</p><p>Now, just to stir the pot up a bit, we can have a scientist sneak aboard the ship and reprogram the robot to destroy it while the colonists are in suspended animation, blissfully unaware of their impending doom.  What he doesn't know is that while he's busy with the robot, we'll lock the ship's hatch and launch, trapping him aboard with the family.  And even if he's able to undo his sabotage, we can be make sure that something on board the ship blows up anyway, leaving them stranded in deep space, fighting for their survival.</p><p>The ultimate reality programming, and it's a perfect fit for the NASA channel.  Will they survive, or will they be lost in space forever?  I'm telling you, it'll be a hit...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's the set-up : A family of astronauts ( father , mother , two teenage girls , and boy ) get sent out to , let 's say , Alpha Centauri for colonization .
Just so that their little gene pool has some chance for diversity , let 's go ahead and include a strapping young military astronaut .
We can even throw in a robot for various domestic chores.Now , just to stir the pot up a bit , we can have a scientist sneak aboard the ship and reprogram the robot to destroy it while the colonists are in suspended animation , blissfully unaware of their impending doom .
What he does n't know is that while he 's busy with the robot , we 'll lock the ship 's hatch and launch , trapping him aboard with the family .
And even if he 's able to undo his sabotage , we can be make sure that something on board the ship blows up anyway , leaving them stranded in deep space , fighting for their survival.The ultimate reality programming , and it 's a perfect fit for the NASA channel .
Will they survive , or will they be lost in space forever ?
I 'm telling you , it 'll be a hit.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's the set-up: A family of astronauts (father, mother, two teenage girls, and boy) get sent out to, let's say, Alpha Centauri for colonization.
Just so that their little gene pool has some chance for diversity, let's go ahead and include a strapping young military astronaut.
We can even throw in a robot for various domestic chores.Now, just to stir the pot up a bit, we can have a scientist sneak aboard the ship and reprogram the robot to destroy it while the colonists are in suspended animation, blissfully unaware of their impending doom.
What he doesn't know is that while he's busy with the robot, we'll lock the ship's hatch and launch, trapping him aboard with the family.
And even if he's able to undo his sabotage, we can be make sure that something on board the ship blows up anyway, leaving them stranded in deep space, fighting for their survival.The ultimate reality programming, and it's a perfect fit for the NASA channel.
Will they survive, or will they be lost in space forever?
I'm telling you, it'll be a hit...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564176</id>
	<title>Boring??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261940160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Watching humans explore outer space as it happens live is boring but watching humans fight to move a ball up and down a field to some artificial goal is supposed to be exciting? I don't think so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Watching humans explore outer space as it happens live is boring but watching humans fight to move a ball up and down a field to some artificial goal is supposed to be exciting ?
I do n't think so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Watching humans explore outer space as it happens live is boring but watching humans fight to move a ball up and down a field to some artificial goal is supposed to be exciting?
I don't think so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563952</id>
	<title>Re:Needs more controversy</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1261937880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All they really need to make it exciting is have a camera crew running up to it with a commentator talking about the history of the mission on the way.  Nice and easy.</p><p>The Bear Grills formula works people, you could even make the commentator act like a dumbshit (hey lets see what happens if I jump off this boulder!) on the way if you want to stick to the formula rigorously.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All they really need to make it exciting is have a camera crew running up to it with a commentator talking about the history of the mission on the way .
Nice and easy.The Bear Grills formula works people , you could even make the commentator act like a dumbshit ( hey lets see what happens if I jump off this boulder !
) on the way if you want to stick to the formula rigorously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All they really need to make it exciting is have a camera crew running up to it with a commentator talking about the history of the mission on the way.
Nice and easy.The Bear Grills formula works people, you could even make the commentator act like a dumbshit (hey lets see what happens if I jump off this boulder!
) on the way if you want to stick to the formula rigorously.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563464</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_1340259_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30570692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_1340259_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30568316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_1340259_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_1340259_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30568242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_1340259_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30568800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_1340259_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_1340259_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_1340259_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_1340259_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_1340259_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30567578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_1340259_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_1340259_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_1340259_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30567444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_1340259_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_1340259_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_1340259_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30565574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_1340259_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30566616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_1340259_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_1340259_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_1340259_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_1340259_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30569860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_1340259_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_1340259_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_1340259_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_1340259_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30576674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_1340259_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_1340259_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_1340259_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_1340259_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30569590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_1340259_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30566016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_1340259_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30567656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_1340259_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30566658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_1340259_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_1340259_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30567872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_1340259_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_1340259_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30565058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_1340259_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30567250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_1340259_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30565540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_1340259_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_1340259_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30569738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_1340259_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30570590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_1340259_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30569634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_1340259_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_1340259_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30568300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_1340259_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30566274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_1340259_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30566176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_1340259_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30566438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_1340259_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_1340259_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_1340259_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_1340259_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30568132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_1340259_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_1340259_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30565596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_1340259_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30566766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_1340259_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_1340259_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30568792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_1340259_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30565954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_1340259_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_1340259_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30568336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_1340259_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30574788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_27_1340259.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563712
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_27_1340259.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563494
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_27_1340259.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30568800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563566
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564436
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30565596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30568336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30568242
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30569738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30569860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563732
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30566766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563548
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30565058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30570590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564690
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_27_1340259.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30567376
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_27_1340259.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564298
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_27_1340259.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564092
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_27_1340259.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30565056
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_27_1340259.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564066
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563938
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30565540
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30566176
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30567578
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30568132
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_27_1340259.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30567250
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564660
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30568300
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_27_1340259.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564434
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_27_1340259.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563952
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563766
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_27_1340259.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563982
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_27_1340259.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30567444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30574788
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_27_1340259.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30576674
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_27_1340259.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563846
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_27_1340259.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564212
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30570692
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30566016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564668
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30566658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30569590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30566274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30565954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30567872
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_27_1340259.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563752
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_27_1340259.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564146
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_27_1340259.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563672
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_27_1340259.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30569634
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563716
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30566616
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30568792
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30566438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30567656
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_27_1340259.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564556
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_27_1340259.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30566234
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_27_1340259.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30568316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564458
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563684
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30564600
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_27_1340259.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563904
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_27_1340259.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563888
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_27_1340259.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30563532
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_1340259.30565574
</commentlist>
</conversation>
