<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_31_0134258</id>
	<title>Ten Gadgets That Defined the Decade</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1262280060000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Corpuscavernosa writes <i>"As 2009 winds down and we try to come up with new and clever ways of referring to the early years of this century, there's really only one thing left to do: declare our <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/30/ten-gadgets-that-defined-the-decade/">ten favorite gadgets</a> of the aughts and show them off in chronological order. It's arguable that if this wasn't the decade of gadgets, it was certainly a decade shaped by gadgets &mdash; one which saw the birth of a new kind of connectedness. In just ten years time, gadgets have touched almost every aspect of our daily lives, and personal technology has come into its own in a way never before seen. It's a decade that's been marked the ubiquity of the internet, the downfall of the desktop, and the series finale of Friends, but we've boiled it down to the ten devices we've loved the most and worked the hardest over the past ten years. We even had some of our friends in the tech community chime in with their picks on what they thought was the gadget or tech of the decade."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Corpuscavernosa writes " As 2009 winds down and we try to come up with new and clever ways of referring to the early years of this century , there 's really only one thing left to do : declare our ten favorite gadgets of the aughts and show them off in chronological order .
It 's arguable that if this was n't the decade of gadgets , it was certainly a decade shaped by gadgets    one which saw the birth of a new kind of connectedness .
In just ten years time , gadgets have touched almost every aspect of our daily lives , and personal technology has come into its own in a way never before seen .
It 's a decade that 's been marked the ubiquity of the internet , the downfall of the desktop , and the series finale of Friends , but we 've boiled it down to the ten devices we 've loved the most and worked the hardest over the past ten years .
We even had some of our friends in the tech community chime in with their picks on what they thought was the gadget or tech of the decade .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Corpuscavernosa writes "As 2009 winds down and we try to come up with new and clever ways of referring to the early years of this century, there's really only one thing left to do: declare our ten favorite gadgets of the aughts and show them off in chronological order.
It's arguable that if this wasn't the decade of gadgets, it was certainly a decade shaped by gadgets — one which saw the birth of a new kind of connectedness.
In just ten years time, gadgets have touched almost every aspect of our daily lives, and personal technology has come into its own in a way never before seen.
It's a decade that's been marked the ubiquity of the internet, the downfall of the desktop, and the series finale of Friends, but we've boiled it down to the ten devices we've loved the most and worked the hardest over the past ten years.
We even had some of our friends in the tech community chime in with their picks on what they thought was the gadget or tech of the decade.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30606378</id>
	<title>Re:GPS</title>
	<author>onefriedrice</author>
	<datestamp>1262281260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They're so cheap nowadays that I got one as a gift.</p></div><p>So... you only buy cheap gifts?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're so cheap nowadays that I got one as a gift.So... you only buy cheap gifts ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're so cheap nowadays that I got one as a gift.So... you only buy cheap gifts?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603516</id>
	<title>Engadget..</title>
	<author>msimm</author>
	<datestamp>1262289840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is a property to carry ads. Most people either don't understand this fact or want to ignore it. It's part of a portfolio owned by a major online advertiser like a lot of similar sites. It's branded advertising.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is a property to carry ads .
Most people either do n't understand this fact or want to ignore it .
It 's part of a portfolio owned by a major online advertiser like a lot of similar sites .
It 's branded advertising .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is a property to carry ads.
Most people either don't understand this fact or want to ignore it.
It's part of a portfolio owned by a major online advertiser like a lot of similar sites.
It's branded advertising.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603206</id>
	<title>Some of them are pretty cool</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1259866260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Titanium powerbook was pretty cool, but looks absolutely dated now, like the tail finned cadillacs.  I still believe the razr was a very good design.  The only issue was that if one used the flip to answer option, the early models did not allow a caller ID.  The hinge, though, was very sturdy and I was not able to break it over years of use.  Not so for the often plastic sliding mechanisms on the modern slide phones.  The draw back was that we still had to enter phones numbers by hand, little synch with the computer.  In those terns, the palm treo was a better deal, but the integration of the 'smart phone' was simply not up to speed at that point.   The huge size just did not justify leaving the tiny razr behind</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Titanium powerbook was pretty cool , but looks absolutely dated now , like the tail finned cadillacs .
I still believe the razr was a very good design .
The only issue was that if one used the flip to answer option , the early models did not allow a caller ID .
The hinge , though , was very sturdy and I was not able to break it over years of use .
Not so for the often plastic sliding mechanisms on the modern slide phones .
The draw back was that we still had to enter phones numbers by hand , little synch with the computer .
In those terns , the palm treo was a better deal , but the integration of the 'smart phone ' was simply not up to speed at that point .
The huge size just did not justify leaving the tiny razr behind</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Titanium powerbook was pretty cool, but looks absolutely dated now, like the tail finned cadillacs.
I still believe the razr was a very good design.
The only issue was that if one used the flip to answer option, the early models did not allow a caller ID.
The hinge, though, was very sturdy and I was not able to break it over years of use.
Not so for the often plastic sliding mechanisms on the modern slide phones.
The draw back was that we still had to enter phones numbers by hand, little synch with the computer.
In those terns, the palm treo was a better deal, but the integration of the 'smart phone' was simply not up to speed at that point.
The huge size just did not justify leaving the tiny razr behind</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604690</id>
	<title>Nokia N900</title>
	<author>kurt555gs</author>
	<datestamp>1262271540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It has only been out a month in 2009. But is's cross between a mobile computer and a VOIP/CELL phone, it's design, it's open Maemo5 (linux OS), everything will put it in a new catagory that the press just has not yet defined. It is a true milestone in computer history along with the like of the Altair 8080, SORD IS-11, Kaypro-II, etc.</p><p>Just a little late in the game, but still in 2009.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It has only been out a month in 2009 .
But is 's cross between a mobile computer and a VOIP/CELL phone , it 's design , it 's open Maemo5 ( linux OS ) , everything will put it in a new catagory that the press just has not yet defined .
It is a true milestone in computer history along with the like of the Altair 8080 , SORD IS-11 , Kaypro-II , etc.Just a little late in the game , but still in 2009 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has only been out a month in 2009.
But is's cross between a mobile computer and a VOIP/CELL phone, it's design, it's open Maemo5 (linux OS), everything will put it in a new catagory that the press just has not yet defined.
It is a true milestone in computer history along with the like of the Altair 8080, SORD IS-11, Kaypro-II, etc.Just a little late in the game, but still in 2009.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603196</id>
	<title>Re:360?</title>
	<author>AuMatar</author>
	<datestamp>1259866020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It doesn't even come close for this generation-  its far behind the Wii in sales and in originality.  Although I agree for the decade it has to be the PS2, due to its dominance last gen.  Obviously written by someone with an MS hard on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't even come close for this generation- its far behind the Wii in sales and in originality .
Although I agree for the decade it has to be the PS2 , due to its dominance last gen. Obviously written by someone with an MS hard on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't even come close for this generation-  its far behind the Wii in sales and in originality.
Although I agree for the decade it has to be the PS2, due to its dominance last gen.  Obviously written by someone with an MS hard on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30618096</id>
	<title>Re:Only one</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1230819480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The only thing that's really changed is that we have finally gotten rid of CRTs.  [...] Most of our new toys are finally possible due to cheap and tiny displays.</p></div></blockquote><p>Aren't we forgetting Li-Ion batteries?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only thing that 's really changed is that we have finally gotten rid of CRTs .
[ ... ] Most of our new toys are finally possible due to cheap and tiny displays.Are n't we forgetting Li-Ion batteries ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only thing that's really changed is that we have finally gotten rid of CRTs.
[...] Most of our new toys are finally possible due to cheap and tiny displays.Aren't we forgetting Li-Ion batteries?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603538</id>
	<title>I am shocked and amazed...</title>
	<author>germansausage</author>
	<datestamp>1262290140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am shocked and amazed...to find TFA doesn't span 10 separate pages. Thanks, Engadget.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am shocked and amazed...to find TFA does n't span 10 separate pages .
Thanks , Engadget .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am shocked and amazed...to find TFA doesn't span 10 separate pages.
Thanks, Engadget.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603588</id>
	<title>Re:One killer "gadget"</title>
	<author>DNS-and-BIND</author>
	<datestamp>1262291160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cheap, fast, good.  Pick any two. </p><p>Also worthwhile is the drop in quality in consumer goods.  Even back in 1999, it wasn't uncommon to send a hard drive in for repairs instead of just buying a new one.  When labor is $75/hr and parts only come from the authorized ($$$) dealer, you just throw away anything that breaks, and a lot of stuff breaks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cheap , fast , good .
Pick any two .
Also worthwhile is the drop in quality in consumer goods .
Even back in 1999 , it was n't uncommon to send a hard drive in for repairs instead of just buying a new one .
When labor is $ 75/hr and parts only come from the authorized ( $ $ $ ) dealer , you just throw away anything that breaks , and a lot of stuff breaks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cheap, fast, good.
Pick any two.
Also worthwhile is the drop in quality in consumer goods.
Even back in 1999, it wasn't uncommon to send a hard drive in for repairs instead of just buying a new one.
When labor is $75/hr and parts only come from the authorized ($$$) dealer, you just throw away anything that breaks, and a lot of stuff breaks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603804</id>
	<title>Re:The iPod didn't come of age...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262253600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple stole the iPod UI directly from Creative's MP3 players.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple stole the iPod UI directly from Creative 's MP3 players .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple stole the iPod UI directly from Creative's MP3 players.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604802</id>
	<title>Re:The decade isn't over yet!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262272380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Decades aren't necessarily aligned with centuries, unless by "century" you mean something like "the nineteen hundreds" instead of "the twentieth century".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Decades are n't necessarily aligned with centuries , unless by " century " you mean something like " the nineteen hundreds " instead of " the twentieth century " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Decades aren't necessarily aligned with centuries, unless by "century" you mean something like "the nineteen hundreds" instead of "the twentieth century".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603540</id>
	<title>Simple Simon games</title>
	<author>DNS-and-BIND</author>
	<datestamp>1262290200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember visiting Japan for the first time in 1999.  Of course I wandered in to a video game arcade to check out the scene.  I laughed at the poor Japanese and their imitative video games - look, that guy is just touching the controls in the exact way that the machine tells him to!  What a retarded game!  It's no game at all, he's just mindlessly copying what the machine tells him to do in exact sequence...no more "fun" than working on an assembly line.  A children's game, really...we had the same thing called <a href="http://www.bigredtoybox.com/articles/simonindex.shtml" title="bigredtoybox.com">Simple Simon</a> [bigredtoybox.com] when I was a kid...these Japanese video games even have the same four colors.  I mean, there could at least be a dozen colors or something, make it difficult.  And the controller shaped like a guitar?  Oh man, how pathetic: if you're going to be cool and play the guitar, be cool and learn the goddamn instrument, it ain't that hard.  Only Japanese people, with their tolerance of tedium and their relentless drive to copy, could possibly "enjoy" such a "game".</p><p>This Christmas, I'm passed out from wine, and when I vaguely become aware, I hear these  overplayed classic rock tunes accompanied by clicking.  I go out, and sure enough, three family members are staring at the TV, imitating the colors on the screen, each lost in his own world with no communication.  Just this eerie clicking, accompanied by this sound that I identified from when I was in marching band and the drummers had practice pads.  There is no talking, no rocking out, no jumping around the room flailing at an ax like Eddie Van Halen on coke.  Their faces are stone masks of concentration.  The song finishes, and my family grins at each other, "Wow, we sure had a fun time interacting.  What a great game that brings us  together!"</p><p>Shows you how much I know.  I also thought "Magic: the Gathering" was a stupid game because it was so wildly unbalanced.  Who would want to play that, a game where you can win not by superior skill or even dumb luck, but simply by spending more money than your opponent?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember visiting Japan for the first time in 1999 .
Of course I wandered in to a video game arcade to check out the scene .
I laughed at the poor Japanese and their imitative video games - look , that guy is just touching the controls in the exact way that the machine tells him to !
What a retarded game !
It 's no game at all , he 's just mindlessly copying what the machine tells him to do in exact sequence...no more " fun " than working on an assembly line .
A children 's game , really...we had the same thing called Simple Simon [ bigredtoybox.com ] when I was a kid...these Japanese video games even have the same four colors .
I mean , there could at least be a dozen colors or something , make it difficult .
And the controller shaped like a guitar ?
Oh man , how pathetic : if you 're going to be cool and play the guitar , be cool and learn the goddamn instrument , it ai n't that hard .
Only Japanese people , with their tolerance of tedium and their relentless drive to copy , could possibly " enjoy " such a " game " .This Christmas , I 'm passed out from wine , and when I vaguely become aware , I hear these overplayed classic rock tunes accompanied by clicking .
I go out , and sure enough , three family members are staring at the TV , imitating the colors on the screen , each lost in his own world with no communication .
Just this eerie clicking , accompanied by this sound that I identified from when I was in marching band and the drummers had practice pads .
There is no talking , no rocking out , no jumping around the room flailing at an ax like Eddie Van Halen on coke .
Their faces are stone masks of concentration .
The song finishes , and my family grins at each other , " Wow , we sure had a fun time interacting .
What a great game that brings us together !
" Shows you how much I know .
I also thought " Magic : the Gathering " was a stupid game because it was so wildly unbalanced .
Who would want to play that , a game where you can win not by superior skill or even dumb luck , but simply by spending more money than your opponent ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember visiting Japan for the first time in 1999.
Of course I wandered in to a video game arcade to check out the scene.
I laughed at the poor Japanese and their imitative video games - look, that guy is just touching the controls in the exact way that the machine tells him to!
What a retarded game!
It's no game at all, he's just mindlessly copying what the machine tells him to do in exact sequence...no more "fun" than working on an assembly line.
A children's game, really...we had the same thing called Simple Simon [bigredtoybox.com] when I was a kid...these Japanese video games even have the same four colors.
I mean, there could at least be a dozen colors or something, make it difficult.
And the controller shaped like a guitar?
Oh man, how pathetic: if you're going to be cool and play the guitar, be cool and learn the goddamn instrument, it ain't that hard.
Only Japanese people, with their tolerance of tedium and their relentless drive to copy, could possibly "enjoy" such a "game".This Christmas, I'm passed out from wine, and when I vaguely become aware, I hear these  overplayed classic rock tunes accompanied by clicking.
I go out, and sure enough, three family members are staring at the TV, imitating the colors on the screen, each lost in his own world with no communication.
Just this eerie clicking, accompanied by this sound that I identified from when I was in marching band and the drummers had practice pads.
There is no talking, no rocking out, no jumping around the room flailing at an ax like Eddie Van Halen on coke.
Their faces are stone masks of concentration.
The song finishes, and my family grins at each other, "Wow, we sure had a fun time interacting.
What a great game that brings us  together!
"Shows you how much I know.
I also thought "Magic: the Gathering" was a stupid game because it was so wildly unbalanced.
Who would want to play that, a game where you can win not by superior skill or even dumb luck, but simply by spending more money than your opponent?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603490</id>
	<title>Re:The decade isn't over yet!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259870340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>So you consider 1990 to be part of the 'eighties'?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So you consider 1990 to be part of the 'eighties ' ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you consider 1990 to be part of the 'eighties'?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604510</id>
	<title>Re:Simple Simon games</title>
	<author>mister\_playboy</author>
	<datestamp>1262269620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>but simply by spending more money than your opponent?</p></div><p>It's worked out well for the NY Yankees, and they seem pretty popular.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but simply by spending more money than your opponent ? It 's worked out well for the NY Yankees , and they seem pretty popular .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but simply by spending more money than your opponent?It's worked out well for the NY Yankees, and they seem pretty popular.
;)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603248</id>
	<title>Re:360?</title>
	<author>Sir\_Lewk</author>
	<datestamp>1259867100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Engadget is rather lame</p></div></blockquote><p>Fixed that for ya.</p><p>Seriously though, very little good ever comes out of engadget, their technical writing is an embarassment, making slashdot summaries look like fucking shakespeare.  Not to mention they probably have one of the heaviest websites that I know of, how many megabytes am I supposed to download just to read some shitty article?  It's basically all that is wrong with slashdot, distilled, then magnified.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Engadget is rather lameFixed that for ya.Seriously though , very little good ever comes out of engadget , their technical writing is an embarassment , making slashdot summaries look like fucking shakespeare .
Not to mention they probably have one of the heaviest websites that I know of , how many megabytes am I supposed to download just to read some shitty article ?
It 's basically all that is wrong with slashdot , distilled , then magnified .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Engadget is rather lameFixed that for ya.Seriously though, very little good ever comes out of engadget, their technical writing is an embarassment, making slashdot summaries look like fucking shakespeare.
Not to mention they probably have one of the heaviest websites that I know of, how many megabytes am I supposed to download just to read some shitty article?
It's basically all that is wrong with slashdot, distilled, then magnified.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604020</id>
	<title>Re:XP and OS X?</title>
	<author>pegdhcp</author>
	<datestamp>1262259660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>XP is the first product of MS that has computer professionals revolted when its End of Life announced, you know instead of usual celebrations...</htmltext>
<tokenext>XP is the first product of MS that has computer professionals revolted when its End of Life announced , you know instead of usual celebrations.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>XP is the first product of MS that has computer professionals revolted when its End of Life announced, you know instead of usual celebrations...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30606296</id>
	<title>#1 should have been...</title>
	<author>Deadstick</author>
	<datestamp>1262280720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...a "Top 10" website that doesn't make you wade through ten pages of ads. Nice work.</p><p>rj</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...a " Top 10 " website that does n't make you wade through ten pages of ads .
Nice work.rj</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...a "Top 10" website that doesn't make you wade through ten pages of ads.
Nice work.rj</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603770</id>
	<title>This list is leaving out the most important gadget</title>
	<author>scourfish</author>
	<datestamp>1262252640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I do believe that the writers at engadget have shown gross negligence for overlooking the significance of this decade's most important gadget: The Fleshlight.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do believe that the writers at engadget have shown gross negligence for overlooking the significance of this decade 's most important gadget : The Fleshlight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do believe that the writers at engadget have shown gross negligence for overlooking the significance of this decade's most important gadget: The Fleshlight.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604572</id>
	<title>Re:Say what?</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1262270280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>XP may look like the desktop designed by Fisher-Price, but it only looks dated to you now because it's been around for a long time. Apple has been continually dicking around with their look of their OS to the point where they now have multiple widget sets, way to pee on the HIG. Technically, XP is behind everything interesting. But OSX is a pretty half-assed attempt to modernize NeXTStep. I used Macs way back in the 68k days, then the whole PPC thing was <em>pure agony</em>... Now a Mac is a PC with EFI BIOS (I have two netbooks which are also PCs with EFI BIOS...) and I had to sit through the whole BeOS -&gt; OSX thing. Sure, BeOS had failings, but it had something OSX will apparently never have: <em>efficiency</em>.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>All I can read there is rabid fanboyism.</p></div><p>Snicker snort.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>XP may look like the desktop designed by Fisher-Price , but it only looks dated to you now because it 's been around for a long time .
Apple has been continually dicking around with their look of their OS to the point where they now have multiple widget sets , way to pee on the HIG .
Technically , XP is behind everything interesting .
But OSX is a pretty half-assed attempt to modernize NeXTStep .
I used Macs way back in the 68k days , then the whole PPC thing was pure agony... Now a Mac is a PC with EFI BIOS ( I have two netbooks which are also PCs with EFI BIOS... ) and I had to sit through the whole BeOS - &gt; OSX thing .
Sure , BeOS had failings , but it had something OSX will apparently never have : efficiency.All I can read there is rabid fanboyism.Snicker snort .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>XP may look like the desktop designed by Fisher-Price, but it only looks dated to you now because it's been around for a long time.
Apple has been continually dicking around with their look of their OS to the point where they now have multiple widget sets, way to pee on the HIG.
Technically, XP is behind everything interesting.
But OSX is a pretty half-assed attempt to modernize NeXTStep.
I used Macs way back in the 68k days, then the whole PPC thing was pure agony... Now a Mac is a PC with EFI BIOS (I have two netbooks which are also PCs with EFI BIOS...) and I had to sit through the whole BeOS -&gt; OSX thing.
Sure, BeOS had failings, but it had something OSX will apparently never have: efficiency.All I can read there is rabid fanboyism.Snicker snort.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603592</id>
	<title>Re:The decade isn't over yet!</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1262291400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A new decade ends and begins every second. We're celebrating this one because it's a double digit change on the odometer. What's your problem?</htmltext>
<tokenext>A new decade ends and begins every second .
We 're celebrating this one because it 's a double digit change on the odometer .
What 's your problem ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A new decade ends and begins every second.
We're celebrating this one because it's a double digit change on the odometer.
What's your problem?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30607576</id>
	<title>Re:XP and OS X?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262285640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not a "BEST" of the decade story.</p><p>The dominant operating system for the decade was XP. It was on nearly every business desktop and home desktop.</p><p>XP defined the decade the way disco defines the 70's.</p><p>Don't they teach kids to understand context in reading anymore?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not a " BEST " of the decade story.The dominant operating system for the decade was XP .
It was on nearly every business desktop and home desktop.XP defined the decade the way disco defines the 70 's.Do n't they teach kids to understand context in reading anymore ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not a "BEST" of the decade story.The dominant operating system for the decade was XP.
It was on nearly every business desktop and home desktop.XP defined the decade the way disco defines the 70's.Don't they teach kids to understand context in reading anymore?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30607162</id>
	<title>Re:Nokia N900</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1262284080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's near non emergence (that is, have you seen one you don't own in the wild?) sort of cuts down on how influential it is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's near non emergence ( that is , have you seen one you do n't own in the wild ?
) sort of cuts down on how influential it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's near non emergence (that is, have you seen one you don't own in the wild?
) sort of cuts down on how influential it is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604726</id>
	<title>Re:Simple Simon games</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1262271720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Who would want to play that, a game where you can win not by superior skill or even dumb luck, but simply by spending more money than your opponent?</p></div><p>It is simply true that many of the most powerful Magic decks that you will see if you go observe some games are cheap. They have one or two rare cards in 'em, but the rules don't permit stuffing your decks with those anyway. I haven't played since I was a teen, and I hope I gave away all my cards because otherwise they're probably molding in the bottom of a plastic crate someplace in the storage room. The classic prodigal sorcerer deck, or red decks with names like "it go foom" are quite cheap to assemble if you are willing to hang around gaming stores and trade cards.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who would want to play that , a game where you can win not by superior skill or even dumb luck , but simply by spending more money than your opponent ? It is simply true that many of the most powerful Magic decks that you will see if you go observe some games are cheap .
They have one or two rare cards in 'em , but the rules do n't permit stuffing your decks with those anyway .
I have n't played since I was a teen , and I hope I gave away all my cards because otherwise they 're probably molding in the bottom of a plastic crate someplace in the storage room .
The classic prodigal sorcerer deck , or red decks with names like " it go foom " are quite cheap to assemble if you are willing to hang around gaming stores and trade cards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who would want to play that, a game where you can win not by superior skill or even dumb luck, but simply by spending more money than your opponent?It is simply true that many of the most powerful Magic decks that you will see if you go observe some games are cheap.
They have one or two rare cards in 'em, but the rules don't permit stuffing your decks with those anyway.
I haven't played since I was a teen, and I hope I gave away all my cards because otherwise they're probably molding in the bottom of a plastic crate someplace in the storage room.
The classic prodigal sorcerer deck, or red decks with names like "it go foom" are quite cheap to assemble if you are willing to hang around gaming stores and trade cards.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603792</id>
	<title>Argh!</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1262253300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No more best/worst of the decade stuff! No more, I tell you!</p><p>And you people pissing about the decade really ending next year- you people are worse! Look up the "astronomical calendar" already! French astronomers fixed the issue back in the 1700s by defining a year zero.</p><p>Argh! Hiss! Spit!</p><p>OK, better now.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No more best/worst of the decade stuff !
No more , I tell you ! And you people pissing about the decade really ending next year- you people are worse !
Look up the " astronomical calendar " already !
French astronomers fixed the issue back in the 1700s by defining a year zero.Argh !
Hiss ! Spit ! OK , better now .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No more best/worst of the decade stuff!
No more, I tell you!And you people pissing about the decade really ending next year- you people are worse!
Look up the "astronomical calendar" already!
French astronomers fixed the issue back in the 1700s by defining a year zero.Argh!
Hiss! Spit!OK, better now.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603382</id>
	<title>Re:The decade isn't over yet!</title>
	<author>originalTMAN</author>
	<datestamp>1259868600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're a hardware engineer, aren't you.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're a hardware engineer , are n't you .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're a hardware engineer, aren't you.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603096</id>
	<title>XP and OS X?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259864820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are Windows XP and OS X really "gadgets" though?  When I think of gadgets I think of physical things, usually.  Maybe I'm just out of touch with the times.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are Windows XP and OS X really " gadgets " though ?
When I think of gadgets I think of physical things , usually .
Maybe I 'm just out of touch with the times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are Windows XP and OS X really "gadgets" though?
When I think of gadgets I think of physical things, usually.
Maybe I'm just out of touch with the times.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603414</id>
	<title>Re:360?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259869140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It doesn't even come close for this generation- its far behind the Wii in sales and in originality. Although I agree for the decade it has to be the PS2, due to its dominance last gen. Obviously written by someone with an MS hard on.</p></div></blockquote><p>It really depends on how you measure it.  By sales, the PS2 is definitely the winner, with the Wii a close second.  In terms of innovation, though, the 360 had quite a bit more "firsts" than either of those.
</p><ul>
<li>Achievements and gamerscore.  Whether you like it or not, people love this.  It's completely e-peen bragging rights, but players gobble it right up.  So much so that others have started doing the same thing -- PS3's Trophy system, WoW's achievements, Steam achievements, etc.</li><li>Downloadable games.  XBLA has definitely been a killer app for the 360 since day 1.  People joked that they were buying a $400 console to play a $5 game (Geometry Wars 2), but they still bought it.  Sony and Nintendo were late to this, and initially focused only on back-catalog games (Wii's Virtual Console, PSN's PS1 games) while Microsoft came out of the gate from the very start with original new games.  All three have dipped into the retro well to a certain extent, but Microsoft has done that far less than others.  (I'm not mentioning Games on Demand since Sony actually did that one first -- full retail games available for digital purchase.)</li><li>Donwloadable content, demos, etc.  A bit of an addendum to the last point, but the 360 was the first time you could download demos of games online rather than having to buy a DVD of demos.  That single-handedly put several magazines completely out of business, since a lot of game rags relied on demo discs for subscriptions.</li><li>XNA and community/indie games.  The Xbox 360 is the first console that you can <b>legitimately</b> (without hacking) develop homebrew games for without having to buy development hardware (like the Net Yaroze during the PS1 timeframe).  Yeah, the PS3 had Linux (the Slim got rid of Linux support), but without access to the GPU there's not a whole lot you can do with it.</li><li>The 360 was the first console to add significant features completely via software.  Video streaming (originally the Xbox could only stream Windows Media files), XNA indie games, installable games (<b>optionally</b> installable, unlike many PS3 games with forced installs), Facebook and Twitter, etc.  There's surely more to come in the next few years, with Natal on the hardware side.</li><li>Streaming video and "owning the living room".  Sony took the first step by making the PS2 a DVD player, but the 360 took it much, much further.  The 360 is the best (only?) Media Center Extender on the market.  It can stream most formats natively (and pretty much any format with a transcoding av server).  It was the first console to have Netflix streaming (and still the only one to have a native interface -- the PS3 streaming disc is simply BD-Live trickery, and the native installed app is still a while away).  The new Zune video store seems to defy reality with 1080p instant-on streaming that actually works.</li></ul><p>
Of course there have been failures.  RROD issues, backing HD-DVD rather than Blu-Ray, continuing to use the DVD9 format for games rather than HD-DVD or Blu-Ray, lack of HDMI on early console hardware, the hard drive as an optional component, no built-in wifi, etc.  But to say that there's no innovation, or that they haven't moved the industry forward by huge strides, is just completely wrong.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't even come close for this generation- its far behind the Wii in sales and in originality .
Although I agree for the decade it has to be the PS2 , due to its dominance last gen. Obviously written by someone with an MS hard on.It really depends on how you measure it .
By sales , the PS2 is definitely the winner , with the Wii a close second .
In terms of innovation , though , the 360 had quite a bit more " firsts " than either of those .
Achievements and gamerscore .
Whether you like it or not , people love this .
It 's completely e-peen bragging rights , but players gobble it right up .
So much so that others have started doing the same thing -- PS3 's Trophy system , WoW 's achievements , Steam achievements , etc.Downloadable games .
XBLA has definitely been a killer app for the 360 since day 1 .
People joked that they were buying a $ 400 console to play a $ 5 game ( Geometry Wars 2 ) , but they still bought it .
Sony and Nintendo were late to this , and initially focused only on back-catalog games ( Wii 's Virtual Console , PSN 's PS1 games ) while Microsoft came out of the gate from the very start with original new games .
All three have dipped into the retro well to a certain extent , but Microsoft has done that far less than others .
( I 'm not mentioning Games on Demand since Sony actually did that one first -- full retail games available for digital purchase .
) Donwloadable content , demos , etc .
A bit of an addendum to the last point , but the 360 was the first time you could download demos of games online rather than having to buy a DVD of demos .
That single-handedly put several magazines completely out of business , since a lot of game rags relied on demo discs for subscriptions.XNA and community/indie games .
The Xbox 360 is the first console that you can legitimately ( without hacking ) develop homebrew games for without having to buy development hardware ( like the Net Yaroze during the PS1 timeframe ) .
Yeah , the PS3 had Linux ( the Slim got rid of Linux support ) , but without access to the GPU there 's not a whole lot you can do with it.The 360 was the first console to add significant features completely via software .
Video streaming ( originally the Xbox could only stream Windows Media files ) , XNA indie games , installable games ( optionally installable , unlike many PS3 games with forced installs ) , Facebook and Twitter , etc .
There 's surely more to come in the next few years , with Natal on the hardware side.Streaming video and " owning the living room " .
Sony took the first step by making the PS2 a DVD player , but the 360 took it much , much further .
The 360 is the best ( only ?
) Media Center Extender on the market .
It can stream most formats natively ( and pretty much any format with a transcoding av server ) .
It was the first console to have Netflix streaming ( and still the only one to have a native interface -- the PS3 streaming disc is simply BD-Live trickery , and the native installed app is still a while away ) .
The new Zune video store seems to defy reality with 1080p instant-on streaming that actually works .
Of course there have been failures .
RROD issues , backing HD-DVD rather than Blu-Ray , continuing to use the DVD9 format for games rather than HD-DVD or Blu-Ray , lack of HDMI on early console hardware , the hard drive as an optional component , no built-in wifi , etc .
But to say that there 's no innovation , or that they have n't moved the industry forward by huge strides , is just completely wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't even come close for this generation- its far behind the Wii in sales and in originality.
Although I agree for the decade it has to be the PS2, due to its dominance last gen. Obviously written by someone with an MS hard on.It really depends on how you measure it.
By sales, the PS2 is definitely the winner, with the Wii a close second.
In terms of innovation, though, the 360 had quite a bit more "firsts" than either of those.
Achievements and gamerscore.
Whether you like it or not, people love this.
It's completely e-peen bragging rights, but players gobble it right up.
So much so that others have started doing the same thing -- PS3's Trophy system, WoW's achievements, Steam achievements, etc.Downloadable games.
XBLA has definitely been a killer app for the 360 since day 1.
People joked that they were buying a $400 console to play a $5 game (Geometry Wars 2), but they still bought it.
Sony and Nintendo were late to this, and initially focused only on back-catalog games (Wii's Virtual Console, PSN's PS1 games) while Microsoft came out of the gate from the very start with original new games.
All three have dipped into the retro well to a certain extent, but Microsoft has done that far less than others.
(I'm not mentioning Games on Demand since Sony actually did that one first -- full retail games available for digital purchase.
)Donwloadable content, demos, etc.
A bit of an addendum to the last point, but the 360 was the first time you could download demos of games online rather than having to buy a DVD of demos.
That single-handedly put several magazines completely out of business, since a lot of game rags relied on demo discs for subscriptions.XNA and community/indie games.
The Xbox 360 is the first console that you can legitimately (without hacking) develop homebrew games for without having to buy development hardware (like the Net Yaroze during the PS1 timeframe).
Yeah, the PS3 had Linux (the Slim got rid of Linux support), but without access to the GPU there's not a whole lot you can do with it.The 360 was the first console to add significant features completely via software.
Video streaming (originally the Xbox could only stream Windows Media files), XNA indie games, installable games (optionally installable, unlike many PS3 games with forced installs), Facebook and Twitter, etc.
There's surely more to come in the next few years, with Natal on the hardware side.Streaming video and "owning the living room".
Sony took the first step by making the PS2 a DVD player, but the 360 took it much, much further.
The 360 is the best (only?
) Media Center Extender on the market.
It can stream most formats natively (and pretty much any format with a transcoding av server).
It was the first console to have Netflix streaming (and still the only one to have a native interface -- the PS3 streaming disc is simply BD-Live trickery, and the native installed app is still a while away).
The new Zune video store seems to defy reality with 1080p instant-on streaming that actually works.
Of course there have been failures.
RROD issues, backing HD-DVD rather than Blu-Ray, continuing to use the DVD9 format for games rather than HD-DVD or Blu-Ray, lack of HDMI on early console hardware, the hard drive as an optional component, no built-in wifi, etc.
But to say that there's no innovation, or that they haven't moved the industry forward by huge strides, is just completely wrong.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30605902</id>
	<title>Re:Some of them are pretty cool</title>
	<author>ckaminski</author>
	<datestamp>1262278920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Treo was the perfect combination of Smartphone for it's era - the problem was that much of what made it powerful (call recording, voice memo, DateBook+, Butler, LauncherX, Music, TCPMP) were all 3rd Party addins and not built-ins like Android or iPhone/iTouch.  PalmOS was the limiting factor here.  The hardware itself was simply astounding at that point in time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Treo was the perfect combination of Smartphone for it 's era - the problem was that much of what made it powerful ( call recording , voice memo , DateBook + , Butler , LauncherX , Music , TCPMP ) were all 3rd Party addins and not built-ins like Android or iPhone/iTouch .
PalmOS was the limiting factor here .
The hardware itself was simply astounding at that point in time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Treo was the perfect combination of Smartphone for it's era - the problem was that much of what made it powerful (call recording, voice memo, DateBook+, Butler, LauncherX, Music, TCPMP) were all 3rd Party addins and not built-ins like Android or iPhone/iTouch.
PalmOS was the limiting factor here.
The hardware itself was simply astounding at that point in time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603194</id>
	<title>Top 10 failed reviews?</title>
	<author>Gothmolly</author>
	<datestamp>1259866020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Less space than a Nomad.  No wireless.  USB.  Lame.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Less space than a Nomad .
No wireless .
USB. Lame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Less space than a Nomad.
No wireless.
USB.  Lame.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30607566</id>
	<title>Re:One killer "gadget"</title>
	<author>melf-san</author>
	<datestamp>1262285580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Interestingly enought, LCD drawing tablets are still expensive<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Interestingly enought , LCD drawing tablets are still expensive : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interestingly enought, LCD drawing tablets are still expensive :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30608504</id>
	<title>Re:Some of them are pretty cool</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1262290020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apparently the ones that were locked to the carrier couldn't do it, but my unlocked Razr happily synced with my powerbook/mbp via bluetooth, including contacts.  I could even use it with Salling Clicker as a remote control.  The text messaging via the computer didn't work though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently the ones that were locked to the carrier could n't do it , but my unlocked Razr happily synced with my powerbook/mbp via bluetooth , including contacts .
I could even use it with Salling Clicker as a remote control .
The text messaging via the computer did n't work though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently the ones that were locked to the carrier couldn't do it, but my unlocked Razr happily synced with my powerbook/mbp via bluetooth, including contacts.
I could even use it with Salling Clicker as a remote control.
The text messaging via the computer didn't work though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603486</id>
	<title>Re:XP and OS X?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1259870280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, they don&rsquo;t need to be physical. But they are definitely toys.</p><p>XP for the drooling Playmobil playing retard.<br>OSX for the gay hipster designer.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , they don    t need to be physical .
But they are definitely toys.XP for the drooling Playmobil playing retard.OSX for the gay hipster designer .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, they don’t need to be physical.
But they are definitely toys.XP for the drooling Playmobil playing retard.OSX for the gay hipster designer.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603608</id>
	<title>Re:360?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262291580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not much of a fan of Microsoft in the gaming industry, but the Xbox 360 does seem like a natural choice, if a game console is to be included in this list. I certainly wouldn't include the PS2; the PS2 owes none of its success to its own merits, but to the sheer popularity of its predecessor (which was a relatively responsibly designed console, whereas developers wouldn't have subjected themselves to developing for the PS2, if not for its incredible market penetration). Albeit, the device did see a few sales due to its ability to play DVDs, but it's really not a very good DVD player (having some minor compatibility issues, and also being subject to wearing out rather easily). There were virtually always better DVD players available for significantly cheaper.</p><p>What makes the Xbox 360 so remarkable though, is its use of the internet. The Xbox Live! framework was greatly expanded with the release of the Xbox 360. Beyond simply being an interface for online games, it also became a social network, and an outlet for all manner of downloadable content. Toss in its developer-friendliness, and Microsoft's penchant for trying to get everyone to develop for their own systems, and we're seeing an all-around impressive device.</p><p>I don't really think that the Xbox 360 is the perfect console, but it really seems to take the direction that our old Atari game consoles started out on back in the 80's, and see it through to the end of the trail. It's a great example of a generic game console from an era of rapid technological advancement-- a better example than the other consoles released from 2000 to 2009-- the GameCube, the original Xbox, the PlayStation 2 &amp; 3, and the Wii.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not much of a fan of Microsoft in the gaming industry , but the Xbox 360 does seem like a natural choice , if a game console is to be included in this list .
I certainly would n't include the PS2 ; the PS2 owes none of its success to its own merits , but to the sheer popularity of its predecessor ( which was a relatively responsibly designed console , whereas developers would n't have subjected themselves to developing for the PS2 , if not for its incredible market penetration ) .
Albeit , the device did see a few sales due to its ability to play DVDs , but it 's really not a very good DVD player ( having some minor compatibility issues , and also being subject to wearing out rather easily ) .
There were virtually always better DVD players available for significantly cheaper.What makes the Xbox 360 so remarkable though , is its use of the internet .
The Xbox Live !
framework was greatly expanded with the release of the Xbox 360 .
Beyond simply being an interface for online games , it also became a social network , and an outlet for all manner of downloadable content .
Toss in its developer-friendliness , and Microsoft 's penchant for trying to get everyone to develop for their own systems , and we 're seeing an all-around impressive device.I do n't really think that the Xbox 360 is the perfect console , but it really seems to take the direction that our old Atari game consoles started out on back in the 80 's , and see it through to the end of the trail .
It 's a great example of a generic game console from an era of rapid technological advancement-- a better example than the other consoles released from 2000 to 2009-- the GameCube , the original Xbox , the PlayStation 2 &amp; 3 , and the Wii .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not much of a fan of Microsoft in the gaming industry, but the Xbox 360 does seem like a natural choice, if a game console is to be included in this list.
I certainly wouldn't include the PS2; the PS2 owes none of its success to its own merits, but to the sheer popularity of its predecessor (which was a relatively responsibly designed console, whereas developers wouldn't have subjected themselves to developing for the PS2, if not for its incredible market penetration).
Albeit, the device did see a few sales due to its ability to play DVDs, but it's really not a very good DVD player (having some minor compatibility issues, and also being subject to wearing out rather easily).
There were virtually always better DVD players available for significantly cheaper.What makes the Xbox 360 so remarkable though, is its use of the internet.
The Xbox Live!
framework was greatly expanded with the release of the Xbox 360.
Beyond simply being an interface for online games, it also became a social network, and an outlet for all manner of downloadable content.
Toss in its developer-friendliness, and Microsoft's penchant for trying to get everyone to develop for their own systems, and we're seeing an all-around impressive device.I don't really think that the Xbox 360 is the perfect console, but it really seems to take the direction that our old Atari game consoles started out on back in the 80's, and see it through to the end of the trail.
It's a great example of a generic game console from an era of rapid technological advancement-- a better example than the other consoles released from 2000 to 2009-- the GameCube, the original Xbox, the PlayStation 2 &amp; 3, and the Wii.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603184</id>
	<title>Not Another Top Ten List ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259865960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I sure hope that Slashdot isn't turning into Digg<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I sure hope that Slashdot is n't turning into Digg .... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I sure hope that Slashdot isn't turning into Digg .....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603562</id>
	<title>Re:One killer "gadget"</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1262290560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Should we send a thank you note to the cheap Chinese (and other) workers in those Gulag-like factories?</p><p>P.S.: It&rsquo;s so stupid. If the products were so expensive, that people there could live at a high standard, then they could buy so much stuff that by selling them that stuff, we could afford those expensive products anyway.<br>There was an interesting study, that showed that an economy can be in two stable states. The high standard and the low standard (of living) one. And the important part was, that for both states, the economy and businesses ran <em>just as well</em>. There was no difference from their p.o.v.<br>But prepare yourself, because according to the study, we are headed for the lower stable state, and it&rsquo;s very hard to get out of there once you&rsquo;re in it. (Well, technically we are definitely already in it. But it can still get even worse.)<br>I don&rsquo;t get why business people don&rsquo;t get this simple rule: The more you pay your employees, the more they will be able to buy! I guess it&rsquo;s short-term greed. It takes time for it to come back. Even if it is more profitable in the long run, short term greed seems to win...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Should we send a thank you note to the cheap Chinese ( and other ) workers in those Gulag-like factories ? P.S .
: It    s so stupid .
If the products were so expensive , that people there could live at a high standard , then they could buy so much stuff that by selling them that stuff , we could afford those expensive products anyway.There was an interesting study , that showed that an economy can be in two stable states .
The high standard and the low standard ( of living ) one .
And the important part was , that for both states , the economy and businesses ran just as well .
There was no difference from their p.o.v.But prepare yourself , because according to the study , we are headed for the lower stable state , and it    s very hard to get out of there once you    re in it .
( Well , technically we are definitely already in it .
But it can still get even worse .
) I don    t get why business people don    t get this simple rule : The more you pay your employees , the more they will be able to buy !
I guess it    s short-term greed .
It takes time for it to come back .
Even if it is more profitable in the long run , short term greed seems to win.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Should we send a thank you note to the cheap Chinese (and other) workers in those Gulag-like factories?P.S.
: It’s so stupid.
If the products were so expensive, that people there could live at a high standard, then they could buy so much stuff that by selling them that stuff, we could afford those expensive products anyway.There was an interesting study, that showed that an economy can be in two stable states.
The high standard and the low standard (of living) one.
And the important part was, that for both states, the economy and businesses ran just as well.
There was no difference from their p.o.v.But prepare yourself, because according to the study, we are headed for the lower stable state, and it’s very hard to get out of there once you’re in it.
(Well, technically we are definitely already in it.
But it can still get even worse.
)I don’t get why business people don’t get this simple rule: The more you pay your employees, the more they will be able to buy!
I guess it’s short-term greed.
It takes time for it to come back.
Even if it is more profitable in the long run, short term greed seems to win...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30615930</id>
	<title>Re:GPS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1230801900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>See little grasshopper, before 2001, people actually wasn't LCD-dependent-brain-death-spoiled-good-for-nothing-and-helpless-leeches<br><br>ZOMG!how did Marco polo even left Venice (the one right next to australia amirite) without an iPhone LULZROFLLOLMAO!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>See little grasshopper , before 2001 , people actually was n't LCD-dependent-brain-death-spoiled-good-for-nothing-and-helpless-leechesZOMG ! how did Marco polo even left Venice ( the one right next to australia amirite ) without an iPhone LULZROFLLOLMAO ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See little grasshopper, before 2001, people actually wasn't LCD-dependent-brain-death-spoiled-good-for-nothing-and-helpless-leechesZOMG!how did Marco polo even left Venice (the one right next to australia amirite) without an iPhone LULZROFLLOLMAO!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603256</id>
	<title>Re:360?</title>
	<author>0xdeadbeef</author>
	<datestamp>1259867280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>But not the console of the decade, not by a long shot.</i></p><p>There's still 23 hours left for the PS3 to outsell it! Go, fanboys, go!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But not the console of the decade , not by a long shot.There 's still 23 hours left for the PS3 to outsell it !
Go , fanboys , go !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But not the console of the decade, not by a long shot.There's still 23 hours left for the PS3 to outsell it!
Go, fanboys, go!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30605640</id>
	<title>Re:360?</title>
	<author>ckaminski</author>
	<datestamp>1262277480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I got a Wii because I fell in love with it and it's party-style gaming atmosphere.<br><br>I got a PS3 because it plays games I like (syphon filter/COD) as well as being arguably the best BluRay player available on the market today.<br><br>I've NEVER wanted an Xbox (except maybe for MechWarrior).  Maybe I'm just not the hardcore gamer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I got a Wii because I fell in love with it and it 's party-style gaming atmosphere.I got a PS3 because it plays games I like ( syphon filter/COD ) as well as being arguably the best BluRay player available on the market today.I 've NEVER wanted an Xbox ( except maybe for MechWarrior ) .
Maybe I 'm just not the hardcore gamer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I got a Wii because I fell in love with it and it's party-style gaming atmosphere.I got a PS3 because it plays games I like (syphon filter/COD) as well as being arguably the best BluRay player available on the market today.I've NEVER wanted an Xbox (except maybe for MechWarrior).
Maybe I'm just not the hardcore gamer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604412</id>
	<title>IED</title>
	<author>michaelmalak</author>
	<datestamp>1262268360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>More soberly, I would say the IED is the gadget that most "defined the decade" as Engadget's headline touts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>More soberly , I would say the IED is the gadget that most " defined the decade " as Engadget 's headline touts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More soberly, I would say the IED is the gadget that most "defined the decade" as Engadget's headline touts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603232</id>
	<title>One killer "gadget"</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1259866800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The one killer "gadget" of this decade is price. Everything is cheap. Back in 1999, even a cheap desktop would have cost you a lot of money. Today, you can buy a new desktop with HDMI out for $200. You can buy a cheap laptop for $300, or less if you catch a good sale. An iPod touch that would have cost you over $1,000 back in 1999, now is a typical Christmas gift. HDTVs are now cheaper than their standard def tube equivalents were. Storage is now dirt cheap, back in 1999 1 TB of HD space would have cost a lot of money, yet now many desktops ship with that much. RAM is cheap with a gig of RAM costing no more than $15. Software is even cheaper, back in 1999, your choices were either to buy (or pirate, but again, it being 1999 it was a lot harder to pirate it than it is now) Windows, or get an expensive Mac. Today, you can have Linux which is actually easy to use and detects most hardware quickly and easily. Torrent sites are also a killer "gadget", the ability for decentralized downloads have made things much easier to download than back on shady Usenet groups. Openness has also shown to be a quickly rising killer "gadget" with an explosion in open or simi-open phones such as Android, WebOS and even Symbian is opening up. <br> <br>

I think the 2000s will be remembered for cheap (in both meanings of the word) tech.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The one killer " gadget " of this decade is price .
Everything is cheap .
Back in 1999 , even a cheap desktop would have cost you a lot of money .
Today , you can buy a new desktop with HDMI out for $ 200 .
You can buy a cheap laptop for $ 300 , or less if you catch a good sale .
An iPod touch that would have cost you over $ 1,000 back in 1999 , now is a typical Christmas gift .
HDTVs are now cheaper than their standard def tube equivalents were .
Storage is now dirt cheap , back in 1999 1 TB of HD space would have cost a lot of money , yet now many desktops ship with that much .
RAM is cheap with a gig of RAM costing no more than $ 15 .
Software is even cheaper , back in 1999 , your choices were either to buy ( or pirate , but again , it being 1999 it was a lot harder to pirate it than it is now ) Windows , or get an expensive Mac .
Today , you can have Linux which is actually easy to use and detects most hardware quickly and easily .
Torrent sites are also a killer " gadget " , the ability for decentralized downloads have made things much easier to download than back on shady Usenet groups .
Openness has also shown to be a quickly rising killer " gadget " with an explosion in open or simi-open phones such as Android , WebOS and even Symbian is opening up .
I think the 2000s will be remembered for cheap ( in both meanings of the word ) tech .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The one killer "gadget" of this decade is price.
Everything is cheap.
Back in 1999, even a cheap desktop would have cost you a lot of money.
Today, you can buy a new desktop with HDMI out for $200.
You can buy a cheap laptop for $300, or less if you catch a good sale.
An iPod touch that would have cost you over $1,000 back in 1999, now is a typical Christmas gift.
HDTVs are now cheaper than their standard def tube equivalents were.
Storage is now dirt cheap, back in 1999 1 TB of HD space would have cost a lot of money, yet now many desktops ship with that much.
RAM is cheap with a gig of RAM costing no more than $15.
Software is even cheaper, back in 1999, your choices were either to buy (or pirate, but again, it being 1999 it was a lot harder to pirate it than it is now) Windows, or get an expensive Mac.
Today, you can have Linux which is actually easy to use and detects most hardware quickly and easily.
Torrent sites are also a killer "gadget", the ability for decentralized downloads have made things much easier to download than back on shady Usenet groups.
Openness has also shown to be a quickly rising killer "gadget" with an explosion in open or simi-open phones such as Android, WebOS and even Symbian is opening up.
I think the 2000s will be remembered for cheap (in both meanings of the word) tech.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603390</id>
	<title>Re:360?</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1259868720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Really, the 360 as the video game console of the decade? The PS2 really changed things more than the 360 for the simple reason of the DVD player.</p> </div><p>For that matter, the first Xbox was a lot more influential than the 360, because it was new competition for Sony. The 360 was just an incremental update.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really , the 360 as the video game console of the decade ?
The PS2 really changed things more than the 360 for the simple reason of the DVD player .
For that matter , the first Xbox was a lot more influential than the 360 , because it was new competition for Sony .
The 360 was just an incremental update .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really, the 360 as the video game console of the decade?
The PS2 really changed things more than the 360 for the simple reason of the DVD player.
For that matter, the first Xbox was a lot more influential than the 360, because it was new competition for Sony.
The 360 was just an incremental update.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30606294</id>
	<title>Re:Obviouslyererer...</title>
	<author>morrison</author>
	<datestamp>1262280720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improvised\_explosive\_device" title="wikipedia.org">This gadget did quite a bit to define the decade as well.</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>This gadget did quite a bit to define the decade as well .
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This gadget did quite a bit to define the decade as well.
[wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603222</id>
	<title>Dude, it's on my phone.</title>
	<author>khasim</author>
	<datestamp>1259866680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And it will find the nearest Starbucks for me and tell me if they're open.</p><p>Yeah! Why isn't GPS on that list?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And it will find the nearest Starbucks for me and tell me if they 're open.Yeah !
Why is n't GPS on that list ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And it will find the nearest Starbucks for me and tell me if they're open.Yeah!
Why isn't GPS on that list?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603158</id>
	<title>GPS</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1259865420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the last 10 years, portable GPS navigation has become ubiquitous in cars.<br>They're so cheap nowadays that I got one as a gift.<br>I'm sure there's one that could be pointed to as the breakout device.<br>/I still have in the car paper maps for ~5 States</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the last 10 years , portable GPS navigation has become ubiquitous in cars.They 're so cheap nowadays that I got one as a gift.I 'm sure there 's one that could be pointed to as the breakout device./I still have in the car paper maps for ~ 5 States</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the last 10 years, portable GPS navigation has become ubiquitous in cars.They're so cheap nowadays that I got one as a gift.I'm sure there's one that could be pointed to as the breakout device./I still have in the car paper maps for ~5 States</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30608342</id>
	<title>Re:XP and OS X?</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1262289000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Simply because there was no suitable replacement available. At least no replacement that gave any benefits.</p><p>When 95 was retired, 98 was out and 98 was heaps superior, especially the 98SE. Better Winsock support. Higher stability. Better driver support. It was like 95 was the prototype, 98 was the finished product. 95 was phased out when 98SE was patched to the level where stability and performance outmatched 95 by heaps. And there was much rejoicing.</p><p>Then 98 was replaced by 2k (we'll omit ME here to protect the guilty). The fusion of NTs stability with 9xs compatibility. Again, 98 was phased out when 2k reached a good level of maturity and again, nobody missed 98.</p><p>2k was replaced by XP. Native WiFi support. Nicer interface. Eventually even better performance. And again, by the time 2k support was cut off, XP had the maturity to be considered a worthy successor.</p><p>That cycle was broken here. Vista was no "must have" upgrade. Yes, better (debatable...) security, but at a level that could easily be reached by third party tools. Aside of that, especially on the "user" end of the system, there was no "must have" feature that made Vista an instant darling of the users. Also, by the time XP was phased out Vista was by no means a mature, stable system that rendered XP redundant. There's still, even today, driver issues and compatibility issues.</p><p>Anyone wondering why the professionals caused a riot when they were told XP is going to die and they should switch? To a system that's by no means a suitable replacement (yet)?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Simply because there was no suitable replacement available .
At least no replacement that gave any benefits.When 95 was retired , 98 was out and 98 was heaps superior , especially the 98SE .
Better Winsock support .
Higher stability .
Better driver support .
It was like 95 was the prototype , 98 was the finished product .
95 was phased out when 98SE was patched to the level where stability and performance outmatched 95 by heaps .
And there was much rejoicing.Then 98 was replaced by 2k ( we 'll omit ME here to protect the guilty ) .
The fusion of NTs stability with 9xs compatibility .
Again , 98 was phased out when 2k reached a good level of maturity and again , nobody missed 98.2k was replaced by XP .
Native WiFi support .
Nicer interface .
Eventually even better performance .
And again , by the time 2k support was cut off , XP had the maturity to be considered a worthy successor.That cycle was broken here .
Vista was no " must have " upgrade .
Yes , better ( debatable... ) security , but at a level that could easily be reached by third party tools .
Aside of that , especially on the " user " end of the system , there was no " must have " feature that made Vista an instant darling of the users .
Also , by the time XP was phased out Vista was by no means a mature , stable system that rendered XP redundant .
There 's still , even today , driver issues and compatibility issues.Anyone wondering why the professionals caused a riot when they were told XP is going to die and they should switch ?
To a system that 's by no means a suitable replacement ( yet ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simply because there was no suitable replacement available.
At least no replacement that gave any benefits.When 95 was retired, 98 was out and 98 was heaps superior, especially the 98SE.
Better Winsock support.
Higher stability.
Better driver support.
It was like 95 was the prototype, 98 was the finished product.
95 was phased out when 98SE was patched to the level where stability and performance outmatched 95 by heaps.
And there was much rejoicing.Then 98 was replaced by 2k (we'll omit ME here to protect the guilty).
The fusion of NTs stability with 9xs compatibility.
Again, 98 was phased out when 2k reached a good level of maturity and again, nobody missed 98.2k was replaced by XP.
Native WiFi support.
Nicer interface.
Eventually even better performance.
And again, by the time 2k support was cut off, XP had the maturity to be considered a worthy successor.That cycle was broken here.
Vista was no "must have" upgrade.
Yes, better (debatable...) security, but at a level that could easily be reached by third party tools.
Aside of that, especially on the "user" end of the system, there was no "must have" feature that made Vista an instant darling of the users.
Also, by the time XP was phased out Vista was by no means a mature, stable system that rendered XP redundant.
There's still, even today, driver issues and compatibility issues.Anyone wondering why the professionals caused a riot when they were told XP is going to die and they should switch?
To a system that's by no means a suitable replacement (yet)?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603358</id>
	<title>Say what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259868420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the article:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If you had found me right after I'd installed OS X Public Beta for the first time in 2001 and told me how dramatically the OS would change over the next decade, I'm not sure I would have believed you. There was a gigantic difference in feel between installing Windows XP and OS X Public Beta -- with XP you got that fun sense of having a whole new computer, fast and ready to take on whatever you could throw at it, while with OS X you just sort of stared at the huge icons and wondered, "Now what?" It was clear Apple had a lot of work left to do -- although by 10.3 or so I'd deleted my Classic partition and wasn't looking back. But hold up: OS X 10.3 looks and feels dated by today's standards, while XP looks and feels like... XP. Where Apple did an fantastic job of relentlessly improving and iterating OS X over the past decade, Microsoft set the bar so high coming out of the gate that the biggest threat to Windows 7 is the installed base of XP users who are still happy with their machines. That's pretty amazing. - Nilay Patel</p></div><p>This guy/gal needs to have their head examined. Even talking about the mere aesthetic nature of XP vs. OS X 10.3 (Panther), I can't see where he's coming from in the least:</p><p><a href="http://www.guidebookgallery.org/pics/gui/desktop/firstrun/macosx103.png" title="guidebookgallery.org" rel="nofollow">OS X 10.3 Panther</a> [guidebookgallery.org] image vs. <a href="http://lions-wing.net/lessons/beginner/winxppro.png" title="lions-wing.net" rel="nofollow">Windows XP</a> [lions-wing.net]. I'm sorry, but I fail to see how XP looks anything but "dated", the hideous colors/theming aside. 10.3 looks, even now, clean and fresh compared to XP. (Technologically, XP is way behind 10.3 in many ways.)</p><p>All I can read there is rabid fanboyism. Sorry, but "staying the same" for the better part of a decade, when you're the computer giant's flagship product, is not a benefit in any stretch of the imagination.</p><p>As for their list... not sure why/how the Xbox made the list instead of the Wii. There's nothing special about the Xbox 360, whereas the Wii is a "game changer". Hell, and even Windows Mobile devices (which, aside from the slick Marketing functionality and App store, has been largely comparable for many, many years) should top the list over the Treo.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article : If you had found me right after I 'd installed OS X Public Beta for the first time in 2001 and told me how dramatically the OS would change over the next decade , I 'm not sure I would have believed you .
There was a gigantic difference in feel between installing Windows XP and OS X Public Beta -- with XP you got that fun sense of having a whole new computer , fast and ready to take on whatever you could throw at it , while with OS X you just sort of stared at the huge icons and wondered , " Now what ?
" It was clear Apple had a lot of work left to do -- although by 10.3 or so I 'd deleted my Classic partition and was n't looking back .
But hold up : OS X 10.3 looks and feels dated by today 's standards , while XP looks and feels like... XP. Where Apple did an fantastic job of relentlessly improving and iterating OS X over the past decade , Microsoft set the bar so high coming out of the gate that the biggest threat to Windows 7 is the installed base of XP users who are still happy with their machines .
That 's pretty amazing .
- Nilay PatelThis guy/gal needs to have their head examined .
Even talking about the mere aesthetic nature of XP vs. OS X 10.3 ( Panther ) , I ca n't see where he 's coming from in the least : OS X 10.3 Panther [ guidebookgallery.org ] image vs. Windows XP [ lions-wing.net ] .
I 'm sorry , but I fail to see how XP looks anything but " dated " , the hideous colors/theming aside .
10.3 looks , even now , clean and fresh compared to XP .
( Technologically , XP is way behind 10.3 in many ways .
) All I can read there is rabid fanboyism .
Sorry , but " staying the same " for the better part of a decade , when you 're the computer giant 's flagship product , is not a benefit in any stretch of the imagination.As for their list... not sure why/how the Xbox made the list instead of the Wii .
There 's nothing special about the Xbox 360 , whereas the Wii is a " game changer " .
Hell , and even Windows Mobile devices ( which , aside from the slick Marketing functionality and App store , has been largely comparable for many , many years ) should top the list over the Treo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article:If you had found me right after I'd installed OS X Public Beta for the first time in 2001 and told me how dramatically the OS would change over the next decade, I'm not sure I would have believed you.
There was a gigantic difference in feel between installing Windows XP and OS X Public Beta -- with XP you got that fun sense of having a whole new computer, fast and ready to take on whatever you could throw at it, while with OS X you just sort of stared at the huge icons and wondered, "Now what?
" It was clear Apple had a lot of work left to do -- although by 10.3 or so I'd deleted my Classic partition and wasn't looking back.
But hold up: OS X 10.3 looks and feels dated by today's standards, while XP looks and feels like... XP. Where Apple did an fantastic job of relentlessly improving and iterating OS X over the past decade, Microsoft set the bar so high coming out of the gate that the biggest threat to Windows 7 is the installed base of XP users who are still happy with their machines.
That's pretty amazing.
- Nilay PatelThis guy/gal needs to have their head examined.
Even talking about the mere aesthetic nature of XP vs. OS X 10.3 (Panther), I can't see where he's coming from in the least:OS X 10.3 Panther [guidebookgallery.org] image vs. Windows XP [lions-wing.net].
I'm sorry, but I fail to see how XP looks anything but "dated", the hideous colors/theming aside.
10.3 looks, even now, clean and fresh compared to XP.
(Technologically, XP is way behind 10.3 in many ways.
)All I can read there is rabid fanboyism.
Sorry, but "staying the same" for the better part of a decade, when you're the computer giant's flagship product, is not a benefit in any stretch of the imagination.As for their list... not sure why/how the Xbox made the list instead of the Wii.
There's nothing special about the Xbox 360, whereas the Wii is a "game changer".
Hell, and even Windows Mobile devices (which, aside from the slick Marketing functionality and App store, has been largely comparable for many, many years) should top the list over the Treo.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30606930</id>
	<title>Re:The decade isn't over yet!</title>
	<author>Graff</author>
	<datestamp>1262283240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, 2001-2011 is a decade. 2001-2010 is 9 years. The grandparent was referring to the fact that if you start counting the decade at the first day of 2001 then you have to go to the first day of 2002 for it to be 1 year. Thus, 10 years is from the first day of 2001 to the first day of 2011.</p><p>Now as for the reason why we should start counting at 2001 instead of 2000. The problem is that there is no year zero in our calendar. We go straight from 1 BC to 1 AD. This means that the first decade is from 1 AD to 11 AD. Follow that forward and the current decade starts in 2001. It does have relevance to how our decades are chosen.</p><p>Can we choose a different way to count the decades? Sure, just say that 1 BC was the start of the first decade and then the end of that decade would be 10 AD. It's a little less obvious of a starting date but it's just as valid as any other. For that matter we could throw out the whole artificial idea that groups of 10 years are any more relevant than groups of 9 or 11. In the end all this is just a contrivance that caters to our decimal counting system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , 2001-2011 is a decade .
2001-2010 is 9 years .
The grandparent was referring to the fact that if you start counting the decade at the first day of 2001 then you have to go to the first day of 2002 for it to be 1 year .
Thus , 10 years is from the first day of 2001 to the first day of 2011.Now as for the reason why we should start counting at 2001 instead of 2000 .
The problem is that there is no year zero in our calendar .
We go straight from 1 BC to 1 AD .
This means that the first decade is from 1 AD to 11 AD .
Follow that forward and the current decade starts in 2001 .
It does have relevance to how our decades are chosen.Can we choose a different way to count the decades ?
Sure , just say that 1 BC was the start of the first decade and then the end of that decade would be 10 AD .
It 's a little less obvious of a starting date but it 's just as valid as any other .
For that matter we could throw out the whole artificial idea that groups of 10 years are any more relevant than groups of 9 or 11 .
In the end all this is just a contrivance that caters to our decimal counting system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, 2001-2011 is a decade.
2001-2010 is 9 years.
The grandparent was referring to the fact that if you start counting the decade at the first day of 2001 then you have to go to the first day of 2002 for it to be 1 year.
Thus, 10 years is from the first day of 2001 to the first day of 2011.Now as for the reason why we should start counting at 2001 instead of 2000.
The problem is that there is no year zero in our calendar.
We go straight from 1 BC to 1 AD.
This means that the first decade is from 1 AD to 11 AD.
Follow that forward and the current decade starts in 2001.
It does have relevance to how our decades are chosen.Can we choose a different way to count the decades?
Sure, just say that 1 BC was the start of the first decade and then the end of that decade would be 10 AD.
It's a little less obvious of a starting date but it's just as valid as any other.
For that matter we could throw out the whole artificial idea that groups of 10 years are any more relevant than groups of 9 or 11.
In the end all this is just a contrivance that caters to our decimal counting system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603212</id>
	<title>Gadgets</title>
	<author>cbuhler</author>
	<datestamp>1259866320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sometime in the mid-90s the guy I was training and I were having a discussion about the future of technology while we were driving down the road in rural south Texas.  I had a bag phone and an IBM Model 70 portable (lugable).  He had a Zarus.  We both carried pagers.  A big part of the conversation was about how someday, we wouldn't need to carry all that crap just to do our job.  We both knew that someday all of this stuff would be a single device.  Just not a clue what that device would be or how it could work.</p><p>Today, about 15 years later, we still work together.  I carry a Palm Treo and he has a iPhone.  Different job, but mostly do the same thing, just not consultants anymore.  I don't think either one of us could do our job without these gadgets.   The ability<br>
&nbsp; to ssh into our systems is key to our jobs, and it doesn't really matter what device we use anymore.  The gadgets are getting to be more than just a convenience for both of us.  They almost define our function in the job.  Even if we're out of the office, we still take care of issues, now, not when we get back.</p><p>The gadgets have raised expectations for a lot of positions.  If I still worked like I did back in the 90s, people would be waiting either until I got there, or got where I could hit a phone line and modem.  Now, with the internet (ultimate gadget) and a smart phone, I can fix most problems at 70mph running down the road (as a passenger, of course, not going to break any laws, ha).  And that's become almost an expectation.</p><p>So, yes I kind of see this as the decade of the gadget, but the gadgets mostly control us.</p><p>God help us all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometime in the mid-90s the guy I was training and I were having a discussion about the future of technology while we were driving down the road in rural south Texas .
I had a bag phone and an IBM Model 70 portable ( lugable ) .
He had a Zarus .
We both carried pagers .
A big part of the conversation was about how someday , we would n't need to carry all that crap just to do our job .
We both knew that someday all of this stuff would be a single device .
Just not a clue what that device would be or how it could work.Today , about 15 years later , we still work together .
I carry a Palm Treo and he has a iPhone .
Different job , but mostly do the same thing , just not consultants anymore .
I do n't think either one of us could do our job without these gadgets .
The ability   to ssh into our systems is key to our jobs , and it does n't really matter what device we use anymore .
The gadgets are getting to be more than just a convenience for both of us .
They almost define our function in the job .
Even if we 're out of the office , we still take care of issues , now , not when we get back.The gadgets have raised expectations for a lot of positions .
If I still worked like I did back in the 90s , people would be waiting either until I got there , or got where I could hit a phone line and modem .
Now , with the internet ( ultimate gadget ) and a smart phone , I can fix most problems at 70mph running down the road ( as a passenger , of course , not going to break any laws , ha ) .
And that 's become almost an expectation.So , yes I kind of see this as the decade of the gadget , but the gadgets mostly control us.God help us all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sometime in the mid-90s the guy I was training and I were having a discussion about the future of technology while we were driving down the road in rural south Texas.
I had a bag phone and an IBM Model 70 portable (lugable).
He had a Zarus.
We both carried pagers.
A big part of the conversation was about how someday, we wouldn't need to carry all that crap just to do our job.
We both knew that someday all of this stuff would be a single device.
Just not a clue what that device would be or how it could work.Today, about 15 years later, we still work together.
I carry a Palm Treo and he has a iPhone.
Different job, but mostly do the same thing, just not consultants anymore.
I don't think either one of us could do our job without these gadgets.
The ability
  to ssh into our systems is key to our jobs, and it doesn't really matter what device we use anymore.
The gadgets are getting to be more than just a convenience for both of us.
They almost define our function in the job.
Even if we're out of the office, we still take care of issues, now, not when we get back.The gadgets have raised expectations for a lot of positions.
If I still worked like I did back in the 90s, people would be waiting either until I got there, or got where I could hit a phone line and modem.
Now, with the internet (ultimate gadget) and a smart phone, I can fix most problems at 70mph running down the road (as a passenger, of course, not going to break any laws, ha).
And that's become almost an expectation.So, yes I kind of see this as the decade of the gadget, but the gadgets mostly control us.God help us all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30605882</id>
	<title>Re:trinkets or tools?</title>
	<author>Whorhay</author>
	<datestamp>1262278860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I still listen to FM radio, but pretty much only because I prefer it to silence for my time in the car. I drive a 1990 Toyota. I'm not sure if it's tape deck works but I don't own any tapes to try it with. I used to use an FM tuner with my iPod but the iPod got stolen a few years back and I haven't bothered to replace it. Most of my driving is to work and back which amounts to twenty minutes a day. So listening to the radio for a little bit isn't bad and so far hasn't warranted me swapping out the stereo for a better one I have sitting in my room.</p><p>I haven't bothered to get a smart phone either because I'm so rarely far enough away from a desktop computer that it'd be worth the price. In fact I find carrying the cell phone I do have so annoying that I avoid taking it with me whenever I can.</p><p>Oh yeah and I'm only 31.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I still listen to FM radio , but pretty much only because I prefer it to silence for my time in the car .
I drive a 1990 Toyota .
I 'm not sure if it 's tape deck works but I do n't own any tapes to try it with .
I used to use an FM tuner with my iPod but the iPod got stolen a few years back and I have n't bothered to replace it .
Most of my driving is to work and back which amounts to twenty minutes a day .
So listening to the radio for a little bit is n't bad and so far has n't warranted me swapping out the stereo for a better one I have sitting in my room.I have n't bothered to get a smart phone either because I 'm so rarely far enough away from a desktop computer that it 'd be worth the price .
In fact I find carrying the cell phone I do have so annoying that I avoid taking it with me whenever I can.Oh yeah and I 'm only 31 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I still listen to FM radio, but pretty much only because I prefer it to silence for my time in the car.
I drive a 1990 Toyota.
I'm not sure if it's tape deck works but I don't own any tapes to try it with.
I used to use an FM tuner with my iPod but the iPod got stolen a few years back and I haven't bothered to replace it.
Most of my driving is to work and back which amounts to twenty minutes a day.
So listening to the radio for a little bit isn't bad and so far hasn't warranted me swapping out the stereo for a better one I have sitting in my room.I haven't bothered to get a smart phone either because I'm so rarely far enough away from a desktop computer that it'd be worth the price.
In fact I find carrying the cell phone I do have so annoying that I avoid taking it with me whenever I can.Oh yeah and I'm only 31.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30609134</id>
	<title>Re:Simple Simon games</title>
	<author>pwfffff</author>
	<datestamp>1262250120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Only Japanese people, with their..."<br>"This Christmas, I'm passed out from wine..."<br>"...'enjoy' such a 'game'..."</p><p>So you're a racist drunk who passed out instead of spending time with his family on Christmas, and you hate fun.</p><p>Your comment is valuable why? +5 insightful? Seriously?</p><p>I hope someone bludgeons you to death with a Guitar Hero controller.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Only Japanese people , with their... " " This Christmas , I 'm passed out from wine... " " ...'enjoy ' such a 'game'... " So you 're a racist drunk who passed out instead of spending time with his family on Christmas , and you hate fun.Your comment is valuable why ?
+ 5 insightful ?
Seriously ? I hope someone bludgeons you to death with a Guitar Hero controller .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Only Japanese people, with their...""This Christmas, I'm passed out from wine...""...'enjoy' such a 'game'..."So you're a racist drunk who passed out instead of spending time with his family on Christmas, and you hate fun.Your comment is valuable why?
+5 insightful?
Seriously?I hope someone bludgeons you to death with a Guitar Hero controller.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603512</id>
	<title>Re:The decade isn't over yet!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262289840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most of us live in the common world, not pedantic land.  Get over it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of us live in the common world , not pedantic land .
Get over it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of us live in the common world, not pedantic land.
Get over it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603202</id>
	<title>Re:GPS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259866140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps this should be expanded to electronically-aided navigation.  The now-ubiquitous google maps is a creature of this decade.  As a someone who only started driving in 2000, I honestly don't know how people found their way to new places before it came about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps this should be expanded to electronically-aided navigation .
The now-ubiquitous google maps is a creature of this decade .
As a someone who only started driving in 2000 , I honestly do n't know how people found their way to new places before it came about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps this should be expanded to electronically-aided navigation.
The now-ubiquitous google maps is a creature of this decade.
As a someone who only started driving in 2000, I honestly don't know how people found their way to new places before it came about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30609626</id>
	<title>Re:360?</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1262253060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just pointing out that XBLA existed on the original Xbox too, although it didn't really take off until the Xbox 360 came around.</p><p>Also, the original Xbox had a HD and network adapter as standard equipment. Frankly, I think it was a more innovative device than the Xbox 360-- the 360 is an evolution, but the Xbox was a leap forward.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just pointing out that XBLA existed on the original Xbox too , although it did n't really take off until the Xbox 360 came around.Also , the original Xbox had a HD and network adapter as standard equipment .
Frankly , I think it was a more innovative device than the Xbox 360-- the 360 is an evolution , but the Xbox was a leap forward .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just pointing out that XBLA existed on the original Xbox too, although it didn't really take off until the Xbox 360 came around.Also, the original Xbox had a HD and network adapter as standard equipment.
Frankly, I think it was a more innovative device than the Xbox 360-- the 360 is an evolution, but the Xbox was a leap forward.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603070</id>
	<title>Obviously</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259864520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Computer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Computer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603484</id>
	<title>Re:Playstation 2 = Gadget</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1259870220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> I mean, TWO screened handhelds seemed a bit unrealistic too.</p></div><p>Hmmmm... they didn't seem unrealistic when we <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gw\_donkeykong\_trans.png" title="wikipedia.org">played with them in the 1980s.</a> [wikipedia.org] </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , TWO screened handhelds seemed a bit unrealistic too.Hmmmm... they did n't seem unrealistic when we played with them in the 1980s .
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I mean, TWO screened handhelds seemed a bit unrealistic too.Hmmmm... they didn't seem unrealistic when we played with them in the 1980s.
[wikipedia.org] 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604454</id>
	<title>Re:Only one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262268900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean CRT Tubes...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean CRT Tubes.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean CRT Tubes...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30608272</id>
	<title>Re:Simple Simon games</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262288640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're one of those assholes who tries to chat with everyone during a movie, aren't you?</p><p>Maybe games today require one to actually concentrate on the game, as opposed to idley pushing buttons every now and then when there's a break in your precious conversation.</p><p>Please never visit a movie theater I'm in.</p><p>Signed: Everyone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're one of those assholes who tries to chat with everyone during a movie , are n't you ? Maybe games today require one to actually concentrate on the game , as opposed to idley pushing buttons every now and then when there 's a break in your precious conversation.Please never visit a movie theater I 'm in.Signed : Everyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're one of those assholes who tries to chat with everyone during a movie, aren't you?Maybe games today require one to actually concentrate on the game, as opposed to idley pushing buttons every now and then when there's a break in your precious conversation.Please never visit a movie theater I'm in.Signed: Everyone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30610202</id>
	<title>Re:360?</title>
	<author>jedidiah</author>
	<datestamp>1262256540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; If we're talking about a console that is defining where new consoles have to start and<br>&gt; grow from, then I totally agree -- the Xbox 360 has set the bar for new systems in the coming decade.</p><p>Utter nonsense.</p><p>This is evidenced by the fact that both Sony and Microsoft are trying to copy the Wii at this very moment.</p><p>The Wii redefined the gaming experience.</p><p>It also pushed gaming outside the domain of "comic book guy".</p><p>Both the Wii and DS have a much better claim to the title "decade defining gadget".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; If we 're talking about a console that is defining where new consoles have to start and &gt; grow from , then I totally agree -- the Xbox 360 has set the bar for new systems in the coming decade.Utter nonsense.This is evidenced by the fact that both Sony and Microsoft are trying to copy the Wii at this very moment.The Wii redefined the gaming experience.It also pushed gaming outside the domain of " comic book guy " .Both the Wii and DS have a much better claim to the title " decade defining gadget " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; If we're talking about a console that is defining where new consoles have to start and&gt; grow from, then I totally agree -- the Xbox 360 has set the bar for new systems in the coming decade.Utter nonsense.This is evidenced by the fact that both Sony and Microsoft are trying to copy the Wii at this very moment.The Wii redefined the gaming experience.It also pushed gaming outside the domain of "comic book guy".Both the Wii and DS have a much better claim to the title "decade defining gadget".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603498</id>
	<title>I'm tired of hearing about gadgets</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262289660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What happened to the good ol' days when all the ads on TV were for cars and breakfast cereal? Now it seems like they're all for phones, and every other article on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. has something to do with phones. I think the world has gone nuts.</p><p>Do you people spend all your time wandering the streets lost or what? You're going to pay possibly hundreds of dollars for the initial purchase of, and possibly a monthly service charge for the use of some doodad which is all-too-easily lost or broken. So you can look at stuff on a tiny little screen? Type stuff on a tiny little keyboard? Listen to stuff from tiny little speakers? Access the interwebs through a slow, expensive, unreliable connection? Under an OS that is probably proprietary and feature anemic?</p><p>At home, I have a PC with a real keyboard, display, and speakers. Also, being an American who does not live in a dense urban area with useful public transportation, I have a car. And any place I might be, my car is not far behind. It also contains a CD player and real speakers, and can easily be used to haul a laptop which again, sports a decent display and keyboard. But to be honest, I don't take my laptop with me every time I leave the house because when I go to the grocery store it's to buy groceries damnit not read my email!</p><p>For heaven's sake people are you really that bored that you need to be constantly dicking around with some thing, sending goatse pics to your friends or whatever? Don't you have actual work to do? Actual people standing in front of you to deal with? Vehicles in front of you to watch so you don't fucking crash into them?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What happened to the good ol ' days when all the ads on TV were for cars and breakfast cereal ?
Now it seems like they 're all for phones , and every other article on / .
has something to do with phones .
I think the world has gone nuts.Do you people spend all your time wandering the streets lost or what ?
You 're going to pay possibly hundreds of dollars for the initial purchase of , and possibly a monthly service charge for the use of some doodad which is all-too-easily lost or broken .
So you can look at stuff on a tiny little screen ?
Type stuff on a tiny little keyboard ?
Listen to stuff from tiny little speakers ?
Access the interwebs through a slow , expensive , unreliable connection ?
Under an OS that is probably proprietary and feature anemic ? At home , I have a PC with a real keyboard , display , and speakers .
Also , being an American who does not live in a dense urban area with useful public transportation , I have a car .
And any place I might be , my car is not far behind .
It also contains a CD player and real speakers , and can easily be used to haul a laptop which again , sports a decent display and keyboard .
But to be honest , I do n't take my laptop with me every time I leave the house because when I go to the grocery store it 's to buy groceries damnit not read my email ! For heaven 's sake people are you really that bored that you need to be constantly dicking around with some thing , sending goatse pics to your friends or whatever ?
Do n't you have actual work to do ?
Actual people standing in front of you to deal with ?
Vehicles in front of you to watch so you do n't fucking crash into them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What happened to the good ol' days when all the ads on TV were for cars and breakfast cereal?
Now it seems like they're all for phones, and every other article on /.
has something to do with phones.
I think the world has gone nuts.Do you people spend all your time wandering the streets lost or what?
You're going to pay possibly hundreds of dollars for the initial purchase of, and possibly a monthly service charge for the use of some doodad which is all-too-easily lost or broken.
So you can look at stuff on a tiny little screen?
Type stuff on a tiny little keyboard?
Listen to stuff from tiny little speakers?
Access the interwebs through a slow, expensive, unreliable connection?
Under an OS that is probably proprietary and feature anemic?At home, I have a PC with a real keyboard, display, and speakers.
Also, being an American who does not live in a dense urban area with useful public transportation, I have a car.
And any place I might be, my car is not far behind.
It also contains a CD player and real speakers, and can easily be used to haul a laptop which again, sports a decent display and keyboard.
But to be honest, I don't take my laptop with me every time I leave the house because when I go to the grocery store it's to buy groceries damnit not read my email!For heaven's sake people are you really that bored that you need to be constantly dicking around with some thing, sending goatse pics to your friends or whatever?
Don't you have actual work to do?
Actual people standing in front of you to deal with?
Vehicles in front of you to watch so you don't fucking crash into them?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604406</id>
	<title>Re:The decade isn't over yet!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262268240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You're a hardware engineer, aren't you.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div><p>No - if he was he'd understand about appropriate precision and wouldn't be arguing about a +/-1 year error on a datum point only known to the nearest 30 years or so...

</p><p>Also, there may not have been a "0 AD" but, equally, there wasn't a 1AD, 2AD, etc. - at least not that people knew about at the time - since the numbering system wasn't devised until the sixth century.

</p><p>So while you've  worked out that a Roman coin with the date "52 BC"  is probably a fake, I'm afraid your special souveneir "review of the noulghty-noulghties" edition of the i&gt;Galillee Times dated "AD 11"is a bit iffy, too...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're a hardware engineer , are n't you .
: ) No - if he was he 'd understand about appropriate precision and would n't be arguing about a + /-1 year error on a datum point only known to the nearest 30 years or so.. . Also , there may not have been a " 0 AD " but , equally , there was n't a 1AD , 2AD , etc .
- at least not that people knew about at the time - since the numbering system was n't devised until the sixth century .
So while you 've worked out that a Roman coin with the date " 52 BC " is probably a fake , I 'm afraid your special souveneir " review of the noulghty-noulghties " edition of the i &gt; Galillee Times dated " AD 11 " is a bit iffy , too.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're a hardware engineer, aren't you.
:)No - if he was he'd understand about appropriate precision and wouldn't be arguing about a +/-1 year error on a datum point only known to the nearest 30 years or so...

Also, there may not have been a "0 AD" but, equally, there wasn't a 1AD, 2AD, etc.
- at least not that people knew about at the time - since the numbering system wasn't devised until the sixth century.
So while you've  worked out that a Roman coin with the date "52 BC"  is probably a fake, I'm afraid your special souveneir "review of the noulghty-noulghties" edition of the i&gt;Galillee Times dated "AD 11"is a bit iffy, too...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603824</id>
	<title>Nokia N900</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262254080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The <a href="http://maemo.nokia.com/n900/" title="nokia.com">Nokia N900</a> [nokia.com] is the first { Linux + X11 + phone } that works nicely (OpenMoko was a poor attempt), and it's Debian based! (Maemo).</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Nokia N900 [ nokia.com ] is the first { Linux + X11 + phone } that works nicely ( OpenMoko was a poor attempt ) , and it 's Debian based !
( Maemo ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Nokia N900 [nokia.com] is the first { Linux + X11 + phone } that works nicely (OpenMoko was a poor attempt), and it's Debian based!
(Maemo).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30607352</id>
	<title>Re:The list</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262284800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>According to <a href="http://digg.com/all/popular/365days" title="digg.com" rel="nofollow">Digg</a> [digg.com], the first gadget in the list, is the Apple notebook with NO keyboard! They missed it from the list!</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to Digg [ digg.com ] , the first gadget in the list , is the Apple notebook with NO keyboard !
They missed it from the list !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to Digg [digg.com], the first gadget in the list, is the Apple notebook with NO keyboard!
They missed it from the list!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603328</id>
	<title>The decade isn't over yet!</title>
	<author>Osty</author>
	<datestamp>1259868000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dammit, people.  The decade runs <b>through</b> 2010.  2001-2010.  <b>Next year</b> is the end of the decade.  Not this year.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dammit , people .
The decade runs through 2010 .
2001-2010. Next year is the end of the decade .
Not this year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dammit, people.
The decade runs through 2010.
2001-2010.  Next year is the end of the decade.
Not this year.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30605512</id>
	<title>Nintendo love?</title>
	<author>Jedimstr397</author>
	<datestamp>1262276820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lame list if I do say so myself. I would think that a gaming console, namely the Nintendo Wii, would be seen as a gadget that defined the decade. Yeah the graphics aren't high-end, but I'll bet that most people reading this post own one. The Wii innovated and brought families and friends closer together. They defied their critics in a time that demanded faster, better, prettier looking games. Instead they thought outside of the box (pun intended) and did something new that their competitors would eventually copy and try to improve upon.

Also, Apple products seem to be ubiquitous in TFA along with the word ubiquitous. WTF?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lame list if I do say so myself .
I would think that a gaming console , namely the Nintendo Wii , would be seen as a gadget that defined the decade .
Yeah the graphics are n't high-end , but I 'll bet that most people reading this post own one .
The Wii innovated and brought families and friends closer together .
They defied their critics in a time that demanded faster , better , prettier looking games .
Instead they thought outside of the box ( pun intended ) and did something new that their competitors would eventually copy and try to improve upon .
Also , Apple products seem to be ubiquitous in TFA along with the word ubiquitous .
WTF ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lame list if I do say so myself.
I would think that a gaming console, namely the Nintendo Wii, would be seen as a gadget that defined the decade.
Yeah the graphics aren't high-end, but I'll bet that most people reading this post own one.
The Wii innovated and brought families and friends closer together.
They defied their critics in a time that demanded faster, better, prettier looking games.
Instead they thought outside of the box (pun intended) and did something new that their competitors would eventually copy and try to improve upon.
Also, Apple products seem to be ubiquitous in TFA along with the word ubiquitous.
WTF?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30606926</id>
	<title>Boxcutter+747, IED, AK47, bomb-jacket</title>
	<author>billstewart</author>
	<datestamp>1262283180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back in 1999, the world was finally becoming a civilized place.  The Soviet Union was gone, 40 years of nuclear terrorism were over, and we were in the trailing edge of a long technology boom even though most of us realized that selling dogfood online might not be an entirely sustainable business model<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)  </p><p>Two years later the world was going to Hell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in 1999 , the world was finally becoming a civilized place .
The Soviet Union was gone , 40 years of nuclear terrorism were over , and we were in the trailing edge of a long technology boom even though most of us realized that selling dogfood online might not be an entirely sustainable business model : - ) Two years later the world was going to Hell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in 1999, the world was finally becoming a civilized place.
The Soviet Union was gone, 40 years of nuclear terrorism were over, and we were in the trailing edge of a long technology boom even though most of us realized that selling dogfood online might not be an entirely sustainable business model :-)  Two years later the world was going to Hell.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603560</id>
	<title>Re:The decade isn't over yet!</title>
	<author>justleavealonemmmkay</author>
	<datestamp>1262290500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you're being pedantic and not even correct. The reasons centuries and millennia are starting with the year xxx1, is that they are numbered ("the fourteenth century", "the third millennium"). Because they are numbered, they have to start on a year that actually existed, 1CE generally, or any multiple of 1000<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/100 on top (+) of that.</p><p>No one numbers decades. If we did, it would be OK to call this decade the 201st and make it start on Jan 1 2001. But in reality, we don't number them, so we can make them start anytime, the simplest being to apply a 'floor' function.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you 're being pedantic and not even correct .
The reasons centuries and millennia are starting with the year xxx1 , is that they are numbered ( " the fourteenth century " , " the third millennium " ) .
Because they are numbered , they have to start on a year that actually existed , 1CE generally , or any multiple of 1000 /100 on top ( + ) of that.No one numbers decades .
If we did , it would be OK to call this decade the 201st and make it start on Jan 1 2001 .
But in reality , we do n't number them , so we can make them start anytime , the simplest being to apply a 'floor ' function .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you're being pedantic and not even correct.
The reasons centuries and millennia are starting with the year xxx1, is that they are numbered ("the fourteenth century", "the third millennium").
Because they are numbered, they have to start on a year that actually existed, 1CE generally, or any multiple of 1000 /100 on top (+) of that.No one numbers decades.
If we did, it would be OK to call this decade the 201st and make it start on Jan 1 2001.
But in reality, we don't number them, so we can make them start anytime, the simplest being to apply a 'floor' function.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604880</id>
	<title>Re:XP and OS X?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262272980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All I can think of, is that prior to XP, Windows was behind everything else, but wa at least getting <em>better</em>, and Windows 2000 was their best attempt to compete, ever.  With XP started the quality decline.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All I can think of , is that prior to XP , Windows was behind everything else , but wa at least getting better , and Windows 2000 was their best attempt to compete , ever .
With XP started the quality decline .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All I can think of, is that prior to XP, Windows was behind everything else, but wa at least getting better, and Windows 2000 was their best attempt to compete, ever.
With XP started the quality decline.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30605142</id>
	<title>Re:Gadgets</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262274660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So, yes I kind of see this as the decade of the gadget, but the gadgets mostly control us.</p><p>God help us all.</p></div><p>Couldn't agree more.</p><p>I often wonder whether these gadgets which have changed all our working and personal habits have also  had the   nasty side effect of adding pressure to our daily lives : work has gotten faster and solutions and expected to be near instantaneous, personal life as well ( "I'll call you when I get there" has replaced the old "we'll meet at 10am sharp" ), and you're expected to be able to fix a work problem when on vacation because of/thanks to your Blackberry.</p><p>Maybe I'm getting older, but I sometimes feel that technological progress is only, well, technological.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , yes I kind of see this as the decade of the gadget , but the gadgets mostly control us.God help us all.Could n't agree more.I often wonder whether these gadgets which have changed all our working and personal habits have also had the nasty side effect of adding pressure to our daily lives : work has gotten faster and solutions and expected to be near instantaneous , personal life as well ( " I 'll call you when I get there " has replaced the old " we 'll meet at 10am sharp " ) , and you 're expected to be able to fix a work problem when on vacation because of/thanks to your Blackberry.Maybe I 'm getting older , but I sometimes feel that technological progress is only , well , technological .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, yes I kind of see this as the decade of the gadget, but the gadgets mostly control us.God help us all.Couldn't agree more.I often wonder whether these gadgets which have changed all our working and personal habits have also  had the   nasty side effect of adding pressure to our daily lives : work has gotten faster and solutions and expected to be near instantaneous, personal life as well ( "I'll call you when I get there" has replaced the old "we'll meet at 10am sharp" ), and you're expected to be able to fix a work problem when on vacation because of/thanks to your Blackberry.Maybe I'm getting older, but I sometimes feel that technological progress is only, well, technological.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603478</id>
	<title>I didn't read TFA, but since we are still due for</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1259870160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the Apple article today, (or did I miss it?), I&rsquo;d say:</p><p><tt><br>hwl = filter(dictionary,isHipsterWord); hwll = hwl.length-1<br>for i in 1..10 {<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; print i+". i"+hwl[random()*hwl]<br>}</tt><nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the Apple article today , ( or did I miss it ?
) , I    d say : hwl = filter ( dictionary,isHipsterWord ) ; hwll = hwl.length-1for i in 1..10 {     print i + " .
i " + hwl [ random ( ) * hwl ] } ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the Apple article today, (or did I miss it?
), I’d say:hwl = filter(dictionary,isHipsterWord); hwll = hwl.length-1for i in 1..10 {
    print i+".
i"+hwl[random()*hwl]} ;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604610</id>
	<title>Re:360?</title>
	<author>Boomerang Fish</author>
	<datestamp>1262270640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If we're talking about a console that is defining where new consoles have to start and grow from, then I totally agree -- the Xbox 360 has set the bar for new systems in the coming decade.</p><p>The PS2, however, made owning a console for gaming mainstream.  Of course, this also occurred at about the same time that those of us who grew up with (or knowing someone with) a console became adults (that sounds weird, doesn't it?) so it's a hard call as to which was more influential -- the PS2 or our expectations.</p><p>If you want to identify trend changers for the decade, I have to side slightly higher on the PS2 side.  The Xbox 360, and to a lesser extent the Wii, with it's motion sensing apparatus and focus on non-traditional gamers, are definitely setting the stage for the future; but had the PS2 not been as popular and pervasive as it was, the Xbox 360 would never have seen the light of day -- high end gaming would have remained the province of the power-user computer owner, and not the run-of-the-mill joe sixpack wanting to do more with his TV.</p><p>The PS3 was a disappointment -- it's a beefed up PS2 with newer/better hardware, but is a study in failed promises (lack of ongoing PS2 support, etc.) and lost opportunities to change the landscape... The PS2 defined a landscape... the PS3 is riding in that same landscape, while the Xbox 360 is expanding it.</p><p>The PS2 set the console stage for 2000-2009.  The next iteration of the Xbox, after considering the few things the Wii did right, will set the stage for 2010-2019.  One could argue that it already does set that stage, but it's early enough I expect them to push the bar up soon, and that's what our children will be using as their measuring stick in 2020.</p><p>--<br>I drank what?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If we 're talking about a console that is defining where new consoles have to start and grow from , then I totally agree -- the Xbox 360 has set the bar for new systems in the coming decade.The PS2 , however , made owning a console for gaming mainstream .
Of course , this also occurred at about the same time that those of us who grew up with ( or knowing someone with ) a console became adults ( that sounds weird , does n't it ?
) so it 's a hard call as to which was more influential -- the PS2 or our expectations.If you want to identify trend changers for the decade , I have to side slightly higher on the PS2 side .
The Xbox 360 , and to a lesser extent the Wii , with it 's motion sensing apparatus and focus on non-traditional gamers , are definitely setting the stage for the future ; but had the PS2 not been as popular and pervasive as it was , the Xbox 360 would never have seen the light of day -- high end gaming would have remained the province of the power-user computer owner , and not the run-of-the-mill joe sixpack wanting to do more with his TV.The PS3 was a disappointment -- it 's a beefed up PS2 with newer/better hardware , but is a study in failed promises ( lack of ongoing PS2 support , etc .
) and lost opportunities to change the landscape... The PS2 defined a landscape... the PS3 is riding in that same landscape , while the Xbox 360 is expanding it.The PS2 set the console stage for 2000-2009 .
The next iteration of the Xbox , after considering the few things the Wii did right , will set the stage for 2010-2019 .
One could argue that it already does set that stage , but it 's early enough I expect them to push the bar up soon , and that 's what our children will be using as their measuring stick in 2020.--I drank what ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we're talking about a console that is defining where new consoles have to start and grow from, then I totally agree -- the Xbox 360 has set the bar for new systems in the coming decade.The PS2, however, made owning a console for gaming mainstream.
Of course, this also occurred at about the same time that those of us who grew up with (or knowing someone with) a console became adults (that sounds weird, doesn't it?
) so it's a hard call as to which was more influential -- the PS2 or our expectations.If you want to identify trend changers for the decade, I have to side slightly higher on the PS2 side.
The Xbox 360, and to a lesser extent the Wii, with it's motion sensing apparatus and focus on non-traditional gamers, are definitely setting the stage for the future; but had the PS2 not been as popular and pervasive as it was, the Xbox 360 would never have seen the light of day -- high end gaming would have remained the province of the power-user computer owner, and not the run-of-the-mill joe sixpack wanting to do more with his TV.The PS3 was a disappointment -- it's a beefed up PS2 with newer/better hardware, but is a study in failed promises (lack of ongoing PS2 support, etc.
) and lost opportunities to change the landscape... The PS2 defined a landscape... the PS3 is riding in that same landscape, while the Xbox 360 is expanding it.The PS2 set the console stage for 2000-2009.
The next iteration of the Xbox, after considering the few things the Wii did right, will set the stage for 2010-2019.
One could argue that it already does set that stage, but it's early enough I expect them to push the bar up soon, and that's what our children will be using as their measuring stick in 2020.--I drank what?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30612592</id>
	<title>Re:Say what?</title>
	<author>toddestan</author>
	<datestamp>1262285460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know if I agree.  I always thought the brushed aluminum look was cheesy, but nevertheless, Apple has moved away from it which certainly dates the OSX screenshot to the early 2000's.</p><p>On the other hand, I've never liked the default XP theme and it certainly has not aged nicely either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know if I agree .
I always thought the brushed aluminum look was cheesy , but nevertheless , Apple has moved away from it which certainly dates the OSX screenshot to the early 2000 's.On the other hand , I 've never liked the default XP theme and it certainly has not aged nicely either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know if I agree.
I always thought the brushed aluminum look was cheesy, but nevertheless, Apple has moved away from it which certainly dates the OSX screenshot to the early 2000's.On the other hand, I've never liked the default XP theme and it certainly has not aged nicely either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30610018</id>
	<title>Re:360?</title>
	<author>gameboyhippo</author>
	<datestamp>1262255340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that if everyone set aside their fanboyisms, they will see that the Wii is the game console of the decade, not the 360.  No other console has expanded the audience of gamers like the Wii has.  Previous generation of gamers have Wiis and now so do normal people.  I'd use to come to work and say, I got the new Mario Kart and people would think, "Who cares?"  Now I hear from others that they recently purchased the new Mario Kart and its fun.  Wii brought games to the mainstream.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that if everyone set aside their fanboyisms , they will see that the Wii is the game console of the decade , not the 360 .
No other console has expanded the audience of gamers like the Wii has .
Previous generation of gamers have Wiis and now so do normal people .
I 'd use to come to work and say , I got the new Mario Kart and people would think , " Who cares ?
" Now I hear from others that they recently purchased the new Mario Kart and its fun .
Wii brought games to the mainstream .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that if everyone set aside their fanboyisms, they will see that the Wii is the game console of the decade, not the 360.
No other console has expanded the audience of gamers like the Wii has.
Previous generation of gamers have Wiis and now so do normal people.
I'd use to come to work and say, I got the new Mario Kart and people would think, "Who cares?
"  Now I hear from others that they recently purchased the new Mario Kart and its fun.
Wii brought games to the mainstream.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604292</id>
	<title>-1 pedantic.</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1262265840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How decades are counted is a bloody convention, not a law of nature.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How decades are counted is a bloody convention , not a law of nature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How decades are counted is a bloody convention, not a law of nature.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603146</id>
	<title>Put the gadgets in the summary!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259865300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey Slashdot, when we get stories like this, just list out the gadgets from the article in the story summary that you submit to slashdot.</p><p>No one reads the article half the time.  And usually, (not the case here) the story is split up among 3 or so pages, with the last page just a page of ads or links to other stories.</p><p>So, slashdot, what do you say?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey Slashdot , when we get stories like this , just list out the gadgets from the article in the story summary that you submit to slashdot.No one reads the article half the time .
And usually , ( not the case here ) the story is split up among 3 or so pages , with the last page just a page of ads or links to other stories.So , slashdot , what do you say ?
: D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey Slashdot, when we get stories like this, just list out the gadgets from the article in the story summary that you submit to slashdot.No one reads the article half the time.
And usually, (not the case here) the story is split up among 3 or so pages, with the last page just a page of ads or links to other stories.So, slashdot, what do you say?
:D</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604036</id>
	<title>Re:The decade isn't over yet!</title>
	<author>Spacezilla</author>
	<datestamp>1262260020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you serious? So all the decades go from xxx0 To xxx9, except the first one, which went from 1 to 10? So the year 10 was in two different decades?</p><p>We're only entering the 2010th year now. When it's over, the decade will be over.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you serious ?
So all the decades go from xxx0 To xxx9 , except the first one , which went from 1 to 10 ?
So the year 10 was in two different decades ? We 're only entering the 2010th year now .
When it 's over , the decade will be over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you serious?
So all the decades go from xxx0 To xxx9, except the first one, which went from 1 to 10?
So the year 10 was in two different decades?We're only entering the 2010th year now.
When it's over, the decade will be over.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30605356</id>
	<title>Re:trinkets or tools?</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1262276040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I think that the ipod and iphone are probably the most significant devices but not just for what they are but for what they presage.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Iphone put a crack in the usual walled garden arrangement of US carriers and is showing competitors how to do things.</i></p><p>Well that explains why, out of the US, we wonder what the fuss is about. FWIW, it's been that way outside of the US long before the Iphone turned up late, and it doesn't define anything this decade.</p><p>Indeed, the only walled garden we see is the Iphone itself, with its locked down nature, lots of useful functions disabled unless you hack it, and only being allowed to run apps from the Apple store.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that the ipod and iphone are probably the most significant devices but not just for what they are but for what they presage .
... Iphone put a crack in the usual walled garden arrangement of US carriers and is showing competitors how to do things.Well that explains why , out of the US , we wonder what the fuss is about .
FWIW , it 's been that way outside of the US long before the Iphone turned up late , and it does n't define anything this decade.Indeed , the only walled garden we see is the Iphone itself , with its locked down nature , lots of useful functions disabled unless you hack it , and only being allowed to run apps from the Apple store .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that the ipod and iphone are probably the most significant devices but not just for what they are but for what they presage.
... Iphone put a crack in the usual walled garden arrangement of US carriers and is showing competitors how to do things.Well that explains why, out of the US, we wonder what the fuss is about.
FWIW, it's been that way outside of the US long before the Iphone turned up late, and it doesn't define anything this decade.Indeed, the only walled garden we see is the Iphone itself, with its locked down nature, lots of useful functions disabled unless you hack it, and only being allowed to run apps from the Apple store.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603482</id>
	<title>eeeeeeeee PC?</title>
	<author>z\_gringo</author>
	<datestamp>1259870220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would have thought that one of the Android phones released in 2009 would beat out the Eeeeeeeeeee PC.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would have thought that one of the Android phones released in 2009 would beat out the Eeeeeeeeeee PC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would have thought that one of the Android phones released in 2009 would beat out the Eeeeeeeeeee PC.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604452</id>
	<title>Re:Say what?</title>
	<author>itsdapead</author>
	<datestamp>1262268900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This guy/gal needs to have their head examined</p></div><p>As an enthusiastic OS X user, though, I'd conceed that the first few releases were not much use. However, that's mainly because of lack of native software support - it always looked a million dollars. Mind you, he does seem to have a revisionist history concerning the original reaction to XP...
</p><p>The big achievement of OS X, however, was that in the space of a few years, Apple moved their entire user base over to a completely new, non-binary compatible, UNIX-based system. XP was always hamstrung by legacy issues.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This guy/gal needs to have their head examinedAs an enthusiastic OS X user , though , I 'd conceed that the first few releases were not much use .
However , that 's mainly because of lack of native software support - it always looked a million dollars .
Mind you , he does seem to have a revisionist history concerning the original reaction to XP.. . The big achievement of OS X , however , was that in the space of a few years , Apple moved their entire user base over to a completely new , non-binary compatible , UNIX-based system .
XP was always hamstrung by legacy issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This guy/gal needs to have their head examinedAs an enthusiastic OS X user, though, I'd conceed that the first few releases were not much use.
However, that's mainly because of lack of native software support - it always looked a million dollars.
Mind you, he does seem to have a revisionist history concerning the original reaction to XP...
The big achievement of OS X, however, was that in the space of a few years, Apple moved their entire user base over to a completely new, non-binary compatible, UNIX-based system.
XP was always hamstrung by legacy issues.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30605898</id>
	<title>Re:GPS</title>
	<author>howe.chris</author>
	<datestamp>1262278920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The fact that my mom has one in her Ford Focus should say something.  Just avoid Tom Tom.  Tom Tom almost got me mugged mugged after I borrowed mother's car during a recent visit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that my mom has one in her Ford Focus should say something .
Just avoid Tom Tom .
Tom Tom almost got me mugged mugged after I borrowed mother 's car during a recent visit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that my mom has one in her Ford Focus should say something.
Just avoid Tom Tom.
Tom Tom almost got me mugged mugged after I borrowed mother's car during a recent visit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603180</id>
	<title>The list</title>
	<author>xaosflux</author>
	<datestamp>1259865840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Canon Digital ELPH (2000)<br>Apple PowerBook G4 (Titanium) (2001)<br>Microsoft Windows XP (2001) / Apple Mac OS X (2000)<br>Apple iPod (2001)<br>TiVo Series2 (2002)<br>Motorola RAZR V3 (2003)<br>PalmOne Treo 600 / 650 (2003 / 2004)<br>Microsoft Xbox 360 (2005)<br>Apple iPhone (2007)<br>ASUS Eee PC 900 (2008)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Canon Digital ELPH ( 2000 ) Apple PowerBook G4 ( Titanium ) ( 2001 ) Microsoft Windows XP ( 2001 ) / Apple Mac OS X ( 2000 ) Apple iPod ( 2001 ) TiVo Series2 ( 2002 ) Motorola RAZR V3 ( 2003 ) PalmOne Treo 600 / 650 ( 2003 / 2004 ) Microsoft Xbox 360 ( 2005 ) Apple iPhone ( 2007 ) ASUS Eee PC 900 ( 2008 )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Canon Digital ELPH (2000)Apple PowerBook G4 (Titanium) (2001)Microsoft Windows XP (2001) / Apple Mac OS X (2000)Apple iPod (2001)TiVo Series2 (2002)Motorola RAZR V3 (2003)PalmOne Treo 600 / 650 (2003 / 2004)Microsoft Xbox 360 (2005)Apple iPhone (2007)ASUS Eee PC 900 (2008)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30606310</id>
	<title>Re:The decade isn't over yet!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262280780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you are counting from one to ten you start at one and end at ten.</p><p>News at Eleven.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are counting from one to ten you start at one and end at ten.News at Eleven .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are counting from one to ten you start at one and end at ten.News at Eleven.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603276</id>
	<title>Playstation 2 = Gadget</title>
	<author>WarpedCore</author>
	<datestamp>1259867520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think what bothered me with the 360 making the list versus the PS2 is the fact that Engadget editors measured the 360 based on Live, which is a service, NOT a gadget. Gmail was awesome, didn't make the list... neither did DropBox or a bunch of other ways to communicate data.

The Dreamcast pioneered the whole console gaming internet thing a bit earlier in 1999 before the PS2 literally nailed the last piece in its coffin in 2001. Microsoft merely took the online idea and threw more money than Sega had to make it happen. Microsoft merely took Sega's evolutionary dead-end and sparked it back to life.

PS2 should get honors for standardizing DVD playback, moving forward game based storage to DVDs, and generally offering a baseline standard for what "next-gen" should of been back in 2000.

Wii... should get an honorable mention because Nintendo took a dated and... well not a hot selling platform (GameCube) and MacGuyver'd it into something that would sell and drive Nintendo back into a profitable home console platform.

The DS came in the wake of the dying PDA craze in 2004 before multi-touch. The pen/stylus setup probably was a risky direction to take since... say the Sony Clie was pulled out during the same time.

DS proved that touch-based inputs could work for a massive audience... sparked the direction the Wii took. Today, we have Microsoft and Sony trying to catch up with their motion based interaction setups. Apple and other handheld makers have introduced touch-capable devices on everything under the sun. DS was engineered by people that liked neat things and this happened to be a hit. I mean, TWO screened handhelds seemed a bit unrealistic too. The DS success made Sega's VMU and Nintendo's GBA-GC two screen system link ideas feel like they didn't go to waste. Supplemental screens work if they're designed in every system.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think what bothered me with the 360 making the list versus the PS2 is the fact that Engadget editors measured the 360 based on Live , which is a service , NOT a gadget .
Gmail was awesome , did n't make the list... neither did DropBox or a bunch of other ways to communicate data .
The Dreamcast pioneered the whole console gaming internet thing a bit earlier in 1999 before the PS2 literally nailed the last piece in its coffin in 2001 .
Microsoft merely took the online idea and threw more money than Sega had to make it happen .
Microsoft merely took Sega 's evolutionary dead-end and sparked it back to life .
PS2 should get honors for standardizing DVD playback , moving forward game based storage to DVDs , and generally offering a baseline standard for what " next-gen " should of been back in 2000 .
Wii... should get an honorable mention because Nintendo took a dated and... well not a hot selling platform ( GameCube ) and MacGuyver 'd it into something that would sell and drive Nintendo back into a profitable home console platform .
The DS came in the wake of the dying PDA craze in 2004 before multi-touch .
The pen/stylus setup probably was a risky direction to take since... say the Sony Clie was pulled out during the same time .
DS proved that touch-based inputs could work for a massive audience... sparked the direction the Wii took .
Today , we have Microsoft and Sony trying to catch up with their motion based interaction setups .
Apple and other handheld makers have introduced touch-capable devices on everything under the sun .
DS was engineered by people that liked neat things and this happened to be a hit .
I mean , TWO screened handhelds seemed a bit unrealistic too .
The DS success made Sega 's VMU and Nintendo 's GBA-GC two screen system link ideas feel like they did n't go to waste .
Supplemental screens work if they 're designed in every system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think what bothered me with the 360 making the list versus the PS2 is the fact that Engadget editors measured the 360 based on Live, which is a service, NOT a gadget.
Gmail was awesome, didn't make the list... neither did DropBox or a bunch of other ways to communicate data.
The Dreamcast pioneered the whole console gaming internet thing a bit earlier in 1999 before the PS2 literally nailed the last piece in its coffin in 2001.
Microsoft merely took the online idea and threw more money than Sega had to make it happen.
Microsoft merely took Sega's evolutionary dead-end and sparked it back to life.
PS2 should get honors for standardizing DVD playback, moving forward game based storage to DVDs, and generally offering a baseline standard for what "next-gen" should of been back in 2000.
Wii... should get an honorable mention because Nintendo took a dated and... well not a hot selling platform (GameCube) and MacGuyver'd it into something that would sell and drive Nintendo back into a profitable home console platform.
The DS came in the wake of the dying PDA craze in 2004 before multi-touch.
The pen/stylus setup probably was a risky direction to take since... say the Sony Clie was pulled out during the same time.
DS proved that touch-based inputs could work for a massive audience... sparked the direction the Wii took.
Today, we have Microsoft and Sony trying to catch up with their motion based interaction setups.
Apple and other handheld makers have introduced touch-capable devices on everything under the sun.
DS was engineered by people that liked neat things and this happened to be a hit.
I mean, TWO screened handhelds seemed a bit unrealistic too.
The DS success made Sega's VMU and Nintendo's GBA-GC two screen system link ideas feel like they didn't go to waste.
Supplemental screens work if they're designed in every system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30605346</id>
	<title>Re:trinkets or tools?</title>
	<author>ewe2</author>
	<datestamp>1262275980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can see where you're going with this. But money is still the barrier to media entry. If they can, they'll invent a way to keep control of the culture. I always use DAT as my example. We could have had this superior technology go mainstream years ago, but the content controllers smelt danger, and only recording studios could afford them. Now of course anyone can produce high quality media, but the fences being erected now are different. We have copyright, DMCA, Trusted Computing, HDMI, and good old money to prove that the old guard still got it bitches. Most of the media we're using for community content are money bitbuckets, in the red and unlikely to change. It's becoming much more the individual success story until the media landscape hardens again and we get a new oligarchy of mindshare. That's just the way we white niggers are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can see where you 're going with this .
But money is still the barrier to media entry .
If they can , they 'll invent a way to keep control of the culture .
I always use DAT as my example .
We could have had this superior technology go mainstream years ago , but the content controllers smelt danger , and only recording studios could afford them .
Now of course anyone can produce high quality media , but the fences being erected now are different .
We have copyright , DMCA , Trusted Computing , HDMI , and good old money to prove that the old guard still got it bitches .
Most of the media we 're using for community content are money bitbuckets , in the red and unlikely to change .
It 's becoming much more the individual success story until the media landscape hardens again and we get a new oligarchy of mindshare .
That 's just the way we white niggers are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can see where you're going with this.
But money is still the barrier to media entry.
If they can, they'll invent a way to keep control of the culture.
I always use DAT as my example.
We could have had this superior technology go mainstream years ago, but the content controllers smelt danger, and only recording studios could afford them.
Now of course anyone can produce high quality media, but the fences being erected now are different.
We have copyright, DMCA, Trusted Computing, HDMI, and good old money to prove that the old guard still got it bitches.
Most of the media we're using for community content are money bitbuckets, in the red and unlikely to change.
It's becoming much more the individual success story until the media landscape hardens again and we get a new oligarchy of mindshare.
That's just the way we white niggers are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604124</id>
	<title>Re:One killer "gadget"</title>
	<author>zlogic</author>
	<datestamp>1262261940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, pirating Windows is much harder now. In 1999, you only needed to enter a serial number printed on the pirated CD's packaging, now you need to make sure the software doesn't find out it's pirated during updates.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , pirating Windows is much harder now .
In 1999 , you only needed to enter a serial number printed on the pirated CD 's packaging , now you need to make sure the software does n't find out it 's pirated during updates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, pirating Windows is much harder now.
In 1999, you only needed to enter a serial number printed on the pirated CD's packaging, now you need to make sure the software doesn't find out it's pirated during updates.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30608372</id>
	<title>Re:Only one</title>
	<author>Quirkz</author>
	<datestamp>1262289180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Also, without problems like daily eye strain and weekly headaches. Switching over to LCD screens has made for a huge quality of life improvement for me. (Not as much as dumping the computer and getting outside might, but<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... well, that ain't gonna happen.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , without problems like daily eye strain and weekly headaches .
Switching over to LCD screens has made for a huge quality of life improvement for me .
( Not as much as dumping the computer and getting outside might , but ... well , that ai n't gon na happen .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, without problems like daily eye strain and weekly headaches.
Switching over to LCD screens has made for a huge quality of life improvement for me.
(Not as much as dumping the computer and getting outside might, but ... well, that ain't gonna happen.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30605674</id>
	<title>Re:The decade isn't over yet!</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1262277720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You do realise that any 10 years is a decade? The year 10 in fact belongs in <i>ten</i> decades - as does any year.</p><p>But traditionally people group the years into blocks that run X0-X9, probably because it's easy to say things like "eighties" and "nineties". This is the "naughties", which is 2000-2009.</p><p>If you want to run your own article next year for 2001-2010, no one is stopping you. But that's got nothing to do with this article, which has nothing wrong with it regarding the years chosen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do realise that any 10 years is a decade ?
The year 10 in fact belongs in ten decades - as does any year.But traditionally people group the years into blocks that run X0-X9 , probably because it 's easy to say things like " eighties " and " nineties " .
This is the " naughties " , which is 2000-2009.If you want to run your own article next year for 2001-2010 , no one is stopping you .
But that 's got nothing to do with this article , which has nothing wrong with it regarding the years chosen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do realise that any 10 years is a decade?
The year 10 in fact belongs in ten decades - as does any year.But traditionally people group the years into blocks that run X0-X9, probably because it's easy to say things like "eighties" and "nineties".
This is the "naughties", which is 2000-2009.If you want to run your own article next year for 2001-2010, no one is stopping you.
But that's got nothing to do with this article, which has nothing wrong with it regarding the years chosen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30607922</id>
	<title>I'll choose when "The Decade"(tm) is over</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262286960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which is in a year from now. One more year for you to try to understand that.<br>Can I already place bets on what year the mainstream media will call the end of the next decade?</p><p>Captcha: throbs, which is what the pain in my head does like when people don't understand basic math.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which is in a year from now .
One more year for you to try to understand that.Can I already place bets on what year the mainstream media will call the end of the next decade ? Captcha : throbs , which is what the pain in my head does like when people do n't understand basic math .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which is in a year from now.
One more year for you to try to understand that.Can I already place bets on what year the mainstream media will call the end of the next decade?Captcha: throbs, which is what the pain in my head does like when people don't understand basic math.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603798</id>
	<title>Re:Say what?</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1262253540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> I'm sorry, but I fail to see how XP looks anything but "dated", the hideous colors/theming aside.</p></div><p>My XP machines look even more dated because I have them set to the "classic" Win2000 style GUI. Those blue and silver themes literally gave me headaches, and my eyesight actually improved half a diopter after going back to the classic theme. Yah, probably a coincidence, but it makes a good story.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry , but I fail to see how XP looks anything but " dated " , the hideous colors/theming aside.My XP machines look even more dated because I have them set to the " classic " Win2000 style GUI .
Those blue and silver themes literally gave me headaches , and my eyesight actually improved half a diopter after going back to the classic theme .
Yah , probably a coincidence , but it makes a good story .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I'm sorry, but I fail to see how XP looks anything but "dated", the hideous colors/theming aside.My XP machines look even more dated because I have them set to the "classic" Win2000 style GUI.
Those blue and silver themes literally gave me headaches, and my eyesight actually improved half a diopter after going back to the classic theme.
Yah, probably a coincidence, but it makes a good story.
:-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604114</id>
	<title>No depth</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262261760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"... downfall of the desktop, and the series finale of Friends"</i>

<br> <br>There's something wrong with this guy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" ... downfall of the desktop , and the series finale of Friends " There 's something wrong with this guy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"... downfall of the desktop, and the series finale of Friends"

 There's something wrong with this guy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603364</id>
	<title>Re:GPS</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1259868420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe because neither Apple nor MS made one yet?</p><p>Let's be honest here, take a good look at the list and ask yourself why it's so Apple and MS centric? I can see iPhone and iPod, but the G4? XP? 360? Decade defining? C'mon...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe because neither Apple nor MS made one yet ? Let 's be honest here , take a good look at the list and ask yourself why it 's so Apple and MS centric ?
I can see iPhone and iPod , but the G4 ?
XP ? 360 ?
Decade defining ?
C'mon.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe because neither Apple nor MS made one yet?Let's be honest here, take a good look at the list and ask yourself why it's so Apple and MS centric?
I can see iPhone and iPod, but the G4?
XP? 360?
Decade defining?
C'mon...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603742</id>
	<title>Re:360?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262251440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I mean, is Microsoft buying Engadget off? The 360 as the console of the decade? Hardly. The 360 as the console of this generation? Possibly. But not the console of the decade, not by a long shot.</p></div><p>You should check out the rest of the article....</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I remember the introduction of the iPhone like it was yesterday: Team Engadget was holed up in a dingy, smelly hotel conference room south of the Las Vegas Convention Center in the thick of CES while our then-Editor-in-chief, a guy called Ryan Block, had taken a quick jaunt up to San Francisco to cover Macworld live. I can't describe the feeling in that room, the feeling I had as I was preparing our iPhone announcement post -- my heart was pounding. It was as though we knew what to expect and had absolutely no idea what to expect at the same time. It's something I haven't felt before or since, and I think most of the editors here would tell you the same. For a device -- any device -- to create that kind of emotion in a room full of jaded gadgetheads is pretty amazing, and I'm honestly not sure we'll ever experience it again.</p></div><p>Good. Lord. If you're going to cream all over Apple, keep it in the back room, not on the front page of a prominent website.</p><p>I think that tops the choice of an Xbox 360 by a good margin.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , is Microsoft buying Engadget off ?
The 360 as the console of the decade ?
Hardly. The 360 as the console of this generation ?
Possibly. But not the console of the decade , not by a long shot.You should check out the rest of the article....I remember the introduction of the iPhone like it was yesterday : Team Engadget was holed up in a dingy , smelly hotel conference room south of the Las Vegas Convention Center in the thick of CES while our then-Editor-in-chief , a guy called Ryan Block , had taken a quick jaunt up to San Francisco to cover Macworld live .
I ca n't describe the feeling in that room , the feeling I had as I was preparing our iPhone announcement post -- my heart was pounding .
It was as though we knew what to expect and had absolutely no idea what to expect at the same time .
It 's something I have n't felt before or since , and I think most of the editors here would tell you the same .
For a device -- any device -- to create that kind of emotion in a room full of jaded gadgetheads is pretty amazing , and I 'm honestly not sure we 'll ever experience it again.Good .
Lord. If you 're going to cream all over Apple , keep it in the back room , not on the front page of a prominent website.I think that tops the choice of an Xbox 360 by a good margin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, is Microsoft buying Engadget off?
The 360 as the console of the decade?
Hardly. The 360 as the console of this generation?
Possibly. But not the console of the decade, not by a long shot.You should check out the rest of the article....I remember the introduction of the iPhone like it was yesterday: Team Engadget was holed up in a dingy, smelly hotel conference room south of the Las Vegas Convention Center in the thick of CES while our then-Editor-in-chief, a guy called Ryan Block, had taken a quick jaunt up to San Francisco to cover Macworld live.
I can't describe the feeling in that room, the feeling I had as I was preparing our iPhone announcement post -- my heart was pounding.
It was as though we knew what to expect and had absolutely no idea what to expect at the same time.
It's something I haven't felt before or since, and I think most of the editors here would tell you the same.
For a device -- any device -- to create that kind of emotion in a room full of jaded gadgetheads is pretty amazing, and I'm honestly not sure we'll ever experience it again.Good.
Lord. If you're going to cream all over Apple, keep it in the back room, not on the front page of a prominent website.I think that tops the choice of an Xbox 360 by a good margin.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30607534</id>
	<title>Re:trinkets or tools?</title>
	<author>melf-san</author>
	<datestamp>1262285460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>tl;dr</htmltext>
<tokenext>tl ; dr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>tl;dr</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603130</id>
	<title>360?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259865180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Really, the 360 as the video game console of the decade? The PS2 really changed things more than the 360 for the simple reason of the DVD player. Before the PS2 most people didn't have a DVD player, why switch? The VHS format was still going strong and while it was clear that DVD was the way of the future, most players were simply too expensive. Then the PS2 came along and changed that. Similarly, the PS2s library is -still being added to- giving it a pretty long shelf life. Of all the current-gen consoles the Wii defined and changed the decade the most, and one could argue that the PS3 changed more than the 360 did. <br> <br>

Engadget's justification is rather lame <p><div class="quote"><p> but Microsoft's audacious approach to charging people to play online with Xbox Live Gold actually ended up as the console's greatest strength, and a key to its staying power</p> </div><p>

Charging people wasn't its strength. Its strength was it was the one online service that didn't totally suck. Lets see, Nintendo's online service lets you play with friends if you send them a random string of letters and numbers as a "friend code", won't let you type messages on most games, oh and the one game that would have had online as a killer feature, Super Smash Bros. Brawl, the online mode is so messed up because it compensates for lag on one player's end by making the entire match laggy for everyone. Yeah Nintendo sure raised the bar high. PSN is good, but has too many flawed features. For example, PlayStation Home. The idea is good, take human avatars to a new level, the implementation is flawed. It is nothing but ads. <br> <br>

Engadget also manages to glance over the RRoD issue that plagued early Xbox owners. <br> <br>

I mean, is Microsoft buying Engadget off? The 360 as the console of the decade? Hardly. The 360 as the console of this generation? Possibly. But not the console of the decade, not by a long shot.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really , the 360 as the video game console of the decade ?
The PS2 really changed things more than the 360 for the simple reason of the DVD player .
Before the PS2 most people did n't have a DVD player , why switch ?
The VHS format was still going strong and while it was clear that DVD was the way of the future , most players were simply too expensive .
Then the PS2 came along and changed that .
Similarly , the PS2s library is -still being added to- giving it a pretty long shelf life .
Of all the current-gen consoles the Wii defined and changed the decade the most , and one could argue that the PS3 changed more than the 360 did .
Engadget 's justification is rather lame but Microsoft 's audacious approach to charging people to play online with Xbox Live Gold actually ended up as the console 's greatest strength , and a key to its staying power Charging people was n't its strength .
Its strength was it was the one online service that did n't totally suck .
Lets see , Nintendo 's online service lets you play with friends if you send them a random string of letters and numbers as a " friend code " , wo n't let you type messages on most games , oh and the one game that would have had online as a killer feature , Super Smash Bros. Brawl , the online mode is so messed up because it compensates for lag on one player 's end by making the entire match laggy for everyone .
Yeah Nintendo sure raised the bar high .
PSN is good , but has too many flawed features .
For example , PlayStation Home .
The idea is good , take human avatars to a new level , the implementation is flawed .
It is nothing but ads .
Engadget also manages to glance over the RRoD issue that plagued early Xbox owners .
I mean , is Microsoft buying Engadget off ?
The 360 as the console of the decade ?
Hardly. The 360 as the console of this generation ?
Possibly. But not the console of the decade , not by a long shot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really, the 360 as the video game console of the decade?
The PS2 really changed things more than the 360 for the simple reason of the DVD player.
Before the PS2 most people didn't have a DVD player, why switch?
The VHS format was still going strong and while it was clear that DVD was the way of the future, most players were simply too expensive.
Then the PS2 came along and changed that.
Similarly, the PS2s library is -still being added to- giving it a pretty long shelf life.
Of all the current-gen consoles the Wii defined and changed the decade the most, and one could argue that the PS3 changed more than the 360 did.
Engadget's justification is rather lame  but Microsoft's audacious approach to charging people to play online with Xbox Live Gold actually ended up as the console's greatest strength, and a key to its staying power 

Charging people wasn't its strength.
Its strength was it was the one online service that didn't totally suck.
Lets see, Nintendo's online service lets you play with friends if you send them a random string of letters and numbers as a "friend code", won't let you type messages on most games, oh and the one game that would have had online as a killer feature, Super Smash Bros. Brawl, the online mode is so messed up because it compensates for lag on one player's end by making the entire match laggy for everyone.
Yeah Nintendo sure raised the bar high.
PSN is good, but has too many flawed features.
For example, PlayStation Home.
The idea is good, take human avatars to a new level, the implementation is flawed.
It is nothing but ads.
Engadget also manages to glance over the RRoD issue that plagued early Xbox owners.
I mean, is Microsoft buying Engadget off?
The 360 as the console of the decade?
Hardly. The 360 as the console of this generation?
Possibly. But not the console of the decade, not by a long shot.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603578</id>
	<title>Only one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262290980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The LCD display.</p><p>The only thing that's really changed is that we have finally gotten rid of CRTs.</p><p>Everything else is just a bigger or smaller version of stuff we already had.</p><p>Most of our new toys are finally possible due to cheap and tiny displays.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The LCD display.The only thing that 's really changed is that we have finally gotten rid of CRTs.Everything else is just a bigger or smaller version of stuff we already had.Most of our new toys are finally possible due to cheap and tiny displays .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The LCD display.The only thing that's really changed is that we have finally gotten rid of CRTs.Everything else is just a bigger or smaller version of stuff we already had.Most of our new toys are finally possible due to cheap and tiny displays.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30605302</id>
	<title>Re:GPS</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1262275800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and I agree about the G4 - no one thinks about the 2000s and goes "Ah yes, that was when everyone used Mac G4s". Even if one is taking an Apple-biased view of the decade, the G4 is a dead end, with the move to Intel.</p><p>Let's have a look at the size of that RDF:</p><p><i>the titanium PowerBook G4 stands as one of those pivotal moments in Apple design history -- a moment when everyone (even non-fanboys) had to take notice</i></p><p>Jesus - seriously? The author of this article needs to get a grip on reality, and get a sense of perspective. Not everyone has the same view, or sense of importance, of whatever 10 gadgets he personally liked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and I agree about the G4 - no one thinks about the 2000s and goes " Ah yes , that was when everyone used Mac G4s " .
Even if one is taking an Apple-biased view of the decade , the G4 is a dead end , with the move to Intel.Let 's have a look at the size of that RDF : the titanium PowerBook G4 stands as one of those pivotal moments in Apple design history -- a moment when everyone ( even non-fanboys ) had to take noticeJesus - seriously ?
The author of this article needs to get a grip on reality , and get a sense of perspective .
Not everyone has the same view , or sense of importance , of whatever 10 gadgets he personally liked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and I agree about the G4 - no one thinks about the 2000s and goes "Ah yes, that was when everyone used Mac G4s".
Even if one is taking an Apple-biased view of the decade, the G4 is a dead end, with the move to Intel.Let's have a look at the size of that RDF:the titanium PowerBook G4 stands as one of those pivotal moments in Apple design history -- a moment when everyone (even non-fanboys) had to take noticeJesus - seriously?
The author of this article needs to get a grip on reality, and get a sense of perspective.
Not everyone has the same view, or sense of importance, of whatever 10 gadgets he personally liked.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30605392</id>
	<title>Re:GPS</title>
	<author>forkazoo</author>
	<datestamp>1262276160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>In the last 10 years, portable GPS navigation has become ubiquitous in cars.<br>They're so cheap nowadays that I got one as a gift.<br>I'm sure there's one that could be pointed to as the breakout device.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/I still have in the car paper maps for ~5 States</p></div></blockquote><p>GPS is also notable for the fact that it absolutely won't be a defining gadget of the next decade.  While predictions are always hard, and I can't be very specific about what will be the gadget of the next decade, I expect that GPS technology will become so common in cars, phones, shoelaces, etc., that it completely recedes from concious thought as a significant feature.  Already, GPS isn't a very big selling point for a phone any more than "man-portable", or "has an antenna."  Because almost nobody will specifically buy a GPS unit, the technology is likely to become so onmipresent that nobody cares about it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the last 10 years , portable GPS navigation has become ubiquitous in cars.They 're so cheap nowadays that I got one as a gift.I 'm sure there 's one that could be pointed to as the breakout device .
/I still have in the car paper maps for ~ 5 StatesGPS is also notable for the fact that it absolutely wo n't be a defining gadget of the next decade .
While predictions are always hard , and I ca n't be very specific about what will be the gadget of the next decade , I expect that GPS technology will become so common in cars , phones , shoelaces , etc. , that it completely recedes from concious thought as a significant feature .
Already , GPS is n't a very big selling point for a phone any more than " man-portable " , or " has an antenna .
" Because almost nobody will specifically buy a GPS unit , the technology is likely to become so onmipresent that nobody cares about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the last 10 years, portable GPS navigation has become ubiquitous in cars.They're so cheap nowadays that I got one as a gift.I'm sure there's one that could be pointed to as the breakout device.
/I still have in the car paper maps for ~5 StatesGPS is also notable for the fact that it absolutely won't be a defining gadget of the next decade.
While predictions are always hard, and I can't be very specific about what will be the gadget of the next decade, I expect that GPS technology will become so common in cars, phones, shoelaces, etc., that it completely recedes from concious thought as a significant feature.
Already, GPS isn't a very big selling point for a phone any more than "man-portable", or "has an antenna.
"  Because almost nobody will specifically buy a GPS unit, the technology is likely to become so onmipresent that nobody cares about it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603986</id>
	<title>Obviouslyerer...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262258700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB\_flash\_drive" title="wikipedia.org">The one gadget that DID define the decade.</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The one gadget that DID define the decade .
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The one gadget that DID define the decade.
[wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30607996</id>
	<title>Re:360?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262287320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is still a year left in the decade for the PS3 to outsell it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is still a year left in the decade for the PS3 to outsell it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is still a year left in the decade for the PS3 to outsell it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603256</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603568</id>
	<title>Box Cutter?</title>
	<author>cpuffer\_hammer</author>
	<datestamp>1262290740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would be more interesting looking at influence instead of favourite. I am not normally a look backwards type person, but almost everything that we think of as key to this decade is influenced by this simple tool (or in this case do to intent weapon).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be more interesting looking at influence instead of favourite .
I am not normally a look backwards type person , but almost everything that we think of as key to this decade is influenced by this simple tool ( or in this case do to intent weapon ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be more interesting looking at influence instead of favourite.
I am not normally a look backwards type person, but almost everything that we think of as key to this decade is influenced by this simple tool (or in this case do to intent weapon).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603948</id>
	<title>USB stick - webcam</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262257680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed for the GPS  they're now common as muck, and I'm basically considered a troglodyte for not having one in the car.</p><p>Being so happy to be rid of the dreaded diskette collection, I personally would have included the now ubiquitous, and often free, USB keychain storage device. Software installation and document transfer are a cinch compared to what they were, without even mentioning song swapping.</p><p>What about the webcam? This has revolutionized communications and activity scheduling - want to see what the ski slopes look like today - check out the weather to the west - webcams galore. Sure, they existed before, but buying one for your granma to chat to her grandkids wasn't an option before either.</p><p>The boys at engadget clearly don't match my memories, cause I would have pinned the smokeless pipe, or cannabis vaporiser, as one of the best gadgets made popular this decade too. Then again, they included WinXP, so I don't want whatever shit they're smoking anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed for the GPS they 're now common as muck , and I 'm basically considered a troglodyte for not having one in the car.Being so happy to be rid of the dreaded diskette collection , I personally would have included the now ubiquitous , and often free , USB keychain storage device .
Software installation and document transfer are a cinch compared to what they were , without even mentioning song swapping.What about the webcam ?
This has revolutionized communications and activity scheduling - want to see what the ski slopes look like today - check out the weather to the west - webcams galore .
Sure , they existed before , but buying one for your granma to chat to her grandkids was n't an option before either.The boys at engadget clearly do n't match my memories , cause I would have pinned the smokeless pipe , or cannabis vaporiser , as one of the best gadgets made popular this decade too .
Then again , they included WinXP , so I do n't want whatever shit they 're smoking anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed for the GPS  they're now common as muck, and I'm basically considered a troglodyte for not having one in the car.Being so happy to be rid of the dreaded diskette collection, I personally would have included the now ubiquitous, and often free, USB keychain storage device.
Software installation and document transfer are a cinch compared to what they were, without even mentioning song swapping.What about the webcam?
This has revolutionized communications and activity scheduling - want to see what the ski slopes look like today - check out the weather to the west - webcams galore.
Sure, they existed before, but buying one for your granma to chat to her grandkids wasn't an option before either.The boys at engadget clearly don't match my memories, cause I would have pinned the smokeless pipe, or cannabis vaporiser, as one of the best gadgets made popular this decade too.
Then again, they included WinXP, so I don't want whatever shit they're smoking anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604888</id>
	<title>nt kernel</title>
	<author>jsnipy</author>
	<datestamp>1262273040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Windows XP brought the entire Windows family onto the vastly more stable NT kernel" ------- I thought Windows 2000 used the NT kernel before XP.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Windows XP brought the entire Windows family onto the vastly more stable NT kernel " ------- I thought Windows 2000 used the NT kernel before XP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Windows XP brought the entire Windows family onto the vastly more stable NT kernel" ------- I thought Windows 2000 used the NT kernel before XP.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30605014</id>
	<title>Re:360?</title>
	<author>Late Adopter</author>
	<datestamp>1262273760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know... I'm in pretty strong love with my 360.  It gets online "right", not like you have an option at the bottom of a menu in 3 or 4 games, but rather that it's a natural and seamless part of the console itself, to the point where it feels like half a xbox when my ethernet cable's not plugged in.
<br> <br>
But why not the DS?  It was around for more of the decade, and it also stroked my amazement at how simple and polished social gaming can be, with single-cart download play.  And I would wager the DS is in a lot more households.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know... I 'm in pretty strong love with my 360 .
It gets online " right " , not like you have an option at the bottom of a menu in 3 or 4 games , but rather that it 's a natural and seamless part of the console itself , to the point where it feels like half a xbox when my ethernet cable 's not plugged in .
But why not the DS ?
It was around for more of the decade , and it also stroked my amazement at how simple and polished social gaming can be , with single-cart download play .
And I would wager the DS is in a lot more households .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know... I'm in pretty strong love with my 360.
It gets online "right", not like you have an option at the bottom of a menu in 3 or 4 games, but rather that it's a natural and seamless part of the console itself, to the point where it feels like half a xbox when my ethernet cable's not plugged in.
But why not the DS?
It was around for more of the decade, and it also stroked my amazement at how simple and polished social gaming can be, with single-cart download play.
And I would wager the DS is in a lot more households.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603298</id>
	<title>Re:XP and OS X?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259867700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh.... scuse me, but how or what did XP define? Maybe someone could shed some light on how XP represents such a leap ahead that it warrants being called a "decade defining tool"? Basically it's Win2k with more color.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh.... scuse me , but how or what did XP define ?
Maybe someone could shed some light on how XP represents such a leap ahead that it warrants being called a " decade defining tool " ?
Basically it 's Win2k with more color .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh.... scuse me, but how or what did XP define?
Maybe someone could shed some light on how XP represents such a leap ahead that it warrants being called a "decade defining tool"?
Basically it's Win2k with more color.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604928</id>
	<title>Re:The list</title>
	<author>troll8901</author>
	<datestamp>1262273220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And in the meantime, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usb\_flash\_drive#History" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">USB flash drive</a> [wikipedia.org] was completely missed out. (credit: denzacar)</p><p>Am I too poor to buy the above items, or is this list a mismatch to most of our experiences?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And in the meantime , the USB flash drive [ wikipedia.org ] was completely missed out .
( credit : denzacar ) Am I too poor to buy the above items , or is this list a mismatch to most of our experiences ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And in the meantime, the USB flash drive [wikipedia.org] was completely missed out.
(credit: denzacar)Am I too poor to buy the above items, or is this list a mismatch to most of our experiences?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30605682</id>
	<title>Re:The list</title>
	<author>b1t r0t</author>
	<datestamp>1262277780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks for posting the list. Unfortunately it only made me want to read the article to see what the hell they were thinking.
</p><p>First of all, I think they were wrong by narrowing down things to specific models. That led to <i>three</i> of the spots being taken up by cell phones. This should have been a list of what <i>types</i> of gadgets defined the decade. After reading all the posts here, and thinking a bit about it, here's what I've come up with:
</p><p> <b>Digital Cameras</b> - No more having to get your film developed, though this did lead to the downfall of Polaroid. And the digital camera was made possible because of...
</p><p> <b>Flash Memory</b> - Both USB and cards, this allowed a lot of storage in a small space with low power requirements. The idea goes all the way back to Star Trek, though it took a bit longer to become reality than automatic doors. This also enabled...
</p><p> <b>iPod Nano and flash MP3 players in general</b> - While disk-based players were pretty revolutionary on their own, flash memory players were small, had no moving parts aside from the controls, and had much better battery life. In a package smaller than most TV remotes, you can store hours of music with enough battery to play it most of the day.
</p><p> <b>The Xbox</b> - The Xbox was the first game console with an Ethernet port built in. In an era when broadband was rapidly becoming important, none of the other consoles of the day had built-in Ethernet. The worst was that the Dreamcast's Ethernet module was canceled as soon as it was released, making it rare as hell, and it also wasn't supported very well. Xbox Live set standards on how a game console should interact with the internet, and the current generation of systems all have some kind of online support. The Xbox also started the trend of large amounts of storage in a console with its now laughable eight megabyte hard drive.
</p><p> <b>DVD</b> - Killed off tape as a format for pre-recorded video. Video tapes and players will wear out with use, but a well-cared-for DVD will last forever. "Be Kind - Rewind" is sooo '90s. Sorry, Sony fanboys, Blu-Ray is nowhere near as much of an improvement over DVD as DVD was over VHS.
</p><p> <b>Tivo and the DVR in general</b> - Killing off tape as a format for video time-shifting, thanks to digital video compression, big hard drives, and regularly updated schedules. And, oh yeah, it can pause and reverse live shows and skip commercials. DVR use is now an important part of television ratings.
</p><p> <b>Wireless Networking</b> - WiFi freed us from needing a wire to connect to the internet. This helped with the rise of...
</p><p> <b>Laptops</b> - This was the decade in which laptops took over from desktops. They range from netbooks (which themselves haven't quite become a fixture of the decade) to enormous desktop replacements. But they couldn't have been so important without...
</p><p> <b>Cheap LCD displays</b> - Sure, they were around in the '90s, but they were small and expensive. Making them big and cheap has led to the near-extinction of the CRT, and the only people crying are graphic artists who appreciate the color precision of CRT and people who like to play gun games on old video game consoles. They've even been killing off the plasma display.
</p><p> <b>Cell Phones</b> - More specifically, handheld cellphones. They've made the pay phone nearly extinct. Nobody noticed when the pay phone went up to 50 cents a call.
</p><p> <b>DSL/Cable Modem</b> - Hey, <i>my</i> list goes to eleven. DSL and cable modems freed the internet from the analog phone network. Always connected, and sometimes even with an assigned fixed IP. I've had fixed IP DSL since early 2000. This basically killed off the dial-up BBS overnight. The much higher speeds, combined with MP3 audio and MPEG video, made first Napster, then Bittorrent possible.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for posting the list .
Unfortunately it only made me want to read the article to see what the hell they were thinking .
First of all , I think they were wrong by narrowing down things to specific models .
That led to three of the spots being taken up by cell phones .
This should have been a list of what types of gadgets defined the decade .
After reading all the posts here , and thinking a bit about it , here 's what I 've come up with : Digital Cameras - No more having to get your film developed , though this did lead to the downfall of Polaroid .
And the digital camera was made possible because of.. . Flash Memory - Both USB and cards , this allowed a lot of storage in a small space with low power requirements .
The idea goes all the way back to Star Trek , though it took a bit longer to become reality than automatic doors .
This also enabled.. . iPod Nano and flash MP3 players in general - While disk-based players were pretty revolutionary on their own , flash memory players were small , had no moving parts aside from the controls , and had much better battery life .
In a package smaller than most TV remotes , you can store hours of music with enough battery to play it most of the day .
The Xbox - The Xbox was the first game console with an Ethernet port built in .
In an era when broadband was rapidly becoming important , none of the other consoles of the day had built-in Ethernet .
The worst was that the Dreamcast 's Ethernet module was canceled as soon as it was released , making it rare as hell , and it also was n't supported very well .
Xbox Live set standards on how a game console should interact with the internet , and the current generation of systems all have some kind of online support .
The Xbox also started the trend of large amounts of storage in a console with its now laughable eight megabyte hard drive .
DVD - Killed off tape as a format for pre-recorded video .
Video tapes and players will wear out with use , but a well-cared-for DVD will last forever .
" Be Kind - Rewind " is sooo '90s .
Sorry , Sony fanboys , Blu-Ray is nowhere near as much of an improvement over DVD as DVD was over VHS .
Tivo and the DVR in general - Killing off tape as a format for video time-shifting , thanks to digital video compression , big hard drives , and regularly updated schedules .
And , oh yeah , it can pause and reverse live shows and skip commercials .
DVR use is now an important part of television ratings .
Wireless Networking - WiFi freed us from needing a wire to connect to the internet .
This helped with the rise of.. . Laptops - This was the decade in which laptops took over from desktops .
They range from netbooks ( which themselves have n't quite become a fixture of the decade ) to enormous desktop replacements .
But they could n't have been so important without.. . Cheap LCD displays - Sure , they were around in the '90s , but they were small and expensive .
Making them big and cheap has led to the near-extinction of the CRT , and the only people crying are graphic artists who appreciate the color precision of CRT and people who like to play gun games on old video game consoles .
They 've even been killing off the plasma display .
Cell Phones - More specifically , handheld cellphones .
They 've made the pay phone nearly extinct .
Nobody noticed when the pay phone went up to 50 cents a call .
DSL/Cable Modem - Hey , my list goes to eleven .
DSL and cable modems freed the internet from the analog phone network .
Always connected , and sometimes even with an assigned fixed IP .
I 've had fixed IP DSL since early 2000 .
This basically killed off the dial-up BBS overnight .
The much higher speeds , combined with MP3 audio and MPEG video , made first Napster , then Bittorrent possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for posting the list.
Unfortunately it only made me want to read the article to see what the hell they were thinking.
First of all, I think they were wrong by narrowing down things to specific models.
That led to three of the spots being taken up by cell phones.
This should have been a list of what types of gadgets defined the decade.
After reading all the posts here, and thinking a bit about it, here's what I've come up with:
 Digital Cameras - No more having to get your film developed, though this did lead to the downfall of Polaroid.
And the digital camera was made possible because of...
 Flash Memory - Both USB and cards, this allowed a lot of storage in a small space with low power requirements.
The idea goes all the way back to Star Trek, though it took a bit longer to become reality than automatic doors.
This also enabled...
 iPod Nano and flash MP3 players in general - While disk-based players were pretty revolutionary on their own, flash memory players were small, had no moving parts aside from the controls, and had much better battery life.
In a package smaller than most TV remotes, you can store hours of music with enough battery to play it most of the day.
The Xbox - The Xbox was the first game console with an Ethernet port built in.
In an era when broadband was rapidly becoming important, none of the other consoles of the day had built-in Ethernet.
The worst was that the Dreamcast's Ethernet module was canceled as soon as it was released, making it rare as hell, and it also wasn't supported very well.
Xbox Live set standards on how a game console should interact with the internet, and the current generation of systems all have some kind of online support.
The Xbox also started the trend of large amounts of storage in a console with its now laughable eight megabyte hard drive.
DVD - Killed off tape as a format for pre-recorded video.
Video tapes and players will wear out with use, but a well-cared-for DVD will last forever.
"Be Kind - Rewind" is sooo '90s.
Sorry, Sony fanboys, Blu-Ray is nowhere near as much of an improvement over DVD as DVD was over VHS.
Tivo and the DVR in general - Killing off tape as a format for video time-shifting, thanks to digital video compression, big hard drives, and regularly updated schedules.
And, oh yeah, it can pause and reverse live shows and skip commercials.
DVR use is now an important part of television ratings.
Wireless Networking - WiFi freed us from needing a wire to connect to the internet.
This helped with the rise of...
 Laptops - This was the decade in which laptops took over from desktops.
They range from netbooks (which themselves haven't quite become a fixture of the decade) to enormous desktop replacements.
But they couldn't have been so important without...
 Cheap LCD displays - Sure, they were around in the '90s, but they were small and expensive.
Making them big and cheap has led to the near-extinction of the CRT, and the only people crying are graphic artists who appreciate the color precision of CRT and people who like to play gun games on old video game consoles.
They've even been killing off the plasma display.
Cell Phones - More specifically, handheld cellphones.
They've made the pay phone nearly extinct.
Nobody noticed when the pay phone went up to 50 cents a call.
DSL/Cable Modem - Hey, my list goes to eleven.
DSL and cable modems freed the internet from the analog phone network.
Always connected, and sometimes even with an assigned fixed IP.
I've had fixed IP DSL since early 2000.
This basically killed off the dial-up BBS overnight.
The much higher speeds, combined with MP3 audio and MPEG video, made first Napster, then Bittorrent possible.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30605096</id>
	<title>Some items missing from the list</title>
	<author>DJRumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1262274240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LCD Technology<br>Wireless G<br>HDTV<br>H.264<br>Multi-Core technology<br>LED<br>Bluetooth<br>3G<br>Cable Modems/DSL Broadband technology</p><p>Note that some of these existed in early forms prior to 2000, but they took new directions, or simply took off for the consumer in the last decade.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LCD TechnologyWireless GHDTVH.264Multi-Core technologyLEDBluetooth3GCable Modems/DSL Broadband technologyNote that some of these existed in early forms prior to 2000 , but they took new directions , or simply took off for the consumer in the last decade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LCD TechnologyWireless GHDTVH.264Multi-Core technologyLEDBluetooth3GCable Modems/DSL Broadband technologyNote that some of these existed in early forms prior to 2000, but they took new directions, or simply took off for the consumer in the last decade.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603124</id>
	<title>The iPod?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259865180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No wireless .
Less space than a nomad .
Lame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No wireless.
Less space than a nomad.
Lame.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30609160</id>
	<title>Re:The iPod didn't come of age...</title>
	<author>LanMan04</author>
	<datestamp>1262250300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A) USB 2.0 can choke and die.  Firewire 400 is leaps and bounds faster, and was present on pretty much every Mac sold at the time.  You do remember iPods were for Macs only at the beginning, right?  And then there was a special PC version, before they were unified into a single line?</p><p>B) My 2nd Gen 20GB has a non-spinning wheel surrounded by 4 "compass rose" buttons.  How is clicking the wheel itself that different from clicking the buttons at the very edge of the wheel?</p><p>I love my 2nd Gen iPod, unfortunately the hard disk died about 2 years ago.  RIP</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A ) USB 2.0 can choke and die .
Firewire 400 is leaps and bounds faster , and was present on pretty much every Mac sold at the time .
You do remember iPods were for Macs only at the beginning , right ?
And then there was a special PC version , before they were unified into a single line ? B ) My 2nd Gen 20GB has a non-spinning wheel surrounded by 4 " compass rose " buttons .
How is clicking the wheel itself that different from clicking the buttons at the very edge of the wheel ? I love my 2nd Gen iPod , unfortunately the hard disk died about 2 years ago .
RIP</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A) USB 2.0 can choke and die.
Firewire 400 is leaps and bounds faster, and was present on pretty much every Mac sold at the time.
You do remember iPods were for Macs only at the beginning, right?
And then there was a special PC version, before they were unified into a single line?B) My 2nd Gen 20GB has a non-spinning wheel surrounded by 4 "compass rose" buttons.
How is clicking the wheel itself that different from clicking the buttons at the very edge of the wheel?I love my 2nd Gen iPod, unfortunately the hard disk died about 2 years ago.
RIP</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30605162</id>
	<title>Re:The iPod?</title>
	<author>u38cg</author>
	<datestamp>1262274900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One of my few remaining desires in life is to see Taco print that story out, stick it in a blender with a little water, and eat his words.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of my few remaining desires in life is to see Taco print that story out , stick it in a blender with a little water , and eat his words .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of my few remaining desires in life is to see Taco print that story out, stick it in a blender with a little water, and eat his words.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30615220</id>
	<title>Re:XP and OS X?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1230838320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Uh.... scuse me, but how or what did XP define? Maybe someone could shed some light on how XP represents such a leap ahead that it warrants being called a "decade defining tool"? Basically it's Win2k with more color.</p></div><p>Didn't it come after WinMe? Of course people thought it was a gigantic leap over tha POS...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh.... scuse me , but how or what did XP define ?
Maybe someone could shed some light on how XP represents such a leap ahead that it warrants being called a " decade defining tool " ?
Basically it 's Win2k with more color.Did n't it come after WinMe ?
Of course people thought it was a gigantic leap over tha POS.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh.... scuse me, but how or what did XP define?
Maybe someone could shed some light on how XP represents such a leap ahead that it warrants being called a "decade defining tool"?
Basically it's Win2k with more color.Didn't it come after WinMe?
Of course people thought it was a gigantic leap over tha POS...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603404</id>
	<title>Microsoft a Big Client of Theirs?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259869080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>To claim that Windows XP coming out of the gate set the bar so high that people won't upgrade to Windows 7 is such BS and complete sucking-up to Microsoft.  Until SP2 came out, Windows XP was a nest of security problems that made using it nearly impossible.  Wasn't that also the time when Firefox got started because IE was so horribly insecure and pop-up infested?  It had so many services turned on by default.  Anyone here remember the "net send" pop-ups?  That was possible with the default install of Windows XP prior to SP2, IIRC.  One thing XP established is the habit of waiting for at least SP1 to come out before switching.  Even after SP2, I still switch the theme back to Windows 2000 Classic.  I don't know where they got the idea of XP being such a spectacular winner out of the gate.  Windows 2000 was revolutionary in the Windows world in terms of stability and user friendliness.  Windows XP, until SP2, felt like a step back.  For a long time, I avoided the "consumer" line of Windows (ME, XP, and Vista) and prefer to use their "server/enterprise/workstation" line (2k, 2k3) because of the lack of bloat and higher level of security.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To claim that Windows XP coming out of the gate set the bar so high that people wo n't upgrade to Windows 7 is such BS and complete sucking-up to Microsoft .
Until SP2 came out , Windows XP was a nest of security problems that made using it nearly impossible .
Was n't that also the time when Firefox got started because IE was so horribly insecure and pop-up infested ?
It had so many services turned on by default .
Anyone here remember the " net send " pop-ups ?
That was possible with the default install of Windows XP prior to SP2 , IIRC .
One thing XP established is the habit of waiting for at least SP1 to come out before switching .
Even after SP2 , I still switch the theme back to Windows 2000 Classic .
I do n't know where they got the idea of XP being such a spectacular winner out of the gate .
Windows 2000 was revolutionary in the Windows world in terms of stability and user friendliness .
Windows XP , until SP2 , felt like a step back .
For a long time , I avoided the " consumer " line of Windows ( ME , XP , and Vista ) and prefer to use their " server/enterprise/workstation " line ( 2k , 2k3 ) because of the lack of bloat and higher level of security .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To claim that Windows XP coming out of the gate set the bar so high that people won't upgrade to Windows 7 is such BS and complete sucking-up to Microsoft.
Until SP2 came out, Windows XP was a nest of security problems that made using it nearly impossible.
Wasn't that also the time when Firefox got started because IE was so horribly insecure and pop-up infested?
It had so many services turned on by default.
Anyone here remember the "net send" pop-ups?
That was possible with the default install of Windows XP prior to SP2, IIRC.
One thing XP established is the habit of waiting for at least SP1 to come out before switching.
Even after SP2, I still switch the theme back to Windows 2000 Classic.
I don't know where they got the idea of XP being such a spectacular winner out of the gate.
Windows 2000 was revolutionary in the Windows world in terms of stability and user friendliness.
Windows XP, until SP2, felt like a step back.
For a long time, I avoided the "consumer" line of Windows (ME, XP, and Vista) and prefer to use their "server/enterprise/workstation" line (2k, 2k3) because of the lack of bloat and higher level of security.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603218</id>
	<title>trinkets or tools?</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1259866320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you said the 80's I'd say Rubik's Cube, Simon, and other toys. If you mean useful tools and not just novelties, the 80's is when the PC became more than just a hobbyist device. You had early brick cell phones but they truly came into their own in the 90's. Likewise, laptops went from being novelties to useful and only became more awesome in the 00's.</p><p>I think setting a round number to meet is kind of dumb. What if there weren't ten notable devices?</p><p>I think that the ipod and iphone are probably the most significant devices but not just for what they are but for what they presage. Ipod's music on the go is nice but Apple breaking into the music industry and becoming a major distributor has a far greater impact on the landscape. Iphone put a crack in the usual walled garden arrangement of US carriers and is showing competitors how to do things. Handheld computers have been around for ages but the ipod/phone is bringing us to the point at which there's enough market saturation to change the way we do things.</p><p>When I was a kid, only us geeks had computers. You went to school and you looked for other freaks and outcasts. That's where you were likely to find other computer people. And we used computers for the usual geeky stuff, socializing over BBS, playing games, and being geeks. With the arrival of the internet, non-geek households started getting computers. And the early social scene really sucked in the rest of the youth audience. By the time I was in college, everyone had their own computers. And the more ways there were to socialize on them, the more popular they got. Yeah, in the past you had phreakers who were into phones for the tech of it and you had teenage girls who spent just as much time on the phone but only for gossiping with friends. Still, the phone had an impact on society, the way people live.</p><p>I bring up the social sites because the phones are providing as much functionality on them as a standard computer. And all of this is having an impact. A lot of people in my age range are going without cable tv, they can download whatever they want to watch. They are dropping landlines since the cell does everything they need. Traditional media channels are going to get boned. And all of this will have a cultural impact.</p><p>I can shop on my phone. I can download podcasts, videocasts, tv shows, music, books, audiobooks, access the net, and this is only the beginning. I think we're seeing the beginning of the destruction of mainstream media. Yeah, many have made that call before but I see it happening. Change comes with the youth and ends when the old generation dies off. AM radio is on its last legs. I don't know anyone who listens to FM radio anymore, not anyone under 50. MTV continues to be a joke and sets no trends anymore. Authors are cutting deals directly with Amazon to publish on Kindle. Podcasts and videocasts are gaining wider audiences and network/cable television continues to flounder with their broken advertising model. The shows may have a huge audience but the Neilsen ratings cannot account for it. This is why Family Guy got cancelled only to shock Fox by being a top-selling DVD of all time. They had no idea the kind of reach that show had and brought it back.</p><p>Everything I'm mentioning above I think is setting the stage for uncontrolled culture. It took big bucks to fund mass media back in the day. Now any yabob on Twitter can reach an audience in seconds that would make William Randolph Hearst get wood. And the cost? Nothing! They say never pick a fight with a man who buys ink by the barrel. How much worse does it get when the electrons are free?</p><p>Now it's possible that the audience won't fracture that much. Give kids free reign in a supermarket to eat anything they want and you know they're heading to the candy section regardless of how well the veggie section is stocked. Give the masses unfettered access to all media and they might end up gravitating back to the old celebrities or create new celebrities who will take the place of the old. It might still be possible to shape and mold public opinion as easily as before. But I have a gut feeling things could turn out differently in the 21st century. If the 20th century was defined by mass media, the 21st could be defined by what comes next.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you said the 80 's I 'd say Rubik 's Cube , Simon , and other toys .
If you mean useful tools and not just novelties , the 80 's is when the PC became more than just a hobbyist device .
You had early brick cell phones but they truly came into their own in the 90 's .
Likewise , laptops went from being novelties to useful and only became more awesome in the 00 's.I think setting a round number to meet is kind of dumb .
What if there were n't ten notable devices ? I think that the ipod and iphone are probably the most significant devices but not just for what they are but for what they presage .
Ipod 's music on the go is nice but Apple breaking into the music industry and becoming a major distributor has a far greater impact on the landscape .
Iphone put a crack in the usual walled garden arrangement of US carriers and is showing competitors how to do things .
Handheld computers have been around for ages but the ipod/phone is bringing us to the point at which there 's enough market saturation to change the way we do things.When I was a kid , only us geeks had computers .
You went to school and you looked for other freaks and outcasts .
That 's where you were likely to find other computer people .
And we used computers for the usual geeky stuff , socializing over BBS , playing games , and being geeks .
With the arrival of the internet , non-geek households started getting computers .
And the early social scene really sucked in the rest of the youth audience .
By the time I was in college , everyone had their own computers .
And the more ways there were to socialize on them , the more popular they got .
Yeah , in the past you had phreakers who were into phones for the tech of it and you had teenage girls who spent just as much time on the phone but only for gossiping with friends .
Still , the phone had an impact on society , the way people live.I bring up the social sites because the phones are providing as much functionality on them as a standard computer .
And all of this is having an impact .
A lot of people in my age range are going without cable tv , they can download whatever they want to watch .
They are dropping landlines since the cell does everything they need .
Traditional media channels are going to get boned .
And all of this will have a cultural impact.I can shop on my phone .
I can download podcasts , videocasts , tv shows , music , books , audiobooks , access the net , and this is only the beginning .
I think we 're seeing the beginning of the destruction of mainstream media .
Yeah , many have made that call before but I see it happening .
Change comes with the youth and ends when the old generation dies off .
AM radio is on its last legs .
I do n't know anyone who listens to FM radio anymore , not anyone under 50 .
MTV continues to be a joke and sets no trends anymore .
Authors are cutting deals directly with Amazon to publish on Kindle .
Podcasts and videocasts are gaining wider audiences and network/cable television continues to flounder with their broken advertising model .
The shows may have a huge audience but the Neilsen ratings can not account for it .
This is why Family Guy got cancelled only to shock Fox by being a top-selling DVD of all time .
They had no idea the kind of reach that show had and brought it back.Everything I 'm mentioning above I think is setting the stage for uncontrolled culture .
It took big bucks to fund mass media back in the day .
Now any yabob on Twitter can reach an audience in seconds that would make William Randolph Hearst get wood .
And the cost ?
Nothing ! They say never pick a fight with a man who buys ink by the barrel .
How much worse does it get when the electrons are free ? Now it 's possible that the audience wo n't fracture that much .
Give kids free reign in a supermarket to eat anything they want and you know they 're heading to the candy section regardless of how well the veggie section is stocked .
Give the masses unfettered access to all media and they might end up gravitating back to the old celebrities or create new celebrities who will take the place of the old .
It might still be possible to shape and mold public opinion as easily as before .
But I have a gut feeling things could turn out differently in the 21st century .
If the 20th century was defined by mass media , the 21st could be defined by what comes next .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you said the 80's I'd say Rubik's Cube, Simon, and other toys.
If you mean useful tools and not just novelties, the 80's is when the PC became more than just a hobbyist device.
You had early brick cell phones but they truly came into their own in the 90's.
Likewise, laptops went from being novelties to useful and only became more awesome in the 00's.I think setting a round number to meet is kind of dumb.
What if there weren't ten notable devices?I think that the ipod and iphone are probably the most significant devices but not just for what they are but for what they presage.
Ipod's music on the go is nice but Apple breaking into the music industry and becoming a major distributor has a far greater impact on the landscape.
Iphone put a crack in the usual walled garden arrangement of US carriers and is showing competitors how to do things.
Handheld computers have been around for ages but the ipod/phone is bringing us to the point at which there's enough market saturation to change the way we do things.When I was a kid, only us geeks had computers.
You went to school and you looked for other freaks and outcasts.
That's where you were likely to find other computer people.
And we used computers for the usual geeky stuff, socializing over BBS, playing games, and being geeks.
With the arrival of the internet, non-geek households started getting computers.
And the early social scene really sucked in the rest of the youth audience.
By the time I was in college, everyone had their own computers.
And the more ways there were to socialize on them, the more popular they got.
Yeah, in the past you had phreakers who were into phones for the tech of it and you had teenage girls who spent just as much time on the phone but only for gossiping with friends.
Still, the phone had an impact on society, the way people live.I bring up the social sites because the phones are providing as much functionality on them as a standard computer.
And all of this is having an impact.
A lot of people in my age range are going without cable tv, they can download whatever they want to watch.
They are dropping landlines since the cell does everything they need.
Traditional media channels are going to get boned.
And all of this will have a cultural impact.I can shop on my phone.
I can download podcasts, videocasts, tv shows, music, books, audiobooks, access the net, and this is only the beginning.
I think we're seeing the beginning of the destruction of mainstream media.
Yeah, many have made that call before but I see it happening.
Change comes with the youth and ends when the old generation dies off.
AM radio is on its last legs.
I don't know anyone who listens to FM radio anymore, not anyone under 50.
MTV continues to be a joke and sets no trends anymore.
Authors are cutting deals directly with Amazon to publish on Kindle.
Podcasts and videocasts are gaining wider audiences and network/cable television continues to flounder with their broken advertising model.
The shows may have a huge audience but the Neilsen ratings cannot account for it.
This is why Family Guy got cancelled only to shock Fox by being a top-selling DVD of all time.
They had no idea the kind of reach that show had and brought it back.Everything I'm mentioning above I think is setting the stage for uncontrolled culture.
It took big bucks to fund mass media back in the day.
Now any yabob on Twitter can reach an audience in seconds that would make William Randolph Hearst get wood.
And the cost?
Nothing! They say never pick a fight with a man who buys ink by the barrel.
How much worse does it get when the electrons are free?Now it's possible that the audience won't fracture that much.
Give kids free reign in a supermarket to eat anything they want and you know they're heading to the candy section regardless of how well the veggie section is stocked.
Give the masses unfettered access to all media and they might end up gravitating back to the old celebrities or create new celebrities who will take the place of the old.
It might still be possible to shape and mold public opinion as easily as before.
But I have a gut feeling things could turn out differently in the 21st century.
If the 20th century was defined by mass media, the 21st could be defined by what comes next.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604112</id>
	<title>Re:The decade isn't over yet!</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1262261700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The decade that runs from Jan 1, 2000 through Dec 31 2009 is ending in less than a day.

</p><p>But I've already celebrated the end of the decade... the one that ran from Dec 31, 1999 through Dec 30 2009. It was one heck of a new-decade party last night, let me tell you!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The decade that runs from Jan 1 , 2000 through Dec 31 2009 is ending in less than a day .
But I 've already celebrated the end of the decade... the one that ran from Dec 31 , 1999 through Dec 30 2009 .
It was one heck of a new-decade party last night , let me tell you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The decade that runs from Jan 1, 2000 through Dec 31 2009 is ending in less than a day.
But I've already celebrated the end of the decade... the one that ran from Dec 31, 1999 through Dec 30 2009.
It was one heck of a new-decade party last night, let me tell you!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603418</id>
	<title>Re:360?</title>
	<author>Comatose51</author>
	<datestamp>1259869200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Have you read the part about Windows XP being so great right off bat that people aren't switching to Windows 7?  They seem to have forgotten about the fiasco before SP2 for Windows XP and how Firefox got its start around that time because IE was such an easy target and pop-up friendly.  I really think Microsoft is a big client of theirs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you read the part about Windows XP being so great right off bat that people are n't switching to Windows 7 ?
They seem to have forgotten about the fiasco before SP2 for Windows XP and how Firefox got its start around that time because IE was such an easy target and pop-up friendly .
I really think Microsoft is a big client of theirs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you read the part about Windows XP being so great right off bat that people aren't switching to Windows 7?
They seem to have forgotten about the fiasco before SP2 for Windows XP and how Firefox got its start around that time because IE was such an easy target and pop-up friendly.
I really think Microsoft is a big client of theirs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603174</id>
	<title>The iPod didn't come of age...</title>
	<author>MtViewGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1259865720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...Until this portable media player reached the 4G iPod (20 and 40 GB hard disk model) and the iPod mini (4 GB hard disk model) in 2004. These were the first iPods with the modern <i>Click Wheel</i> interface only and full USB 2.0 interface support.</p><p>Interestingly, it's been said the best-sounding of the iPods are the 2G iPods nano and 5G/5.5G iPods with the Wolfson DAC chip. Mind you, the current "6.5G" iPod classic (120GB/160 GB), 4G/5G iPod nano and the 2G/3G iPod touch overcame some of the early issues with the Cirrus Logic DACs and they too sound quite good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...Until this portable media player reached the 4G iPod ( 20 and 40 GB hard disk model ) and the iPod mini ( 4 GB hard disk model ) in 2004 .
These were the first iPods with the modern Click Wheel interface only and full USB 2.0 interface support.Interestingly , it 's been said the best-sounding of the iPods are the 2G iPods nano and 5G/5.5G iPods with the Wolfson DAC chip .
Mind you , the current " 6.5G " iPod classic ( 120GB/160 GB ) , 4G/5G iPod nano and the 2G/3G iPod touch overcame some of the early issues with the Cirrus Logic DACs and they too sound quite good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...Until this portable media player reached the 4G iPod (20 and 40 GB hard disk model) and the iPod mini (4 GB hard disk model) in 2004.
These were the first iPods with the modern Click Wheel interface only and full USB 2.0 interface support.Interestingly, it's been said the best-sounding of the iPods are the 2G iPods nano and 5G/5.5G iPods with the Wolfson DAC chip.
Mind you, the current "6.5G" iPod classic (120GB/160 GB), 4G/5G iPod nano and the 2G/3G iPod touch overcame some of the early issues with the Cirrus Logic DACs and they too sound quite good.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30606122</id>
	<title>3 out of 10 belong to Apple :)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262279820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe Apple is the most innovative company of the decade.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe Apple is the most innovative company of the decade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe Apple is the most innovative company of the decade.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603894</id>
	<title>Re:The decade isn't over yet!</title>
	<author>harlows\_monkeys</author>
	<datestamp>1262256060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Dammit, people. The decade runs through 2010. 2001-2010. Next year is the end of the decade. Not this year.</p></div><p>2001-2010 is <b>a</b> decade. So is 2003-2013. Or 1998-2007. However, <b>the</b> decade generally means a set of years such that floor(year/10) is constant for all years in the set. Or, as the New Oxford American Dictionary says in one of its definitions, <i>"a period of ten years beginning with a year ending in 0"</i>.</p><p>Yes, I know, you are going to say something about there being no year 0. That has no relevance whatsoever to how we choose today to group our years into a disjoint set of decades.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dammit , people .
The decade runs through 2010 .
2001-2010. Next year is the end of the decade .
Not this year.2001-2010 is a decade .
So is 2003-2013 .
Or 1998-2007 .
However , the decade generally means a set of years such that floor ( year/10 ) is constant for all years in the set .
Or , as the New Oxford American Dictionary says in one of its definitions , " a period of ten years beginning with a year ending in 0 " .Yes , I know , you are going to say something about there being no year 0 .
That has no relevance whatsoever to how we choose today to group our years into a disjoint set of decades .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Dammit, people.
The decade runs through 2010.
2001-2010. Next year is the end of the decade.
Not this year.2001-2010 is a decade.
So is 2003-2013.
Or 1998-2007.
However, the decade generally means a set of years such that floor(year/10) is constant for all years in the set.
Or, as the New Oxford American Dictionary says in one of its definitions, "a period of ten years beginning with a year ending in 0".Yes, I know, you are going to say something about there being no year 0.
That has no relevance whatsoever to how we choose today to group our years into a disjoint set of decades.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30610998</id>
	<title>Stop the madness</title>
	<author>Provocateur</author>
	<datestamp>1262263200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Somebody called this 'lazy journalism' where the writer comes up with a list (10 best/10 worst ad<br>infinitum) without having to disclose anything that you didn't already know. They usually pop up at<br>year's end.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Somebody called this 'lazy journalism ' where the writer comes up with a list ( 10 best/10 worst adinfinitum ) without having to disclose anything that you did n't already know .
They usually pop up atyear 's end .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somebody called this 'lazy journalism' where the writer comes up with a list (10 best/10 worst adinfinitum) without having to disclose anything that you didn't already know.
They usually pop up atyear's end.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603566</id>
	<title>Re:Playstation 2 = Gadget</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262290620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem with this list is that they make their selections based on a specific model/brand of gadget. Instead of xbox360 I would've just said 'online gaming consoles'. The list itself is very flawed and was probably concocted within a drunken stupor.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with this list is that they make their selections based on a specific model/brand of gadget .
Instead of xbox360 I would 've just said 'online gaming consoles' .
The list itself is very flawed and was probably concocted within a drunken stupor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with this list is that they make their selections based on a specific model/brand of gadget.
Instead of xbox360 I would've just said 'online gaming consoles'.
The list itself is very flawed and was probably concocted within a drunken stupor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604168</id>
	<title>Re:Only one</title>
	<author>zlogic</author>
	<datestamp>1262263080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LCD is really a smaller and lighter version or CRT<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) Okay, and without problems like out-of-focus and distortion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LCD is really a smaller and lighter version or CRT : ) Okay , and without problems like out-of-focus and distortion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LCD is really a smaller and lighter version or CRT :) Okay, and without problems like out-of-focus and distortion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30605586</id>
	<title>Re:Say what?</title>
	<author>ortholattice</author>
	<datestamp>1262277180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The thing I dislike about your OS X

<a href="http://www.guidebookgallery.org/pics/gui/desktop/firstrun/macosx103.png" title="guidebookgallery.org">screenshot</a> [guidebookgallery.org]
 is that the fonts
look like they were shoe-horned in to fit the pixels, rather than being carefully
designed <i>for</i> the available pixels.   As a result, they look
blurry and non-uniform.  This is most noticeable in the reverse-highlighted
"Midnite" on the l.h.s. of your screenshot.  The "d" stands out
brightly compared to its neighboring "i" and "n".  Even worse,
the first "i" is dim and the second "i" is bright, because the
second "i" happened align better with the pixels.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing I dislike about your OS X screenshot [ guidebookgallery.org ] is that the fonts look like they were shoe-horned in to fit the pixels , rather than being carefully designed for the available pixels .
As a result , they look blurry and non-uniform .
This is most noticeable in the reverse-highlighted " Midnite " on the l.h.s .
of your screenshot .
The " d " stands out brightly compared to its neighboring " i " and " n " .
Even worse , the first " i " is dim and the second " i " is bright , because the second " i " happened align better with the pixels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing I dislike about your OS X

screenshot [guidebookgallery.org]
 is that the fonts
look like they were shoe-horned in to fit the pixels, rather than being carefully
designed for the available pixels.
As a result, they look
blurry and non-uniform.
This is most noticeable in the reverse-highlighted
"Midnite" on the l.h.s.
of your screenshot.
The "d" stands out
brightly compared to its neighboring "i" and "n".
Even worse,
the first "i" is dim and the second "i" is bright, because the
second "i" happened align better with the pixels.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604312</id>
	<title>Re:trinkets or tools?</title>
	<author>Foolicious</author>
	<datestamp>1262266380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When I was a kid, only us geeks had computers. You went to school and you looked for other freaks and outcasts.</p></div><p>This was where I stopped reading your post.  Maybe the rest was good.  Maybe it wasn't.  Maybe I'm an idiot.  Maybe I'm not.  But that was where I stopped reading it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I was a kid , only us geeks had computers .
You went to school and you looked for other freaks and outcasts.This was where I stopped reading your post .
Maybe the rest was good .
Maybe it was n't .
Maybe I 'm an idiot .
Maybe I 'm not .
But that was where I stopped reading it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I was a kid, only us geeks had computers.
You went to school and you looked for other freaks and outcasts.This was where I stopped reading your post.
Maybe the rest was good.
Maybe it wasn't.
Maybe I'm an idiot.
Maybe I'm not.
But that was where I stopped reading it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604788</id>
	<title>Re:The decade isn't over yet!</title>
	<author>harlows\_monkeys</author>
	<datestamp>1262272260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So the year 10 was in two different decades?</p></div><p>The year 10 was in ten different decades (assuming we are requiring decades to include an integral number of years).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So the year 10 was in two different decades ? The year 10 was in ten different decades ( assuming we are requiring decades to include an integral number of years ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the year 10 was in two different decades?The year 10 was in ten different decades (assuming we are requiring decades to include an integral number of years).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604036</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30608272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30605902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30605674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30615220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30605014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30606294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30605586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30605392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30605882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30605302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30607534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30612592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30607576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30608504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30605142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30608342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30608372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30607566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30609134
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30606926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30606310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30605640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30609626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30606930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30605162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30607162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30605898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30605346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30610202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30607996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30610018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30605682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30605356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30615930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30607352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30606378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30618096
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_31_0134258_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30609160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_0134258.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603894
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30606930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603560
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604036
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30605674
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603490
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30606310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603382
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604406
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_0134258.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30610018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603256
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30607996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603742
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603196
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603608
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603414
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604610
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30610202
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30605640
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30609626
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30605014
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_0134258.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603484
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_0134258.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30612592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604572
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30605586
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_0134258.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30605882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30605356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30607534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30605346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604312
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_0134258.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603482
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_0134258.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603194
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_0134258.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30618096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604168
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30608372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604454
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_0134258.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603498
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_0134258.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30608272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30609134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604726
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_0134258.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30605162
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_0134258.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30607566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603588
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_0134258.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603184
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_0134258.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603298
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30607576
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604880
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604020
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30608342
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30615220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603486
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_0134258.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30609160
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_0134258.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30605142
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_0134258.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604690
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_0134258.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30606926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603986
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30606294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604114
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_0134258.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30607352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30605682
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_0134258.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30607162
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_0134258.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30604888
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_0134258.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603404
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_0134258.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30608504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30605902
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_0134258.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603146
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_31_0134258.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603364
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30605302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30605898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30605392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30603202
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30615930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_31_0134258.30606378
</commentlist>
</conversation>
