<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_02_0326226</id>
	<title>Did the US Take the Back Seat In Science In 2009?</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1262438160000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>tcd004 writes <i>"In the PBS NewsHour's roundup of the biggest science news of the year, Neil DeGrasse Tyson dropped this doozie: '[Scientific leadership] drives the economic strength and security of nations. The fall is not from a cliff. More like a slow, downward slide &mdash; almost imperceptible from day to day. But as the years pass <a href="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/science/july-dec09/yearinscience\_12-31.html">America will have descended from leaders to players to merely followers</a> as we fade to insignificance, at best hitching a ride on the innovations of others.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>tcd004 writes " In the PBS NewsHour 's roundup of the biggest science news of the year , Neil DeGrasse Tyson dropped this doozie : ' [ Scientific leadership ] drives the economic strength and security of nations .
The fall is not from a cliff .
More like a slow , downward slide    almost imperceptible from day to day .
But as the years pass America will have descended from leaders to players to merely followers as we fade to insignificance , at best hitching a ride on the innovations of others .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>tcd004 writes "In the PBS NewsHour's roundup of the biggest science news of the year, Neil DeGrasse Tyson dropped this doozie: '[Scientific leadership] drives the economic strength and security of nations.
The fall is not from a cliff.
More like a slow, downward slide — almost imperceptible from day to day.
But as the years pass America will have descended from leaders to players to merely followers as we fade to insignificance, at best hitching a ride on the innovations of others.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621806</id>
	<title>Re:I expect so...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262443380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Utter bullshit. People who really have the talents you described would have no issue getting into this country. Instead of believing a bunch of knee jerk reactionary bullshit why don't you take your head out of your ass and look around a bit. The sky hasn't fallen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Utter bullshit .
People who really have the talents you described would have no issue getting into this country .
Instead of believing a bunch of knee jerk reactionary bullshit why do n't you take your head out of your ass and look around a bit .
The sky has n't fallen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Utter bullshit.
People who really have the talents you described would have no issue getting into this country.
Instead of believing a bunch of knee jerk reactionary bullshit why don't you take your head out of your ass and look around a bit.
The sky hasn't fallen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622956</id>
	<title>Re:"Science" is not just "Eureka"</title>
	<author>Bill\_the\_Engineer</author>
	<datestamp>1262452380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You seem to be watching too much television...
</p><p>Research Triangle Park in North Carolina is the largest research park in the US. I work within the second largest which is Cummings Research Park in Alabama (it also the fourth largest in the world). PARC which is Palo Alto Research Center is actually a single company owned by Xerox. If your going to use Eureka as a reference, at least compare it to something similar.
</p><p>These research parks do coexist with surrounding industry and do attract and create industry within them and the surrounding communities. I don't know why you took an anti-US slant in your comment, but you don't have any of your "facts" right. By the way, investing in science and education to build a pool of skill labor is the best way to attract industry. Alabama has numerous of tech industries based in Huntsville, and attracted manufacturing plants from the likes of Mercedes, Hyundai, and EADS (airbus) to name a few. Believe it or not, industry looking to relocate to your area do take the number of college educated people into consideration.
</p><p>Also, I would like to point out that, despite the nationalist sounding title of the article, scientists do their work because they are driven to acquire knowledge and make society better for it. Science knows no political boundaries. I have colleagues (and friends) from Germany, Denmark, Austria, France, Russia, India, and yes China. Where I work, we don't import talent because we can't do it without help. Instead, we invite them over because we cooperate and you can never have enough differing viewpoints. Unlike private corporations, we don't apply for H1Bs for cheap labor. We do it so our colleagues can have access to our facility and make cooperation easier. They also invite us over to their country too. LHC an Fermi are large and expensive, and it's easier to travel there than to build another expensive facility.
</p><p>I think a less sensational (and more sober) report will announce that the US budget for science is taking a back seat to other more important things like bailing out the bank executives, lining the pockets of defense contractors, giving sweetheart deals to insurance companies, and etc. but that another topic all together different.
</p><p>Anyway back to your post:
</p><p>I sympathize with your experience. I was born, raised, and worked in a port city where ship building and maritime transportation were king. But times changed, and we had to adapt. Now, people working in maritime (outside of petroleum) in my home town is the exception not the rule. They moved on to supporting industries mentioned above. I agree that the "service economy" bullshit, that the world capitalists try to sell us, is foolish and you should not count flipping burgers the same as skilled labor on a job statistic and the economic turndown is not making things any easier. However politicians love service jobs because they can brag about how they created new jobs and gloss over the fact that the workers are under-paid and are under-insured.
</p><p>I chose to look on the bright side. In the old days when a textile mill, paper mill, or shipyard could no longer compete, they would close. This would place about a thousand people out of work at once and competing with each other for a job. Now that the economy is diversified, a store closing isn't as severe and the chance to find another job is better (when the economy doesn't suck).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You seem to be watching too much television.. . Research Triangle Park in North Carolina is the largest research park in the US .
I work within the second largest which is Cummings Research Park in Alabama ( it also the fourth largest in the world ) .
PARC which is Palo Alto Research Center is actually a single company owned by Xerox .
If your going to use Eureka as a reference , at least compare it to something similar .
These research parks do coexist with surrounding industry and do attract and create industry within them and the surrounding communities .
I do n't know why you took an anti-US slant in your comment , but you do n't have any of your " facts " right .
By the way , investing in science and education to build a pool of skill labor is the best way to attract industry .
Alabama has numerous of tech industries based in Huntsville , and attracted manufacturing plants from the likes of Mercedes , Hyundai , and EADS ( airbus ) to name a few .
Believe it or not , industry looking to relocate to your area do take the number of college educated people into consideration .
Also , I would like to point out that , despite the nationalist sounding title of the article , scientists do their work because they are driven to acquire knowledge and make society better for it .
Science knows no political boundaries .
I have colleagues ( and friends ) from Germany , Denmark , Austria , France , Russia , India , and yes China .
Where I work , we do n't import talent because we ca n't do it without help .
Instead , we invite them over because we cooperate and you can never have enough differing viewpoints .
Unlike private corporations , we do n't apply for H1Bs for cheap labor .
We do it so our colleagues can have access to our facility and make cooperation easier .
They also invite us over to their country too .
LHC an Fermi are large and expensive , and it 's easier to travel there than to build another expensive facility .
I think a less sensational ( and more sober ) report will announce that the US budget for science is taking a back seat to other more important things like bailing out the bank executives , lining the pockets of defense contractors , giving sweetheart deals to insurance companies , and etc .
but that another topic all together different .
Anyway back to your post : I sympathize with your experience .
I was born , raised , and worked in a port city where ship building and maritime transportation were king .
But times changed , and we had to adapt .
Now , people working in maritime ( outside of petroleum ) in my home town is the exception not the rule .
They moved on to supporting industries mentioned above .
I agree that the " service economy " bullshit , that the world capitalists try to sell us , is foolish and you should not count flipping burgers the same as skilled labor on a job statistic and the economic turndown is not making things any easier .
However politicians love service jobs because they can brag about how they created new jobs and gloss over the fact that the workers are under-paid and are under-insured .
I chose to look on the bright side .
In the old days when a textile mill , paper mill , or shipyard could no longer compete , they would close .
This would place about a thousand people out of work at once and competing with each other for a job .
Now that the economy is diversified , a store closing is n't as severe and the chance to find another job is better ( when the economy does n't suck ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You seem to be watching too much television...
Research Triangle Park in North Carolina is the largest research park in the US.
I work within the second largest which is Cummings Research Park in Alabama (it also the fourth largest in the world).
PARC which is Palo Alto Research Center is actually a single company owned by Xerox.
If your going to use Eureka as a reference, at least compare it to something similar.
These research parks do coexist with surrounding industry and do attract and create industry within them and the surrounding communities.
I don't know why you took an anti-US slant in your comment, but you don't have any of your "facts" right.
By the way, investing in science and education to build a pool of skill labor is the best way to attract industry.
Alabama has numerous of tech industries based in Huntsville, and attracted manufacturing plants from the likes of Mercedes, Hyundai, and EADS (airbus) to name a few.
Believe it or not, industry looking to relocate to your area do take the number of college educated people into consideration.
Also, I would like to point out that, despite the nationalist sounding title of the article, scientists do their work because they are driven to acquire knowledge and make society better for it.
Science knows no political boundaries.
I have colleagues (and friends) from Germany, Denmark, Austria, France, Russia, India, and yes China.
Where I work, we don't import talent because we can't do it without help.
Instead, we invite them over because we cooperate and you can never have enough differing viewpoints.
Unlike private corporations, we don't apply for H1Bs for cheap labor.
We do it so our colleagues can have access to our facility and make cooperation easier.
They also invite us over to their country too.
LHC an Fermi are large and expensive, and it's easier to travel there than to build another expensive facility.
I think a less sensational (and more sober) report will announce that the US budget for science is taking a back seat to other more important things like bailing out the bank executives, lining the pockets of defense contractors, giving sweetheart deals to insurance companies, and etc.
but that another topic all together different.
Anyway back to your post:
I sympathize with your experience.
I was born, raised, and worked in a port city where ship building and maritime transportation were king.
But times changed, and we had to adapt.
Now, people working in maritime (outside of petroleum) in my home town is the exception not the rule.
They moved on to supporting industries mentioned above.
I agree that the "service economy" bullshit, that the world capitalists try to sell us, is foolish and you should not count flipping burgers the same as skilled labor on a job statistic and the economic turndown is not making things any easier.
However politicians love service jobs because they can brag about how they created new jobs and gloss over the fact that the workers are under-paid and are under-insured.
I chose to look on the bright side.
In the old days when a textile mill, paper mill, or shipyard could no longer compete, they would close.
This would place about a thousand people out of work at once and competing with each other for a job.
Now that the economy is diversified, a store closing isn't as severe and the chance to find another job is better (when the economy doesn't suck).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30630226</id>
	<title>Re:I have seen the lecture you are referring too.</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1262551680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I believe I am son of God, the Eternal Father.</p></div><p>Good to see you again, Jesus, man!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe I am son of God , the Eternal Father.Good to see you again , Jesus , man !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe I am son of God, the Eternal Father.Good to see you again, Jesus, man!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30651732</id>
	<title>reasons for the downfall of science in the US</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262632020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>because a lot of the worlds population is outside the US the only way it can retain any advantage is in retaining them. Right now, a postdoc gets 55K per YEAR. And after 2-3 years, they are compelled to leave the country. contrast this to a country like Australia where a postdoc is paid 85K at the start. Why would anyone work on research in the US when its easier to get a coding job paying 85+ (atleast)?!.</p><p>And then you have the NSF funding which people change their research areas for. No wonder there is no fundamental progress in research. Why would there be when even grants are short term and driven by the need to produce "cool" results attractive to Joe the common  man on the street? Which idiot would expect to be able to understand what takes a phd graduate 3 years to come up with in 5minutes of pop-science snippets?</p><p>Low pay, the tie-up of directing science by   doling out cash, and people who think science should be understood by lay people are the root causes behind why fundamental research  is suffering.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>because a lot of the worlds population is outside the US the only way it can retain any advantage is in retaining them .
Right now , a postdoc gets 55K per YEAR .
And after 2-3 years , they are compelled to leave the country .
contrast this to a country like Australia where a postdoc is paid 85K at the start .
Why would anyone work on research in the US when its easier to get a coding job paying 85 + ( atleast ) ?
! .And then you have the NSF funding which people change their research areas for .
No wonder there is no fundamental progress in research .
Why would there be when even grants are short term and driven by the need to produce " cool " results attractive to Joe the common man on the street ?
Which idiot would expect to be able to understand what takes a phd graduate 3 years to come up with in 5minutes of pop-science snippets ? Low pay , the tie-up of directing science by doling out cash , and people who think science should be understood by lay people are the root causes behind why fundamental research is suffering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>because a lot of the worlds population is outside the US the only way it can retain any advantage is in retaining them.
Right now, a postdoc gets 55K per YEAR.
And after 2-3 years, they are compelled to leave the country.
contrast this to a country like Australia where a postdoc is paid 85K at the start.
Why would anyone work on research in the US when its easier to get a coding job paying 85+ (atleast)?
!.And then you have the NSF funding which people change their research areas for.
No wonder there is no fundamental progress in research.
Why would there be when even grants are short term and driven by the need to produce "cool" results attractive to Joe the common  man on the street?
Which idiot would expect to be able to understand what takes a phd graduate 3 years to come up with in 5minutes of pop-science snippets?Low pay, the tie-up of directing science by   doling out cash, and people who think science should be understood by lay people are the root causes behind why fundamental research  is suffering.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622448</id>
	<title>Evolution is not a fact</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262449440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nitpick: evolution is not a fact, it is a theory, such as gravity is a theory.  (Yes, incorrectly misused by creationists as a derogatory statement).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nitpick : evolution is not a fact , it is a theory , such as gravity is a theory .
( Yes , incorrectly misused by creationists as a derogatory statement ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nitpick: evolution is not a fact, it is a theory, such as gravity is a theory.
(Yes, incorrectly misused by creationists as a derogatory statement).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30624694</id>
	<title>Somebody Noticed!!!!!</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1262461800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>         The decline in science and technology in America is enough to scare the hell out of me. The worst of it is that we can do nothing to fix it that the public would tolerate. Requirements for success by our school children would have to be drastic. American parents are in no way willing to put their kids through the kind of hell it takes to make competitive scholars. Some nations have genius scholars simply because extraordinary accomplishments are the only hope a young person has to avoid a living hell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The decline in science and technology in America is enough to scare the hell out of me .
The worst of it is that we can do nothing to fix it that the public would tolerate .
Requirements for success by our school children would have to be drastic .
American parents are in no way willing to put their kids through the kind of hell it takes to make competitive scholars .
Some nations have genius scholars simply because extraordinary accomplishments are the only hope a young person has to avoid a living hell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>         The decline in science and technology in America is enough to scare the hell out of me.
The worst of it is that we can do nothing to fix it that the public would tolerate.
Requirements for success by our school children would have to be drastic.
American parents are in no way willing to put their kids through the kind of hell it takes to make competitive scholars.
Some nations have genius scholars simply because extraordinary accomplishments are the only hope a young person has to avoid a living hell.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621942</id>
	<title>had to slip global warming in there didn't they.</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1262444760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>it lost all credability when they shoe horned that nugget in there. measuring something via satillite is hardly a break through.</htmltext>
<tokenext>it lost all credability when they shoe horned that nugget in there .
measuring something via satillite is hardly a break through .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it lost all credability when they shoe horned that nugget in there.
measuring something via satillite is hardly a break through.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621892</id>
	<title>We have a creationist "museum"...</title>
	<author>Jawn98685</author>
	<datestamp>1262444280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://creationmuseum.org/" title="creationmuseum.org">http://creationmuseum.org/</a> [creationmuseum.org] <br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...and it has not been laughed out of existence. 'Nuff said.</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //creationmuseum.org/ [ creationmuseum.org ] ...and it has not been laughed out of existence .
'Nuff said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://creationmuseum.org/ [creationmuseum.org]  ...and it has not been laughed out of existence.
'Nuff said.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30652980</id>
	<title>Re:In a modern, globalised world</title>
	<author>uiuyhn8i8</author>
	<datestamp>1262689260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt;Reducing it to a penis-measuring contest is hardly edifying.<br>
<br>
Unless you are the winner of said contest.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Reducing it to a penis-measuring contest is hardly edifying .
Unless you are the winner of said contest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;Reducing it to a penis-measuring contest is hardly edifying.
Unless you are the winner of said contest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30624576</id>
	<title>Re:Smart people are discriminated against in US...</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1262461140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>in years to come only rednecks would be left in US and other countries which value smart people would have replaced US as world leaders. This is called evolution - survival of the best and the fittest.</p></div></blockquote><p>Don't worry, when Sarah Palin becomes president in 2013 she'll amend the constitution to make evolution illegal.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>in years to come only rednecks would be left in US and other countries which value smart people would have replaced US as world leaders .
This is called evolution - survival of the best and the fittest.Do n't worry , when Sarah Palin becomes president in 2013 she 'll amend the constitution to make evolution illegal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in years to come only rednecks would be left in US and other countries which value smart people would have replaced US as world leaders.
This is called evolution - survival of the best and the fittest.Don't worry, when Sarah Palin becomes president in 2013 she'll amend the constitution to make evolution illegal.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621936</id>
	<title>Short term thinking maybe?</title>
	<author>ErichTheRed</author>
	<datestamp>1262444700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People mentioned the immigration policies and other factors, but I think the #1 reason long-term pursuits like science have faded from the forefront is the shift everywhere to short term thinking.</p><ul><li>Students are staying away from science and math because of a short term (or maybe a long term) worry about employability. They also realize that law, medicine and MBA-type pursuits are much more lucrative if they're smart.</li><li>Companies are increasingly run by groups of investors who put intense pressure on boards to make the quarterly numbers any way possible. This kind of thinking can kill innovation at a company -- it's always wasier to license and resell someone else's product in the short term, but in the long term you're nothing but a middleman.</li><li>Universities are under even greater pressure to focus research on things that can be immediately turned into products or patents.</li><li>IBM, AT&amp;T, HP, etc. have all cut back their research labs and divisions. That's not a total surprise; can you imagine trying to explain to some hedge fund guy who holds 10\% of the company stock why he's spending money on research?</li><li>The general public is also caught up in the market driven short term thinking. Everyone depends on the stock market for their retirement. Now that they have instant access to it, volatility goes way up and the public is making the same demands as the hedge fund guys...make money for me NOW or you're fired!</li></ul><p>Personally, I think we should deemphasize the amount of attention paid to the stock market, and give it back to the billionaire's club. Invest your retirement money in something safe that gives reasonable returns....ror better yet, demand that they bring pensions back (the ultimate long term planning tool.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People mentioned the immigration policies and other factors , but I think the # 1 reason long-term pursuits like science have faded from the forefront is the shift everywhere to short term thinking.Students are staying away from science and math because of a short term ( or maybe a long term ) worry about employability .
They also realize that law , medicine and MBA-type pursuits are much more lucrative if they 're smart.Companies are increasingly run by groups of investors who put intense pressure on boards to make the quarterly numbers any way possible .
This kind of thinking can kill innovation at a company -- it 's always wasier to license and resell someone else 's product in the short term , but in the long term you 're nothing but a middleman.Universities are under even greater pressure to focus research on things that can be immediately turned into products or patents.IBM , AT&amp;T , HP , etc .
have all cut back their research labs and divisions .
That 's not a total surprise ; can you imagine trying to explain to some hedge fund guy who holds 10 \ % of the company stock why he 's spending money on research ? The general public is also caught up in the market driven short term thinking .
Everyone depends on the stock market for their retirement .
Now that they have instant access to it , volatility goes way up and the public is making the same demands as the hedge fund guys...make money for me NOW or you 're fired ! Personally , I think we should deemphasize the amount of attention paid to the stock market , and give it back to the billionaire 's club .
Invest your retirement money in something safe that gives reasonable returns....ror better yet , demand that they bring pensions back ( the ultimate long term planning tool .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People mentioned the immigration policies and other factors, but I think the #1 reason long-term pursuits like science have faded from the forefront is the shift everywhere to short term thinking.Students are staying away from science and math because of a short term (or maybe a long term) worry about employability.
They also realize that law, medicine and MBA-type pursuits are much more lucrative if they're smart.Companies are increasingly run by groups of investors who put intense pressure on boards to make the quarterly numbers any way possible.
This kind of thinking can kill innovation at a company -- it's always wasier to license and resell someone else's product in the short term, but in the long term you're nothing but a middleman.Universities are under even greater pressure to focus research on things that can be immediately turned into products or patents.IBM, AT&amp;T, HP, etc.
have all cut back their research labs and divisions.
That's not a total surprise; can you imagine trying to explain to some hedge fund guy who holds 10\% of the company stock why he's spending money on research?The general public is also caught up in the market driven short term thinking.
Everyone depends on the stock market for their retirement.
Now that they have instant access to it, volatility goes way up and the public is making the same demands as the hedge fund guys...make money for me NOW or you're fired!Personally, I think we should deemphasize the amount of attention paid to the stock market, and give it back to the billionaire's club.
Invest your retirement money in something safe that gives reasonable returns....ror better yet, demand that they bring pensions back (the ultimate long term planning tool.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30623458</id>
	<title>Re:"Science" is not just "Eureka"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262455200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Neal Stephenson got it right, way back in 1992.</p><p>The opportunities in American future will be only in music, movies, microcode, and high-speed pizza delivery.</p><p>You may call me...The Deliverator.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Neal Stephenson got it right , way back in 1992.The opportunities in American future will be only in music , movies , microcode , and high-speed pizza delivery.You may call me...The Deliverator .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Neal Stephenson got it right, way back in 1992.The opportunities in American future will be only in music, movies, microcode, and high-speed pizza delivery.You may call me...The Deliverator.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622998</id>
	<title>Re:I have seen the lecture you are referring too.</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1262452620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Tyson made a very good point. In that lecture, he talked about the Islamic Empires of the 12th and 13th centuries that were building while we were in the Christian Dark Ages. Do you know what happened? A bunch of Imams got together and basically stated that Math and Science were of the devil. After that, it was only a matter of time. The result is the Middle East we see today."</p><p>For that matter, Aristotle and company got together and declared that their philosophy is the true description of the world.  When that philosophy later got adopted by the church it pretty much kicked off those dark ages of which you speak.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Tyson made a very good point .
In that lecture , he talked about the Islamic Empires of the 12th and 13th centuries that were building while we were in the Christian Dark Ages .
Do you know what happened ?
A bunch of Imams got together and basically stated that Math and Science were of the devil .
After that , it was only a matter of time .
The result is the Middle East we see today .
" For that matter , Aristotle and company got together and declared that their philosophy is the true description of the world .
When that philosophy later got adopted by the church it pretty much kicked off those dark ages of which you speak .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Tyson made a very good point.
In that lecture, he talked about the Islamic Empires of the 12th and 13th centuries that were building while we were in the Christian Dark Ages.
Do you know what happened?
A bunch of Imams got together and basically stated that Math and Science were of the devil.
After that, it was only a matter of time.
The result is the Middle East we see today.
"For that matter, Aristotle and company got together and declared that their philosophy is the true description of the world.
When that philosophy later got adopted by the church it pretty much kicked off those dark ages of which you speak.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30625760</id>
	<title>Re:Short term thinking maybe?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262424780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Students are staying away from science and math because of a short term (or maybe a long term) worry about employability. They also realize that law, medicine and MBA-type pursuits are much more lucrative if they're smart.</p><p>The last big push for science and tech in the US was back in the mid to late 1990s, as I remember it. That's also when the work visa programs were taking off. At the time, it was justified, since the field really was expanding fast, and school systems will naturally lag behind by six or so years when there's a demand spike like that.</p><p>The tech bubble burst right about when a wave of new tech students graduated. AND the work visa programs were never scaled back to reflect the change in supply and demand. So for ten years now, the overwhelming message to potential US students has been "we don't want more people in these fields, they're commodities we can get cheap from India". It's a large amount of extremely long term damage that has been done. It could potentially take another ten years to reverse it. We should keep importing the top brains, the PhD students and such, but *stop* importing the grunts - we have an oversupply of already-trained people and importing more is only serving to continue to depress wages and drive potential top brains away from considering these fields.</p><p>The people who need to be convinced it's worthwhile to go into science today are the ones who're just starting high school, or just about to start high school. 14 year olds. They need to be starting to seriously take the high school science and math classes in order to realistically thrive in the college versions; older students can be convinced to seriously consider science, but if they lack the foundations they're going to struggle in college and we'll lose a lot of them. So that's where my "it'll take ten years to fix" line comes from; full effort to put science back to the forefront will start hitting its full output when the education pipeline is properly full from start to end and today's 14 year olds are getting bachelor and master degrees at around 22 and 24.</p><p>I went back to school myself a few years ago and am just about to finish, so I've noticed that there's a nontrivial upswing in enrollment in CS, but that's more from older students going back to school due to the recession's high unemployment than from a full national interest in the field, IMO. We could do very well for ourselves as a nation if we start promoting science again *NOW* while potential-scientist who'd been discouraged in the past are looking at these fields again; it would lessen the damage somewhat while we build up the huge wave of the next generation of students.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Students are staying away from science and math because of a short term ( or maybe a long term ) worry about employability .
They also realize that law , medicine and MBA-type pursuits are much more lucrative if they 're smart.The last big push for science and tech in the US was back in the mid to late 1990s , as I remember it .
That 's also when the work visa programs were taking off .
At the time , it was justified , since the field really was expanding fast , and school systems will naturally lag behind by six or so years when there 's a demand spike like that.The tech bubble burst right about when a wave of new tech students graduated .
AND the work visa programs were never scaled back to reflect the change in supply and demand .
So for ten years now , the overwhelming message to potential US students has been " we do n't want more people in these fields , they 're commodities we can get cheap from India " .
It 's a large amount of extremely long term damage that has been done .
It could potentially take another ten years to reverse it .
We should keep importing the top brains , the PhD students and such , but * stop * importing the grunts - we have an oversupply of already-trained people and importing more is only serving to continue to depress wages and drive potential top brains away from considering these fields.The people who need to be convinced it 's worthwhile to go into science today are the ones who 're just starting high school , or just about to start high school .
14 year olds .
They need to be starting to seriously take the high school science and math classes in order to realistically thrive in the college versions ; older students can be convinced to seriously consider science , but if they lack the foundations they 're going to struggle in college and we 'll lose a lot of them .
So that 's where my " it 'll take ten years to fix " line comes from ; full effort to put science back to the forefront will start hitting its full output when the education pipeline is properly full from start to end and today 's 14 year olds are getting bachelor and master degrees at around 22 and 24.I went back to school myself a few years ago and am just about to finish , so I 've noticed that there 's a nontrivial upswing in enrollment in CS , but that 's more from older students going back to school due to the recession 's high unemployment than from a full national interest in the field , IMO .
We could do very well for ourselves as a nation if we start promoting science again * NOW * while potential-scientist who 'd been discouraged in the past are looking at these fields again ; it would lessen the damage somewhat while we build up the huge wave of the next generation of students .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Students are staying away from science and math because of a short term (or maybe a long term) worry about employability.
They also realize that law, medicine and MBA-type pursuits are much more lucrative if they're smart.The last big push for science and tech in the US was back in the mid to late 1990s, as I remember it.
That's also when the work visa programs were taking off.
At the time, it was justified, since the field really was expanding fast, and school systems will naturally lag behind by six or so years when there's a demand spike like that.The tech bubble burst right about when a wave of new tech students graduated.
AND the work visa programs were never scaled back to reflect the change in supply and demand.
So for ten years now, the overwhelming message to potential US students has been "we don't want more people in these fields, they're commodities we can get cheap from India".
It's a large amount of extremely long term damage that has been done.
It could potentially take another ten years to reverse it.
We should keep importing the top brains, the PhD students and such, but *stop* importing the grunts - we have an oversupply of already-trained people and importing more is only serving to continue to depress wages and drive potential top brains away from considering these fields.The people who need to be convinced it's worthwhile to go into science today are the ones who're just starting high school, or just about to start high school.
14 year olds.
They need to be starting to seriously take the high school science and math classes in order to realistically thrive in the college versions; older students can be convinced to seriously consider science, but if they lack the foundations they're going to struggle in college and we'll lose a lot of them.
So that's where my "it'll take ten years to fix" line comes from; full effort to put science back to the forefront will start hitting its full output when the education pipeline is properly full from start to end and today's 14 year olds are getting bachelor and master degrees at around 22 and 24.I went back to school myself a few years ago and am just about to finish, so I've noticed that there's a nontrivial upswing in enrollment in CS, but that's more from older students going back to school due to the recession's high unemployment than from a full national interest in the field, IMO.
We could do very well for ourselves as a nation if we start promoting science again *NOW* while potential-scientist who'd been discouraged in the past are looking at these fields again; it would lessen the damage somewhat while we build up the huge wave of the next generation of students.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30623752</id>
	<title>Re:Short term thinking maybe?</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1262456580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately very true: It's more profitable, as a company as well as on a personal level, to manage, distribute and administer than to produce.</p><p>Take a look at the Forbes list. How many managers do you see? How many scientists? How many engineers? Now ponder which direction is more profitable to you, even if you're not going to make it into the Forbes 400, the same applies on a smaller scale.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately very true : It 's more profitable , as a company as well as on a personal level , to manage , distribute and administer than to produce.Take a look at the Forbes list .
How many managers do you see ?
How many scientists ?
How many engineers ?
Now ponder which direction is more profitable to you , even if you 're not going to make it into the Forbes 400 , the same applies on a smaller scale .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately very true: It's more profitable, as a company as well as on a personal level, to manage, distribute and administer than to produce.Take a look at the Forbes list.
How many managers do you see?
How many scientists?
How many engineers?
Now ponder which direction is more profitable to you, even if you're not going to make it into the Forbes 400, the same applies on a smaller scale.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622376</id>
	<title>Re:We have a creationist "museum"...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262448720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The "theory" of evolution and the movement that espouses it is just as much a religion as any creationist one I've seen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The " theory " of evolution and the movement that espouses it is just as much a religion as any creationist one I 've seen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "theory" of evolution and the movement that espouses it is just as much a religion as any creationist one I've seen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622950</id>
	<title>Re:Meh.. I disagree...</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1262452380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you noticed the names on those Science papers?  The US has a lot of research infrastructure but quite a bit of it is staffed by people from all over the world.  Until now many of them have stayed and become Americans but that is starting to change.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you noticed the names on those Science papers ?
The US has a lot of research infrastructure but quite a bit of it is staffed by people from all over the world .
Until now many of them have stayed and become Americans but that is starting to change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you noticed the names on those Science papers?
The US has a lot of research infrastructure but quite a bit of it is staffed by people from all over the world.
Until now many of them have stayed and become Americans but that is starting to change.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30633864</id>
	<title>Re:The Beatles were great for declining Britain</title>
	<author>Paul Jakma</author>
	<datestamp>1262510460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Chinese teenagers I've met seem to look to Japan and South Korea for music, fashion and culture generally. As for breakfast, seems to be variations on pancakes, tofu and sweet-breads.</p><p>HTH.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Chinese teenagers I 've met seem to look to Japan and South Korea for music , fashion and culture generally .
As for breakfast , seems to be variations on pancakes , tofu and sweet-breads.HTH .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Chinese teenagers I've met seem to look to Japan and South Korea for music, fashion and culture generally.
As for breakfast, seems to be variations on pancakes, tofu and sweet-breads.HTH.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30624380</id>
	<title>Re:I have seen the lecture you are referring too.</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1262459820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Which religion are we talking about? Christianity? Environmentalism? Liberalism? Libertarianism, etc. My view is that current US politics seems to be trying all the ideological extremes with predictably bad results.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which religion are we talking about ?
Christianity ? Environmentalism ?
Liberalism ? Libertarianism , etc .
My view is that current US politics seems to be trying all the ideological extremes with predictably bad results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which religion are we talking about?
Christianity? Environmentalism?
Liberalism? Libertarianism, etc.
My view is that current US politics seems to be trying all the ideological extremes with predictably bad results.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30623386</id>
	<title>Re:I have seen the lecture you are referring too.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262454900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>That, sir, was some of the worst scientific reasoning I've seen since, well, intelligent design.  Repeat after me: correlation isn't the same as causation.  Except for your first paragraph, you give a loose collection of observations and facts.  Oh, and jump to a few conclusions.  No empirical evidence or analysis to back up jack shit you said.<br> <br>

What, you think Christians (reactionary, evangelical, whatever) have only existed the last few decades?  People only just started denying evolution?  It's been going on for centuries.  So we've been circling the drain for the whole time?  <br> <br>

Even the Catholic Schools teach evolution now days:<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution\_and\_the\_Catholic\_Church#Catholic\_schools\_and\_evolution" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution\_and\_the\_Catholic\_Church#Catholic\_schools\_and\_evolution</a> [wikipedia.org].  What?  You mean that the world doesn't fit into your limited black and white understanding?  It's complicated.  Outrageous!<br> <br>

If our civilization is circling the drain, it's because people like you try to look clever by making a few incendiary statements based on a poor grasp of the complexities of life ("He also stated"  Fuck!  do your own research and thinking, you moron!) and others cheer you on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That , sir , was some of the worst scientific reasoning I 've seen since , well , intelligent design .
Repeat after me : correlation is n't the same as causation .
Except for your first paragraph , you give a loose collection of observations and facts .
Oh , and jump to a few conclusions .
No empirical evidence or analysis to back up jack shit you said .
What , you think Christians ( reactionary , evangelical , whatever ) have only existed the last few decades ?
People only just started denying evolution ?
It 's been going on for centuries .
So we 've been circling the drain for the whole time ?
Even the Catholic Schools teach evolution now days : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution \ _and \ _the \ _Catholic \ _Church # Catholic \ _schools \ _and \ _evolution [ wikipedia.org ] .
What ? You mean that the world does n't fit into your limited black and white understanding ?
It 's complicated .
Outrageous ! If our civilization is circling the drain , it 's because people like you try to look clever by making a few incendiary statements based on a poor grasp of the complexities of life ( " He also stated " Fuck !
do your own research and thinking , you moron !
) and others cheer you on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That, sir, was some of the worst scientific reasoning I've seen since, well, intelligent design.
Repeat after me: correlation isn't the same as causation.
Except for your first paragraph, you give a loose collection of observations and facts.
Oh, and jump to a few conclusions.
No empirical evidence or analysis to back up jack shit you said.
What, you think Christians (reactionary, evangelical, whatever) have only existed the last few decades?
People only just started denying evolution?
It's been going on for centuries.
So we've been circling the drain for the whole time?
Even the Catholic Schools teach evolution now days:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution\_and\_the\_Catholic\_Church#Catholic\_schools\_and\_evolution [wikipedia.org].
What?  You mean that the world doesn't fit into your limited black and white understanding?
It's complicated.
Outrageous! 

If our civilization is circling the drain, it's because people like you try to look clever by making a few incendiary statements based on a poor grasp of the complexities of life ("He also stated"  Fuck!
do your own research and thinking, you moron!
) and others cheer you on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30631534</id>
	<title>there is just more black science now</title>
	<author>brilanon</author>
	<datestamp>1262532660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Underground research and military applications</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Underground research and military applications</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Underground research and military applications</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30628782</id>
	<title>Re:I have seen the lecture you are referring too.</title>
	<author>sasha328</author>
	<datestamp>1262448180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll start with a disclaimer: I am not a Muslim, but I will correct some of your and the parent's perceptions.<br>Religion has in the past played a role in discrediting science. This is a true statement.<br>Religion has in the past played a role in fostering science. This is a true statement.</p><p>The fact that at one time Religion (either christian, or muslim or any other in the past) played a role to discredit or foster science is completely lost on some people. Most slashdotters seem to focus on what religion did to destroy science forgetting that they also fostered it as well.</p><p>Islam: Once they had settled their empire expansion, in about the 7th or 8th cebntury AD, they went on to start the most advanced research endowment ever and both gathered and generated science all the way from India to Andalusia. (heard of algebra)<br>They seem to have lost the plot when the empire started crumbling. They haven't recovered because their cultures are still not in a stable state. Give them time.</p><p>Christianity: throughout the centuries, Christians, both ordained (priests, monks whatever) and lay were instrumental in many fields of science (heard of Euler, Descartes, Pascal?) The sciences were both attacked and fostered as the status of Empire changes in Europe opver the centuries with the dark ages as the best example of "darkness" but even then the Church was quite involved in on of the main sciences: medicine</p><p>Both Christian churches and Muslim mosques were centres of education, and many current famous universities were established by religious orders: Cambridge, Al Azhar etc</p><p>It is not religion that is discrediting science but rather the focus of the people in power, whatever religion (or non-religion) they hail from.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll start with a disclaimer : I am not a Muslim , but I will correct some of your and the parent 's perceptions.Religion has in the past played a role in discrediting science .
This is a true statement.Religion has in the past played a role in fostering science .
This is a true statement.The fact that at one time Religion ( either christian , or muslim or any other in the past ) played a role to discredit or foster science is completely lost on some people .
Most slashdotters seem to focus on what religion did to destroy science forgetting that they also fostered it as well.Islam : Once they had settled their empire expansion , in about the 7th or 8th cebntury AD , they went on to start the most advanced research endowment ever and both gathered and generated science all the way from India to Andalusia .
( heard of algebra ) They seem to have lost the plot when the empire started crumbling .
They have n't recovered because their cultures are still not in a stable state .
Give them time.Christianity : throughout the centuries , Christians , both ordained ( priests , monks whatever ) and lay were instrumental in many fields of science ( heard of Euler , Descartes , Pascal ?
) The sciences were both attacked and fostered as the status of Empire changes in Europe opver the centuries with the dark ages as the best example of " darkness " but even then the Church was quite involved in on of the main sciences : medicineBoth Christian churches and Muslim mosques were centres of education , and many current famous universities were established by religious orders : Cambridge , Al Azhar etcIt is not religion that is discrediting science but rather the focus of the people in power , whatever religion ( or non-religion ) they hail from .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll start with a disclaimer: I am not a Muslim, but I will correct some of your and the parent's perceptions.Religion has in the past played a role in discrediting science.
This is a true statement.Religion has in the past played a role in fostering science.
This is a true statement.The fact that at one time Religion (either christian, or muslim or any other in the past) played a role to discredit or foster science is completely lost on some people.
Most slashdotters seem to focus on what religion did to destroy science forgetting that they also fostered it as well.Islam: Once they had settled their empire expansion, in about the 7th or 8th cebntury AD, they went on to start the most advanced research endowment ever and both gathered and generated science all the way from India to Andalusia.
(heard of algebra)They seem to have lost the plot when the empire started crumbling.
They haven't recovered because their cultures are still not in a stable state.
Give them time.Christianity: throughout the centuries, Christians, both ordained (priests, monks whatever) and lay were instrumental in many fields of science (heard of Euler, Descartes, Pascal?
) The sciences were both attacked and fostered as the status of Empire changes in Europe opver the centuries with the dark ages as the best example of "darkness" but even then the Church was quite involved in on of the main sciences: medicineBoth Christian churches and Muslim mosques were centres of education, and many current famous universities were established by religious orders: Cambridge, Al Azhar etcIt is not religion that is discrediting science but rather the focus of the people in power, whatever religion (or non-religion) they hail from.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30623900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30624084</id>
	<title>Re:UAVs on US soil?</title>
	<author>snowraver1</author>
	<datestamp>1262458320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think anyone would want that flying over their house, but think UAV for airborne freight.  I don't know if you would be able to convince people that they should fly on it themselves, but for cargo it seems like a pretty good idea.  Aircraft mostly fly themselves anyways...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think anyone would want that flying over their house , but think UAV for airborne freight .
I do n't know if you would be able to convince people that they should fly on it themselves , but for cargo it seems like a pretty good idea .
Aircraft mostly fly themselves anyways.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think anyone would want that flying over their house, but think UAV for airborne freight.
I don't know if you would be able to convince people that they should fly on it themselves, but for cargo it seems like a pretty good idea.
Aircraft mostly fly themselves anyways...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30623194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622730</id>
	<title>Re:I have seen the lecture you are referring too.</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1262451420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Tyson made a very good point. In that lecture, he talked about the Islamic Empires of the 12th and 13th centuries that were building while we were in the Christian Dark Ages. Do you know what happened? A bunch of Imams got together and basically stated that Math and Science were of the devil. After that, it was only a matter of time. The result is the Middle East we see today.</p></div><p>You have evidence or is this some sort of religion phobia? It sounds to me like the myths about the burnings of the Library of Alexandria (there are a number of myths, both the Christians and Islamists are alleged to be the ones who destroyed the Library forever). My view is much simpler. A bunch of imams didn't get together and ban rational thought. Nor did the rate of progress in Islamic society slow down. What happened instead is that Europe vastly accelerated the rate of development of science and engineering, passing everyone else in the world.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>He also stated a statistic that since Bush took office in 2001, during the 8 years of Bush, the amount of "hard science" Papers in Chemistry, Biology and Physics has dropped to 1/10th what it was in the 90s.</p></div><p>Sounds like nonsense to me. The US didn't experience a 90\% decline in scientists so why did they stop publishing? You need more than "It's Bush's fault" to explain that.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The point is, Reactionary Christianity is causing the collapse of our civilization just the same way that Reactionary Islam caused the middle east to become what it is today.</p></div><p>In my view, reactionary Christianity has almost no effect in academia. There are two more significant effects that in themselves explain technological stagnation in the US. First, there's the crippling of the economic engine that gave the US the scientific edge in the first place. Second, academia is becoming parasitic and ossified. There's tenure, confirmation bias, and specialization. A number of fields recruit far more graduate students than their field can consume. Yet at the same time, tt's possible for someone to obtain a comfortable, lifetime job without either making a significant scientific discovery or being a good teacher.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>When you have 60\% of your population denying Evolution, a scientific fact, your civilization is circling the drain.</p></div><p>Cite evidence. In the past, these sorts of claims have come from surveys that have bias and poor sampling techniques. My view is that this claim isn't backed by a cursory observation of human society. For example, if medical patients were offered a choice between medical care backed by modern biology and faith-based medical care, my belief is that virtually everyone, far greater than 40\%, would chose the former. Further, in the notorious cases where school boards were infiltrated by creationists, and creationist agenda were inserted into the curriculum, the boards were voted out and the agenda overturned. It happened in both the Dover, Pennsylvania and Kansas state cases. That indicates that where it matters, in the voting booth, people support the theory of evolution.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Tyson made a very good point .
In that lecture , he talked about the Islamic Empires of the 12th and 13th centuries that were building while we were in the Christian Dark Ages .
Do you know what happened ?
A bunch of Imams got together and basically stated that Math and Science were of the devil .
After that , it was only a matter of time .
The result is the Middle East we see today.You have evidence or is this some sort of religion phobia ?
It sounds to me like the myths about the burnings of the Library of Alexandria ( there are a number of myths , both the Christians and Islamists are alleged to be the ones who destroyed the Library forever ) .
My view is much simpler .
A bunch of imams did n't get together and ban rational thought .
Nor did the rate of progress in Islamic society slow down .
What happened instead is that Europe vastly accelerated the rate of development of science and engineering , passing everyone else in the world.He also stated a statistic that since Bush took office in 2001 , during the 8 years of Bush , the amount of " hard science " Papers in Chemistry , Biology and Physics has dropped to 1/10th what it was in the 90s.Sounds like nonsense to me .
The US did n't experience a 90 \ % decline in scientists so why did they stop publishing ?
You need more than " It 's Bush 's fault " to explain that.The point is , Reactionary Christianity is causing the collapse of our civilization just the same way that Reactionary Islam caused the middle east to become what it is today.In my view , reactionary Christianity has almost no effect in academia .
There are two more significant effects that in themselves explain technological stagnation in the US .
First , there 's the crippling of the economic engine that gave the US the scientific edge in the first place .
Second , academia is becoming parasitic and ossified .
There 's tenure , confirmation bias , and specialization .
A number of fields recruit far more graduate students than their field can consume .
Yet at the same time , tt 's possible for someone to obtain a comfortable , lifetime job without either making a significant scientific discovery or being a good teacher.When you have 60 \ % of your population denying Evolution , a scientific fact , your civilization is circling the drain.Cite evidence .
In the past , these sorts of claims have come from surveys that have bias and poor sampling techniques .
My view is that this claim is n't backed by a cursory observation of human society .
For example , if medical patients were offered a choice between medical care backed by modern biology and faith-based medical care , my belief is that virtually everyone , far greater than 40 \ % , would chose the former .
Further , in the notorious cases where school boards were infiltrated by creationists , and creationist agenda were inserted into the curriculum , the boards were voted out and the agenda overturned .
It happened in both the Dover , Pennsylvania and Kansas state cases .
That indicates that where it matters , in the voting booth , people support the theory of evolution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tyson made a very good point.
In that lecture, he talked about the Islamic Empires of the 12th and 13th centuries that were building while we were in the Christian Dark Ages.
Do you know what happened?
A bunch of Imams got together and basically stated that Math and Science were of the devil.
After that, it was only a matter of time.
The result is the Middle East we see today.You have evidence or is this some sort of religion phobia?
It sounds to me like the myths about the burnings of the Library of Alexandria (there are a number of myths, both the Christians and Islamists are alleged to be the ones who destroyed the Library forever).
My view is much simpler.
A bunch of imams didn't get together and ban rational thought.
Nor did the rate of progress in Islamic society slow down.
What happened instead is that Europe vastly accelerated the rate of development of science and engineering, passing everyone else in the world.He also stated a statistic that since Bush took office in 2001, during the 8 years of Bush, the amount of "hard science" Papers in Chemistry, Biology and Physics has dropped to 1/10th what it was in the 90s.Sounds like nonsense to me.
The US didn't experience a 90\% decline in scientists so why did they stop publishing?
You need more than "It's Bush's fault" to explain that.The point is, Reactionary Christianity is causing the collapse of our civilization just the same way that Reactionary Islam caused the middle east to become what it is today.In my view, reactionary Christianity has almost no effect in academia.
There are two more significant effects that in themselves explain technological stagnation in the US.
First, there's the crippling of the economic engine that gave the US the scientific edge in the first place.
Second, academia is becoming parasitic and ossified.
There's tenure, confirmation bias, and specialization.
A number of fields recruit far more graduate students than their field can consume.
Yet at the same time, tt's possible for someone to obtain a comfortable, lifetime job without either making a significant scientific discovery or being a good teacher.When you have 60\% of your population denying Evolution, a scientific fact, your civilization is circling the drain.Cite evidence.
In the past, these sorts of claims have come from surveys that have bias and poor sampling techniques.
My view is that this claim isn't backed by a cursory observation of human society.
For example, if medical patients were offered a choice between medical care backed by modern biology and faith-based medical care, my belief is that virtually everyone, far greater than 40\%, would chose the former.
Further, in the notorious cases where school boards were infiltrated by creationists, and creationist agenda were inserted into the curriculum, the boards were voted out and the agenda overturned.
It happened in both the Dover, Pennsylvania and Kansas state cases.
That indicates that where it matters, in the voting booth, people support the theory of evolution.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30630000</id>
	<title>Re:In a modern, globalised world</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1262462280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Who cares where the research happens, so long as it happens and happens well? Science should be without borders.</p></div><p>Even pure theoretical research often has very far-reaching implications (see Manhattan Project etc). So long as we still have such things as states, and other dividers - ethnic, religious, cultural, whatever - the "penis-measurement contest" will inevitably keep going on in <em>all</em> areas. You either have to get rid of all separation at once (good luck with that!), or we'll be stuck with the current system of tentatively cooperating states, each of which is prepared to grab its slice of a tasty pie, should one suddenly appear, at any moment.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who cares where the research happens , so long as it happens and happens well ?
Science should be without borders.Even pure theoretical research often has very far-reaching implications ( see Manhattan Project etc ) .
So long as we still have such things as states , and other dividers - ethnic , religious , cultural , whatever - the " penis-measurement contest " will inevitably keep going on in all areas .
You either have to get rid of all separation at once ( good luck with that !
) , or we 'll be stuck with the current system of tentatively cooperating states , each of which is prepared to grab its slice of a tasty pie , should one suddenly appear , at any moment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who cares where the research happens, so long as it happens and happens well?
Science should be without borders.Even pure theoretical research often has very far-reaching implications (see Manhattan Project etc).
So long as we still have such things as states, and other dividers - ethnic, religious, cultural, whatever - the "penis-measurement contest" will inevitably keep going on in all areas.
You either have to get rid of all separation at once (good luck with that!
), or we'll be stuck with the current system of tentatively cooperating states, each of which is prepared to grab its slice of a tasty pie, should one suddenly appear, at any moment.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30626716</id>
	<title>Re:I blame the MBA</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1262430720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The MBA programmes at all North American universities promote this short of short-term, quarter-by-quarter, stock price driven corporate culture.</p></div></blockquote><p>Investment theory models tend to emphasize short-term results. "Future Value" tends to not like long-term investments unless they are very strong. <b>If the models are wrong, you need to demonstrate why</b>; otherwise they ain't going away.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The MBA programmes at all North American universities promote this short of short-term , quarter-by-quarter , stock price driven corporate culture.Investment theory models tend to emphasize short-term results .
" Future Value " tends to not like long-term investments unless they are very strong .
If the models are wrong , you need to demonstrate why ; otherwise they ai n't going away .
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>The MBA programmes at all North American universities promote this short of short-term, quarter-by-quarter, stock price driven corporate culture.Investment theory models tend to emphasize short-term results.
"Future Value" tends to not like long-term investments unless they are very strong.
If the models are wrong, you need to demonstrate why; otherwise they ain't going away.
   
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30623626</id>
	<title>Re:"Science" is not just "Eureka"</title>
	<author>RicktheBrick</author>
	<datestamp>1262455980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think you are saying that all science is accomplished by humans.  I think you are mistaken.  In fact in the near future, I think most science will be done by computers.  Where are the top 2 supercomputers?  Where are the majority of the top 500 supercomputers?  They are both in the United States.  I believe that before 2040 or sooner the vast majority of people will not care about any advances in science because there will be no need for those advances.  Why would I care if they come out with a 10 terabyte hard drive when I can not fill a 1 terabyte hard drive?  I believe we can rebuild everything underground so that we no longer fear the environment and use a small fraction of the energy we use today.  When that day comes the need for advancements in science will be in fields that have very little practical use for humans.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you are saying that all science is accomplished by humans .
I think you are mistaken .
In fact in the near future , I think most science will be done by computers .
Where are the top 2 supercomputers ?
Where are the majority of the top 500 supercomputers ?
They are both in the United States .
I believe that before 2040 or sooner the vast majority of people will not care about any advances in science because there will be no need for those advances .
Why would I care if they come out with a 10 terabyte hard drive when I can not fill a 1 terabyte hard drive ?
I believe we can rebuild everything underground so that we no longer fear the environment and use a small fraction of the energy we use today .
When that day comes the need for advancements in science will be in fields that have very little practical use for humans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you are saying that all science is accomplished by humans.
I think you are mistaken.
In fact in the near future, I think most science will be done by computers.
Where are the top 2 supercomputers?
Where are the majority of the top 500 supercomputers?
They are both in the United States.
I believe that before 2040 or sooner the vast majority of people will not care about any advances in science because there will be no need for those advances.
Why would I care if they come out with a 10 terabyte hard drive when I can not fill a 1 terabyte hard drive?
I believe we can rebuild everything underground so that we no longer fear the environment and use a small fraction of the energy we use today.
When that day comes the need for advancements in science will be in fields that have very little practical use for humans.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30623654</id>
	<title>O RLY?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262456100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nope, it's still leading in important sectors like Creationism. Although with Iran as a close second.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope , it 's still leading in important sectors like Creationism .
Although with Iran as a close second .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope, it's still leading in important sectors like Creationism.
Although with Iran as a close second.
;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30625336</id>
	<title>Re:not news</title>
	<author>WCguru42</author>
	<datestamp>1262465640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ironically, we are only releasing carbon from fossil fuels that was once in plants, which was once in the air, which is where we are putting it.  Not sure that, given the planet earth is a closed system in terms of matter conservation, we are doing anything never seen in the history of this planet.</p></div><p>Ironically, you would not be living well in a Earth habitat that existed 1,000,000s of years ago.  Just because the Earth once was does not mean that Humankind once was.  Humankind has not been around as long as the Earth and there were many, many environments that the Earth has had.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ironically , we are only releasing carbon from fossil fuels that was once in plants , which was once in the air , which is where we are putting it .
Not sure that , given the planet earth is a closed system in terms of matter conservation , we are doing anything never seen in the history of this planet.Ironically , you would not be living well in a Earth habitat that existed 1,000,000s of years ago .
Just because the Earth once was does not mean that Humankind once was .
Humankind has not been around as long as the Earth and there were many , many environments that the Earth has had .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ironically, we are only releasing carbon from fossil fuels that was once in plants, which was once in the air, which is where we are putting it.
Not sure that, given the planet earth is a closed system in terms of matter conservation, we are doing anything never seen in the history of this planet.Ironically, you would not be living well in a Earth habitat that existed 1,000,000s of years ago.
Just because the Earth once was does not mean that Humankind once was.
Humankind has not been around as long as the Earth and there were many, many environments that the Earth has had.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30624398</id>
	<title>It's the incentives!</title>
	<author>XDirtypunkX</author>
	<datestamp>1262460000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you want better science and technology, you need to give the scientists and engineers more incentives, respect and recognition. I don't just mean respect and recognition in their field, I mean by society at large for creating the life in which we now live. They also need incentives that are proportional to their achievement; it's an absurd state of affairs where an executive can take home millions of dollars a year while some of those who've made the technology which is the cornerstone of our society often take home a 10th of that or less. Even more absurd that for some reason we value the average plumber's time ahead of that of the average engineer or scientist.</p><p>In many ways, these are the signs of a decaying society. The people who have been the architects of the greatest progress have been disenfranchised from receiving the benefits of their labor and because of it, they'll become detached and apathetic. Who's going to take their place seeing how they're treated? What incentive is there to continue their work?</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want better science and technology , you need to give the scientists and engineers more incentives , respect and recognition .
I do n't just mean respect and recognition in their field , I mean by society at large for creating the life in which we now live .
They also need incentives that are proportional to their achievement ; it 's an absurd state of affairs where an executive can take home millions of dollars a year while some of those who 've made the technology which is the cornerstone of our society often take home a 10th of that or less .
Even more absurd that for some reason we value the average plumber 's time ahead of that of the average engineer or scientist.In many ways , these are the signs of a decaying society .
The people who have been the architects of the greatest progress have been disenfranchised from receiving the benefits of their labor and because of it , they 'll become detached and apathetic .
Who 's going to take their place seeing how they 're treated ?
What incentive is there to continue their work ?
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want better science and technology, you need to give the scientists and engineers more incentives, respect and recognition.
I don't just mean respect and recognition in their field, I mean by society at large for creating the life in which we now live.
They also need incentives that are proportional to their achievement; it's an absurd state of affairs where an executive can take home millions of dollars a year while some of those who've made the technology which is the cornerstone of our society often take home a 10th of that or less.
Even more absurd that for some reason we value the average plumber's time ahead of that of the average engineer or scientist.In many ways, these are the signs of a decaying society.
The people who have been the architects of the greatest progress have been disenfranchised from receiving the benefits of their labor and because of it, they'll become detached and apathetic.
Who's going to take their place seeing how they're treated?
What incentive is there to continue their work?
   </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30623970</id>
	<title>Re:I agree</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262457720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>this nightmare started in 1980 with reagan and has continued ever since.  Poppa Bush tried to give it more funding, but Clinton did little and W out and out destroyed it.  It remains to be seen what Obama really will do, but it does not look all that good.</p></div><p>Clinton canceled the Superconducting Supercollider. That's pretty fucking big, but not in a good way...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>this nightmare started in 1980 with reagan and has continued ever since .
Poppa Bush tried to give it more funding , but Clinton did little and W out and out destroyed it .
It remains to be seen what Obama really will do , but it does not look all that good.Clinton canceled the Superconducting Supercollider .
That 's pretty fucking big , but not in a good way.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this nightmare started in 1980 with reagan and has continued ever since.
Poppa Bush tried to give it more funding, but Clinton did little and W out and out destroyed it.
It remains to be seen what Obama really will do, but it does not look all that good.Clinton canceled the Superconducting Supercollider.
That's pretty fucking big, but not in a good way...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622070</id>
	<title>Actually this has happened for a while now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262446140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The USA does not, contrary to some believing it, have a monopoly on science and technology.</p><p>During the 1970's to 1990's the USA may have made some innovative computer technology and got the Apollo mission to the Moon and the Space Shuttle, but the rest of the world has caught up and in some ways passed us by.</p><p>Due to offshoring the work to foreign nations and not hiring enough scientists, engineers, and computer science US citizens in the USA, most of us had to take a job to pay the bills that does not contribute to science and technology. The jobs went to the lower bidders in India, China, Russia, etc instead. Labor goes to where labor costs are cheaper as per classic capitalism and even China has become capitalist. Minimum wage is welfare capitalism and classic capitalism does not use it. The USA has welfare capitalism which means we have welfare ie social programs backed by capitalism via insurance and that means unemployment, COBRA, medicare, disability, welfare, etc. We also force companies to get health insurance for their employees but foreign nations do not. Plus we tax corporations to pay for our welfare capitalism social programs so it also forces companies to move to foreign nations to avoid all that.</p><p>When I went to UMR I hung out with the foreign students from China and other places. They were so smart I would play pinball with them in the student lounge and they would win all of these free games because of mechanical engineering and they taught me some of the tricks of playing pinball and gave me their free games, in which I would win more free games and give them to another student. The best of the best from foreign nations come to the USA for college degrees and used to work in the USA, but now thanks to the Internet they can work in a foreign nation and turn out work for pennies on the dollar of what a US citizen wants to earn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The USA does not , contrary to some believing it , have a monopoly on science and technology.During the 1970 's to 1990 's the USA may have made some innovative computer technology and got the Apollo mission to the Moon and the Space Shuttle , but the rest of the world has caught up and in some ways passed us by.Due to offshoring the work to foreign nations and not hiring enough scientists , engineers , and computer science US citizens in the USA , most of us had to take a job to pay the bills that does not contribute to science and technology .
The jobs went to the lower bidders in India , China , Russia , etc instead .
Labor goes to where labor costs are cheaper as per classic capitalism and even China has become capitalist .
Minimum wage is welfare capitalism and classic capitalism does not use it .
The USA has welfare capitalism which means we have welfare ie social programs backed by capitalism via insurance and that means unemployment , COBRA , medicare , disability , welfare , etc .
We also force companies to get health insurance for their employees but foreign nations do not .
Plus we tax corporations to pay for our welfare capitalism social programs so it also forces companies to move to foreign nations to avoid all that.When I went to UMR I hung out with the foreign students from China and other places .
They were so smart I would play pinball with them in the student lounge and they would win all of these free games because of mechanical engineering and they taught me some of the tricks of playing pinball and gave me their free games , in which I would win more free games and give them to another student .
The best of the best from foreign nations come to the USA for college degrees and used to work in the USA , but now thanks to the Internet they can work in a foreign nation and turn out work for pennies on the dollar of what a US citizen wants to earn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The USA does not, contrary to some believing it, have a monopoly on science and technology.During the 1970's to 1990's the USA may have made some innovative computer technology and got the Apollo mission to the Moon and the Space Shuttle, but the rest of the world has caught up and in some ways passed us by.Due to offshoring the work to foreign nations and not hiring enough scientists, engineers, and computer science US citizens in the USA, most of us had to take a job to pay the bills that does not contribute to science and technology.
The jobs went to the lower bidders in India, China, Russia, etc instead.
Labor goes to where labor costs are cheaper as per classic capitalism and even China has become capitalist.
Minimum wage is welfare capitalism and classic capitalism does not use it.
The USA has welfare capitalism which means we have welfare ie social programs backed by capitalism via insurance and that means unemployment, COBRA, medicare, disability, welfare, etc.
We also force companies to get health insurance for their employees but foreign nations do not.
Plus we tax corporations to pay for our welfare capitalism social programs so it also forces companies to move to foreign nations to avoid all that.When I went to UMR I hung out with the foreign students from China and other places.
They were so smart I would play pinball with them in the student lounge and they would win all of these free games because of mechanical engineering and they taught me some of the tricks of playing pinball and gave me their free games, in which I would win more free games and give them to another student.
The best of the best from foreign nations come to the USA for college degrees and used to work in the USA, but now thanks to the Internet they can work in a foreign nation and turn out work for pennies on the dollar of what a US citizen wants to earn.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622892</id>
	<title>Re:not news</title>
	<author>tacocat</author>
	<datestamp>1262452080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is what happens when you start to politicize science.</p><p>We spending money proving Global Warming but change it to Climate Change.  Still not a lot of scientifically sound evidence that we are in a man-made cycle with irreversible conditions.  Ironically, we are only releasing carbon from fossil fuels that was once in plants, which was once in the air, which is where we are putting it.  Not sure that, given the planet earth is a closed system in terms of matter conservation, we are doing anything never seen in the history of this planet.</p><p>But we spend more money on social engineering than we do on real engineering or research.  I think if the government gave up on all research it would be beneficial.  Virgin is doing more with space technology than NASA is.  And making money at it.</p><p>All government funded research does is take money away from people who want to spend it in some other manner and apply it towards projects that may not have any realizable benefit that's being run by people who are better at pitching funding proposals than delivering results.</p><p>Here's food for thought.  Polywell fusion has amazing potential as a viable energy source.  Government funding consists of $500,000 from the US Navy and run by a private company.  The researchers are not Government employees.  With some Venture Capital they could be running this project with billions of capital investments.</p><p>UAV technology is at a complete standstill in this country -- unless you work for the USAF.  FAA regulations are so retarded you can't consider ever deploying UAV on US territories.  But Australia and Korea are kicking butt on this research outside of military applications because they have commercially viable potential.</p><p>We don't do commercial R&amp;D because we can't afford it.  All our money is going to Federal programs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is what happens when you start to politicize science.We spending money proving Global Warming but change it to Climate Change .
Still not a lot of scientifically sound evidence that we are in a man-made cycle with irreversible conditions .
Ironically , we are only releasing carbon from fossil fuels that was once in plants , which was once in the air , which is where we are putting it .
Not sure that , given the planet earth is a closed system in terms of matter conservation , we are doing anything never seen in the history of this planet.But we spend more money on social engineering than we do on real engineering or research .
I think if the government gave up on all research it would be beneficial .
Virgin is doing more with space technology than NASA is .
And making money at it.All government funded research does is take money away from people who want to spend it in some other manner and apply it towards projects that may not have any realizable benefit that 's being run by people who are better at pitching funding proposals than delivering results.Here 's food for thought .
Polywell fusion has amazing potential as a viable energy source .
Government funding consists of $ 500,000 from the US Navy and run by a private company .
The researchers are not Government employees .
With some Venture Capital they could be running this project with billions of capital investments.UAV technology is at a complete standstill in this country -- unless you work for the USAF .
FAA regulations are so retarded you ca n't consider ever deploying UAV on US territories .
But Australia and Korea are kicking butt on this research outside of military applications because they have commercially viable potential.We do n't do commercial R&amp;D because we ca n't afford it .
All our money is going to Federal programs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is what happens when you start to politicize science.We spending money proving Global Warming but change it to Climate Change.
Still not a lot of scientifically sound evidence that we are in a man-made cycle with irreversible conditions.
Ironically, we are only releasing carbon from fossil fuels that was once in plants, which was once in the air, which is where we are putting it.
Not sure that, given the planet earth is a closed system in terms of matter conservation, we are doing anything never seen in the history of this planet.But we spend more money on social engineering than we do on real engineering or research.
I think if the government gave up on all research it would be beneficial.
Virgin is doing more with space technology than NASA is.
And making money at it.All government funded research does is take money away from people who want to spend it in some other manner and apply it towards projects that may not have any realizable benefit that's being run by people who are better at pitching funding proposals than delivering results.Here's food for thought.
Polywell fusion has amazing potential as a viable energy source.
Government funding consists of $500,000 from the US Navy and run by a private company.
The researchers are not Government employees.
With some Venture Capital they could be running this project with billions of capital investments.UAV technology is at a complete standstill in this country -- unless you work for the USAF.
FAA regulations are so retarded you can't consider ever deploying UAV on US territories.
But Australia and Korea are kicking butt on this research outside of military applications because they have commercially viable potential.We don't do commercial R&amp;D because we can't afford it.
All our money is going to Federal programs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30639092</id>
	<title>Re:not news</title>
	<author>gtall</author>
	<datestamp>1262606700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NIH. Unless you really want the drug companies to be in complete control of your future health. DOE. Unless you really want the oil companies to be in complete control of your future energy. NSF. Unless you really want the bean counters at IBM and HP in charge of your future computation theory. The problem with people like you is that you can only see how you would spend the money and discern it is different than how others would.</p><p>And incidentally, UAV technology, widely dispersed, means that not all the UAVs you wish to be flying around the country are the ones not carring terrorist bombs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NIH .
Unless you really want the drug companies to be in complete control of your future health .
DOE. Unless you really want the oil companies to be in complete control of your future energy .
NSF. Unless you really want the bean counters at IBM and HP in charge of your future computation theory .
The problem with people like you is that you can only see how you would spend the money and discern it is different than how others would.And incidentally , UAV technology , widely dispersed , means that not all the UAVs you wish to be flying around the country are the ones not carring terrorist bombs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NIH.
Unless you really want the drug companies to be in complete control of your future health.
DOE. Unless you really want the oil companies to be in complete control of your future energy.
NSF. Unless you really want the bean counters at IBM and HP in charge of your future computation theory.
The problem with people like you is that you can only see how you would spend the money and discern it is different than how others would.And incidentally, UAV technology, widely dispersed, means that not all the UAVs you wish to be flying around the country are the ones not carring terrorist bombs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30636154</id>
	<title>Re:I blame the MBA</title>
	<author>Z8</author>
	<datestamp>1262526780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The value might be pedestrian (like the contemporary benefits of first exploring electricity included lightning rods) or abstract (the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Least\_squares" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">least squares method</a> [wikipedia.org] was first developed by Carl Gauss in order to more conveniently determine the orbit of an asteroid).</p></div><p>And what short term benefit did conveniently calculating the orbit of an asteroid have?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The value might be pedestrian ( like the contemporary benefits of first exploring electricity included lightning rods ) or abstract ( the least squares method [ wikipedia.org ] was first developed by Carl Gauss in order to more conveniently determine the orbit of an asteroid ) .And what short term benefit did conveniently calculating the orbit of an asteroid have ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The value might be pedestrian (like the contemporary benefits of first exploring electricity included lightning rods) or abstract (the least squares method [wikipedia.org] was first developed by Carl Gauss in order to more conveniently determine the orbit of an asteroid).And what short term benefit did conveniently calculating the orbit of an asteroid have?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30624754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622202</id>
	<title>I blame the MBA</title>
	<author>DG</author>
	<datestamp>1262447340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally, I blame the MBA. As in the "Masters of Business Administration" degree.</p><p>The MBA programmes at all North American universities promote this short of short-term, quarter-by-quarter, stock price driven corporate culture. As the MBA increasingly became the price of entry to more lucrative salaries and promotion within an enterprise, that culture became all-pervasive, to the point where it is now the water in which the fish swim.</p><p>And along the way, the MBA-trained manager class forgot the hard-learned lessons of their founding fathers - like long-term planning, maintainence of corporate morale, and taking care of employees.</p><p>My career arc went military (I was a product of a military college) -&gt; civvi -&gt; military. The military is hardly a perfect institution, but one thing it really gets right is teaching leadership. Actual *leadership*, not just management.</p><p>One of the key tenets of leadership is that quality personnel who are properly motivated can overcome shortfalls in pretty much everything else. Crappy materials, shitty situation, odds stacked against you - well led troops can overcome these things and manufacture success.</p><p>And so there are a number of principles that go along with providing this kind of leadership: Lead by example. Ask your subordinates to do nothing you wouldn't do (or haven't done). Loyalty up starts with loyalty down. Respect is earned, not demanded. Always tell the truth, no matter how unpalatable it might be. If you have to correct someone (or you yourself are corrected) fix the problem and move on with no grudges. Provide subordinates with clear direction, including the mission to be accomplished and your intent, and then trust them to carry it out. Etc.</p><p>Yes, even in the military it is rare for all of these to gel in the same unit, and I can name commanders who I worked for/with who were deficient in one or more of these areas. But even the worst of them (and some could be pretty bad) were still better leaders and ultimately more effective than any MBA-trained manager I ever worked with as a civilian.</p><p>Having worked in a variety of civvie companies, ranging from small startups to major corporations (and most of my civvie experience was with US corporations) I've never seen so many people so completely oblivious to the effects of their decisions upon morale and the overall health and well being of their workforce. Decisions were routinely made with no consideration of second or third order effects. Corporate loyalty simply did not exist, with the employees in the trenches convinced (quite rightly) that management was out to screw them as hard as they could - and so it was OK then to screw the company as hard as they could.</p><p>And most frustratingly, any attempt to draw attention to problems in an attempt to get them rectified was usually perceived as an attack on the person who came up with the policy, not the policy itself. It was nearly impossible to pass ground truth up the chain because the bearer of bad news was treated as "difficult" and quite often punished or even terminated.</p><p>I wonder sometimes if the success of the "greatest generation" who fought in WW2 isn't because so many key people were exposed to military-style leadership and that sense of everybody in an enterprise pulling towards a common goal, and then that carrying on through the rest of their lives. Now, we get the short-sighted, numbers-focussed "leadership" of the MBA and the resulting destruction and misery.</p><p>I went back to the Army in large part because I couldn't take it any more. Even a bad day in the Army usually trumped a good day as a corporate wage slave.</p><p>DG</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I blame the MBA .
As in the " Masters of Business Administration " degree.The MBA programmes at all North American universities promote this short of short-term , quarter-by-quarter , stock price driven corporate culture .
As the MBA increasingly became the price of entry to more lucrative salaries and promotion within an enterprise , that culture became all-pervasive , to the point where it is now the water in which the fish swim.And along the way , the MBA-trained manager class forgot the hard-learned lessons of their founding fathers - like long-term planning , maintainence of corporate morale , and taking care of employees.My career arc went military ( I was a product of a military college ) - &gt; civvi - &gt; military .
The military is hardly a perfect institution , but one thing it really gets right is teaching leadership .
Actual * leadership * , not just management.One of the key tenets of leadership is that quality personnel who are properly motivated can overcome shortfalls in pretty much everything else .
Crappy materials , shitty situation , odds stacked against you - well led troops can overcome these things and manufacture success.And so there are a number of principles that go along with providing this kind of leadership : Lead by example .
Ask your subordinates to do nothing you would n't do ( or have n't done ) .
Loyalty up starts with loyalty down .
Respect is earned , not demanded .
Always tell the truth , no matter how unpalatable it might be .
If you have to correct someone ( or you yourself are corrected ) fix the problem and move on with no grudges .
Provide subordinates with clear direction , including the mission to be accomplished and your intent , and then trust them to carry it out .
Etc.Yes , even in the military it is rare for all of these to gel in the same unit , and I can name commanders who I worked for/with who were deficient in one or more of these areas .
But even the worst of them ( and some could be pretty bad ) were still better leaders and ultimately more effective than any MBA-trained manager I ever worked with as a civilian.Having worked in a variety of civvie companies , ranging from small startups to major corporations ( and most of my civvie experience was with US corporations ) I 've never seen so many people so completely oblivious to the effects of their decisions upon morale and the overall health and well being of their workforce .
Decisions were routinely made with no consideration of second or third order effects .
Corporate loyalty simply did not exist , with the employees in the trenches convinced ( quite rightly ) that management was out to screw them as hard as they could - and so it was OK then to screw the company as hard as they could.And most frustratingly , any attempt to draw attention to problems in an attempt to get them rectified was usually perceived as an attack on the person who came up with the policy , not the policy itself .
It was nearly impossible to pass ground truth up the chain because the bearer of bad news was treated as " difficult " and quite often punished or even terminated.I wonder sometimes if the success of the " greatest generation " who fought in WW2 is n't because so many key people were exposed to military-style leadership and that sense of everybody in an enterprise pulling towards a common goal , and then that carrying on through the rest of their lives .
Now , we get the short-sighted , numbers-focussed " leadership " of the MBA and the resulting destruction and misery.I went back to the Army in large part because I could n't take it any more .
Even a bad day in the Army usually trumped a good day as a corporate wage slave.DG</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I blame the MBA.
As in the "Masters of Business Administration" degree.The MBA programmes at all North American universities promote this short of short-term, quarter-by-quarter, stock price driven corporate culture.
As the MBA increasingly became the price of entry to more lucrative salaries and promotion within an enterprise, that culture became all-pervasive, to the point where it is now the water in which the fish swim.And along the way, the MBA-trained manager class forgot the hard-learned lessons of their founding fathers - like long-term planning, maintainence of corporate morale, and taking care of employees.My career arc went military (I was a product of a military college) -&gt; civvi -&gt; military.
The military is hardly a perfect institution, but one thing it really gets right is teaching leadership.
Actual *leadership*, not just management.One of the key tenets of leadership is that quality personnel who are properly motivated can overcome shortfalls in pretty much everything else.
Crappy materials, shitty situation, odds stacked against you - well led troops can overcome these things and manufacture success.And so there are a number of principles that go along with providing this kind of leadership: Lead by example.
Ask your subordinates to do nothing you wouldn't do (or haven't done).
Loyalty up starts with loyalty down.
Respect is earned, not demanded.
Always tell the truth, no matter how unpalatable it might be.
If you have to correct someone (or you yourself are corrected) fix the problem and move on with no grudges.
Provide subordinates with clear direction, including the mission to be accomplished and your intent, and then trust them to carry it out.
Etc.Yes, even in the military it is rare for all of these to gel in the same unit, and I can name commanders who I worked for/with who were deficient in one or more of these areas.
But even the worst of them (and some could be pretty bad) were still better leaders and ultimately more effective than any MBA-trained manager I ever worked with as a civilian.Having worked in a variety of civvie companies, ranging from small startups to major corporations (and most of my civvie experience was with US corporations) I've never seen so many people so completely oblivious to the effects of their decisions upon morale and the overall health and well being of their workforce.
Decisions were routinely made with no consideration of second or third order effects.
Corporate loyalty simply did not exist, with the employees in the trenches convinced (quite rightly) that management was out to screw them as hard as they could - and so it was OK then to screw the company as hard as they could.And most frustratingly, any attempt to draw attention to problems in an attempt to get them rectified was usually perceived as an attack on the person who came up with the policy, not the policy itself.
It was nearly impossible to pass ground truth up the chain because the bearer of bad news was treated as "difficult" and quite often punished or even terminated.I wonder sometimes if the success of the "greatest generation" who fought in WW2 isn't because so many key people were exposed to military-style leadership and that sense of everybody in an enterprise pulling towards a common goal, and then that carrying on through the rest of their lives.
Now, we get the short-sighted, numbers-focussed "leadership" of the MBA and the resulting destruction and misery.I went back to the Army in large part because I couldn't take it any more.
Even a bad day in the Army usually trumped a good day as a corporate wage slave.DG</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622050</id>
	<title>Internally Mirrored Glasses</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1262445900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't recall being asked if I'd like to have my science credited to the US, either upon entry into the science workforce or at the outset of each study. I resent being appropriated.</p><p>Tyson is an educator/entertainer and a scientist. None of this makes him qualified in any way to speak on the political implications of "scientific leadership", whatever that is supposed to be. Tyson should perhaps stick to the science, perhaps even doing some on the subject raised here. He might be surprised to find that scientific leadership is not what drives economic strength and security. If asked, I'm sure the economic and security leaderships would be glad to explain this fully.</p><p>From whence this wind blown rhetoric, Tyson? Scientific leadership has led nothing in this country but science itself for our entire history. And whither blowest? Is there some science pulpit coming open in the political arena? Science Czar perhaps? If so, you've got the talking pretty part down, but could use some work when it comes to realism. Willing suspension of disbelief applies to drama, not politics nor science.</p><p>To lead one must be involved. The more science is involved with politics the less it is allowed to lead itself much less any other segments of society. Scientists who attempt to lead more than science suffer from the handicap of relying on truth. Other practicing politicians do not suffer this same problem, and will eat your lunch.</p><p>For someone whose training is in an observational science, Tyson seems peculiarly unable or unwilling to observe the relationship of science to politics across history. Too close maybe? As an astronomer you should be familiar with that in order to be able to focus your instrument on a target, you need go be quite some distance away. As for me, that's where I plan to keep my science, because I've had mine looked over by the Department of Appropriation of Research for Political Agendas(DARPA) and those people piss me off and scare me.</p><p>And until the general population sees fit to show up at the lab to do their share of the work, fuck this 'we' shit. I do science for Science's sake. If there were an alternative called US Science, I'd refuse to do that sort. Luckily outside of politically motivated rhetoric there isn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't recall being asked if I 'd like to have my science credited to the US , either upon entry into the science workforce or at the outset of each study .
I resent being appropriated.Tyson is an educator/entertainer and a scientist .
None of this makes him qualified in any way to speak on the political implications of " scientific leadership " , whatever that is supposed to be .
Tyson should perhaps stick to the science , perhaps even doing some on the subject raised here .
He might be surprised to find that scientific leadership is not what drives economic strength and security .
If asked , I 'm sure the economic and security leaderships would be glad to explain this fully.From whence this wind blown rhetoric , Tyson ?
Scientific leadership has led nothing in this country but science itself for our entire history .
And whither blowest ?
Is there some science pulpit coming open in the political arena ?
Science Czar perhaps ?
If so , you 've got the talking pretty part down , but could use some work when it comes to realism .
Willing suspension of disbelief applies to drama , not politics nor science.To lead one must be involved .
The more science is involved with politics the less it is allowed to lead itself much less any other segments of society .
Scientists who attempt to lead more than science suffer from the handicap of relying on truth .
Other practicing politicians do not suffer this same problem , and will eat your lunch.For someone whose training is in an observational science , Tyson seems peculiarly unable or unwilling to observe the relationship of science to politics across history .
Too close maybe ?
As an astronomer you should be familiar with that in order to be able to focus your instrument on a target , you need go be quite some distance away .
As for me , that 's where I plan to keep my science , because I 've had mine looked over by the Department of Appropriation of Research for Political Agendas ( DARPA ) and those people piss me off and scare me.And until the general population sees fit to show up at the lab to do their share of the work , fuck this 'we ' shit .
I do science for Science 's sake .
If there were an alternative called US Science , I 'd refuse to do that sort .
Luckily outside of politically motivated rhetoric there is n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't recall being asked if I'd like to have my science credited to the US, either upon entry into the science workforce or at the outset of each study.
I resent being appropriated.Tyson is an educator/entertainer and a scientist.
None of this makes him qualified in any way to speak on the political implications of "scientific leadership", whatever that is supposed to be.
Tyson should perhaps stick to the science, perhaps even doing some on the subject raised here.
He might be surprised to find that scientific leadership is not what drives economic strength and security.
If asked, I'm sure the economic and security leaderships would be glad to explain this fully.From whence this wind blown rhetoric, Tyson?
Scientific leadership has led nothing in this country but science itself for our entire history.
And whither blowest?
Is there some science pulpit coming open in the political arena?
Science Czar perhaps?
If so, you've got the talking pretty part down, but could use some work when it comes to realism.
Willing suspension of disbelief applies to drama, not politics nor science.To lead one must be involved.
The more science is involved with politics the less it is allowed to lead itself much less any other segments of society.
Scientists who attempt to lead more than science suffer from the handicap of relying on truth.
Other practicing politicians do not suffer this same problem, and will eat your lunch.For someone whose training is in an observational science, Tyson seems peculiarly unable or unwilling to observe the relationship of science to politics across history.
Too close maybe?
As an astronomer you should be familiar with that in order to be able to focus your instrument on a target, you need go be quite some distance away.
As for me, that's where I plan to keep my science, because I've had mine looked over by the Department of Appropriation of Research for Political Agendas(DARPA) and those people piss me off and scare me.And until the general population sees fit to show up at the lab to do their share of the work, fuck this 'we' shit.
I do science for Science's sake.
If there were an alternative called US Science, I'd refuse to do that sort.
Luckily outside of politically motivated rhetoric there isn't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30625908</id>
	<title>Re:The Beatles were great for declining Britain</title>
	<author>Dr.Dubious DDQ</author>
	<datestamp>1262425860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"what does a Bed and Breakfast feed Chinese for breakfast?"</i>
<p>That depends - if the Bed and Breakfast in question is in the US, one might assume the Chinese visitors are tourists who want to experience "Americanism", so you feed them a fried beef patty topped with Cheez-Wiz and using a chocolate-covered donut for a bun...</p><p>Seriously though - probably anything that counts as a "normal" "American[1]" breakfast food (bacon and eggs, waffles, etc) if you're catering to tourists.</p><p>I have to confess though, and I'm curious - Here in the US, "Chinese Food" is virtually always considered "dinner" or "lunch" food.  I have no idea what Chinese folks eat for their morning meal, nor how much it varies from region to region in China.  I know it's getting off-topic, but I'd be interested if someone wanted to post the Secret of Chinese Breakfast...</p><p>[1] "Scare quotes" around "American" because so much "American" food is actually from elsewhere.  "Hamburger" and "Frankfurter", for example...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" what does a Bed and Breakfast feed Chinese for breakfast ?
" That depends - if the Bed and Breakfast in question is in the US , one might assume the Chinese visitors are tourists who want to experience " Americanism " , so you feed them a fried beef patty topped with Cheez-Wiz and using a chocolate-covered donut for a bun...Seriously though - probably anything that counts as a " normal " " American [ 1 ] " breakfast food ( bacon and eggs , waffles , etc ) if you 're catering to tourists.I have to confess though , and I 'm curious - Here in the US , " Chinese Food " is virtually always considered " dinner " or " lunch " food .
I have no idea what Chinese folks eat for their morning meal , nor how much it varies from region to region in China .
I know it 's getting off-topic , but I 'd be interested if someone wanted to post the Secret of Chinese Breakfast... [ 1 ] " Scare quotes " around " American " because so much " American " food is actually from elsewhere .
" Hamburger " and " Frankfurter " , for example.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"what does a Bed and Breakfast feed Chinese for breakfast?
"
That depends - if the Bed and Breakfast in question is in the US, one might assume the Chinese visitors are tourists who want to experience "Americanism", so you feed them a fried beef patty topped with Cheez-Wiz and using a chocolate-covered donut for a bun...Seriously though - probably anything that counts as a "normal" "American[1]" breakfast food (bacon and eggs, waffles, etc) if you're catering to tourists.I have to confess though, and I'm curious - Here in the US, "Chinese Food" is virtually always considered "dinner" or "lunch" food.
I have no idea what Chinese folks eat for their morning meal, nor how much it varies from region to region in China.
I know it's getting off-topic, but I'd be interested if someone wanted to post the Secret of Chinese Breakfast...[1] "Scare quotes" around "American" because so much "American" food is actually from elsewhere.
"Hamburger" and "Frankfurter", for example...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30628294</id>
	<title>Re:I expect so...</title>
	<author>mcrbids</author>
	<datestamp>1262442420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>We also see a drop in the quality of education (i.e. why are we still arguing about evolution in 20XX) standards and that will have a long term effect.</i></p><p>If only the problem really was that simple... Yes, we've had a dramatic drop in educational standards, teachers are painfully underpaid, and recent efforts to improve educational standards have strictly enforced the very things we need least, (IE: rote memorization) but the problem is much deeper than that!</p><p>For the past 30 years, the United States has been systematically under attack from a foreign power, a systematic attack designed to destroy the infrastructure of the United States. Our roads, power, and communications structures, once the wonder of the modern world, slowly crumbles. Our youth are demotivated from inception to anything that produces real world wealth, while the industries that created the great economic powers are sent overseas.</p><p>No, I'm not talking about some "liberals" or Illuminati or anything so inane and two-dimensional as that. I'm talking about China.</p><p>Yes, China, who, by performing the simple act of locking their currency to ours, created temporary abundance of apparent wealth here while slowly decimating our foundations. Why should our children work hard to learn physics and tough sciences, when careers as managers and bean-counters pays oh so much better? Engineers and skilled workers increasingly have to compete with similarly competent rivals in a country with 1/10th the pay scale. Why would anyone accept such poor terms and an environment so rigged to failure?</p><p>So we train wave after wave of nearly useless MBAs who profit immensely from the slow demolition of the US infrastructure, and a government that has now all but "come out of the closet" for its reliance on China with its recent borrowing fiascos, funded by the Chinese.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We also see a drop in the quality of education ( i.e .
why are we still arguing about evolution in 20XX ) standards and that will have a long term effect.If only the problem really was that simple... Yes , we 've had a dramatic drop in educational standards , teachers are painfully underpaid , and recent efforts to improve educational standards have strictly enforced the very things we need least , ( IE : rote memorization ) but the problem is much deeper than that ! For the past 30 years , the United States has been systematically under attack from a foreign power , a systematic attack designed to destroy the infrastructure of the United States .
Our roads , power , and communications structures , once the wonder of the modern world , slowly crumbles .
Our youth are demotivated from inception to anything that produces real world wealth , while the industries that created the great economic powers are sent overseas.No , I 'm not talking about some " liberals " or Illuminati or anything so inane and two-dimensional as that .
I 'm talking about China.Yes , China , who , by performing the simple act of locking their currency to ours , created temporary abundance of apparent wealth here while slowly decimating our foundations .
Why should our children work hard to learn physics and tough sciences , when careers as managers and bean-counters pays oh so much better ?
Engineers and skilled workers increasingly have to compete with similarly competent rivals in a country with 1/10th the pay scale .
Why would anyone accept such poor terms and an environment so rigged to failure ? So we train wave after wave of nearly useless MBAs who profit immensely from the slow demolition of the US infrastructure , and a government that has now all but " come out of the closet " for its reliance on China with its recent borrowing fiascos , funded by the Chinese .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We also see a drop in the quality of education (i.e.
why are we still arguing about evolution in 20XX) standards and that will have a long term effect.If only the problem really was that simple... Yes, we've had a dramatic drop in educational standards, teachers are painfully underpaid, and recent efforts to improve educational standards have strictly enforced the very things we need least, (IE: rote memorization) but the problem is much deeper than that!For the past 30 years, the United States has been systematically under attack from a foreign power, a systematic attack designed to destroy the infrastructure of the United States.
Our roads, power, and communications structures, once the wonder of the modern world, slowly crumbles.
Our youth are demotivated from inception to anything that produces real world wealth, while the industries that created the great economic powers are sent overseas.No, I'm not talking about some "liberals" or Illuminati or anything so inane and two-dimensional as that.
I'm talking about China.Yes, China, who, by performing the simple act of locking their currency to ours, created temporary abundance of apparent wealth here while slowly decimating our foundations.
Why should our children work hard to learn physics and tough sciences, when careers as managers and bean-counters pays oh so much better?
Engineers and skilled workers increasingly have to compete with similarly competent rivals in a country with 1/10th the pay scale.
Why would anyone accept such poor terms and an environment so rigged to failure?So we train wave after wave of nearly useless MBAs who profit immensely from the slow demolition of the US infrastructure, and a government that has now all but "come out of the closet" for its reliance on China with its recent borrowing fiascos, funded by the Chinese.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622260</id>
	<title>Re:I have seen the lecture you are referring too.</title>
	<author>Turbosatan</author>
	<datestamp>1262447760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>the next few years will be a big deciding factor in our futures. we will either be able to break this ridiculous religious fervour which seems to be overly rife in america or we will become slaves to the bullshit these people peddle forever.</htmltext>
<tokenext>the next few years will be a big deciding factor in our futures .
we will either be able to break this ridiculous religious fervour which seems to be overly rife in america or we will become slaves to the bullshit these people peddle forever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the next few years will be a big deciding factor in our futures.
we will either be able to break this ridiculous religious fervour which seems to be overly rife in america or we will become slaves to the bullshit these people peddle forever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621886</id>
	<title>offtopic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262444160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So basically the have "terrorist" won. USA is screwed by the war and anti-terror legislation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So basically the have " terrorist " won .
USA is screwed by the war and anti-terror legislation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So basically the have "terrorist" won.
USA is screwed by the war and anti-terror legislation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622718</id>
	<title>Re:I have seen the lecture you are referring too.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262451420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hard science papers dropped to 1/10th? Nonsense.</p><p>The number of papers published increased significantly during the Bush administration. What has dropped is the percentage of papers published in the US versus the rest of the world. That trend started back in the eighties as countries like China, India, and the former Soviet Union published more, <a href="http://www.physorg.com/news5531.html" title="physorg.com" rel="nofollow">not that the US published less</a> [physorg.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hard science papers dropped to 1/10th ?
Nonsense.The number of papers published increased significantly during the Bush administration .
What has dropped is the percentage of papers published in the US versus the rest of the world .
That trend started back in the eighties as countries like China , India , and the former Soviet Union published more , not that the US published less [ physorg.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hard science papers dropped to 1/10th?
Nonsense.The number of papers published increased significantly during the Bush administration.
What has dropped is the percentage of papers published in the US versus the rest of the world.
That trend started back in the eighties as countries like China, India, and the former Soviet Union published more, not that the US published less [physorg.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622350</id>
	<title>Re:"Science" is not just "Eureka"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262448600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you kill local industry and manufacture, then you also kill science.</p><p>If you kill science, then you also kill local industry and manufacture.</p><p>So true.  In the US, engineering was replaced with buying other companies to save money and stifle competition.  The end result being witnessed as a decline from being the world leader in innovation.  Corporate greed once again.  For all the past, current and upcoming MBA's out there, this what your greed has brought us- Thank you.  Regardless of what you are taught in graduate school- business has an obligation to society and to its employees.</p><p>If ALL the businesses farm out their work to foreign countries and lay off their workers, who will be left in the country to buy your goods or services?  Oh wait- It's a global economy. I forgot. You don't care about that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you kill local industry and manufacture , then you also kill science.If you kill science , then you also kill local industry and manufacture.So true .
In the US , engineering was replaced with buying other companies to save money and stifle competition .
The end result being witnessed as a decline from being the world leader in innovation .
Corporate greed once again .
For all the past , current and upcoming MBA 's out there , this what your greed has brought us- Thank you .
Regardless of what you are taught in graduate school- business has an obligation to society and to its employees.If ALL the businesses farm out their work to foreign countries and lay off their workers , who will be left in the country to buy your goods or services ?
Oh wait- It 's a global economy .
I forgot .
You do n't care about that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you kill local industry and manufacture, then you also kill science.If you kill science, then you also kill local industry and manufacture.So true.
In the US, engineering was replaced with buying other companies to save money and stifle competition.
The end result being witnessed as a decline from being the world leader in innovation.
Corporate greed once again.
For all the past, current and upcoming MBA's out there, this what your greed has brought us- Thank you.
Regardless of what you are taught in graduate school- business has an obligation to society and to its employees.If ALL the businesses farm out their work to foreign countries and lay off their workers, who will be left in the country to buy your goods or services?
Oh wait- It's a global economy.
I forgot.
You don't care about that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30624210</id>
	<title>Re:I have seen the lecture you are referring too.</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1262458860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I choose to hold humanity at a higher standard than the offspring of a dumb animal.</p></div><p>One question here. Why would you hold humanity to a lower standard, if it turns out (as copious evidence indicates) that humanity is the many, many generations removed offspring of "dumb" animals? That seems a bit like claiming we should treat a criminal more leniently because many generations ago, their ancestors had tough childhoods. Humanity's past should not matter.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I choose to hold humanity at a higher standard than the offspring of a dumb animal.One question here .
Why would you hold humanity to a lower standard , if it turns out ( as copious evidence indicates ) that humanity is the many , many generations removed offspring of " dumb " animals ?
That seems a bit like claiming we should treat a criminal more leniently because many generations ago , their ancestors had tough childhoods .
Humanity 's past should not matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I choose to hold humanity at a higher standard than the offspring of a dumb animal.One question here.
Why would you hold humanity to a lower standard, if it turns out (as copious evidence indicates) that humanity is the many, many generations removed offspring of "dumb" animals?
That seems a bit like claiming we should treat a criminal more leniently because many generations ago, their ancestors had tough childhoods.
Humanity's past should not matter.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622638</id>
	<title>Re:"Science" is not just "Eureka"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262450700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There was always an air of crass arrogance about the way you see yourself in the world Fawkes.  While it often irritates me without bound, I very rarely disagree with your point. However 2020 is premature and while Chinese economic dominance is imminent they will not challenge western culture. Nor will China have the stamina to remain. They will fall harder and faster than they rose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There was always an air of crass arrogance about the way you see yourself in the world Fawkes .
While it often irritates me without bound , I very rarely disagree with your point .
However 2020 is premature and while Chinese economic dominance is imminent they will not challenge western culture .
Nor will China have the stamina to remain .
They will fall harder and faster than they rose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was always an air of crass arrogance about the way you see yourself in the world Fawkes.
While it often irritates me without bound, I very rarely disagree with your point.
However 2020 is premature and while Chinese economic dominance is imminent they will not challenge western culture.
Nor will China have the stamina to remain.
They will fall harder and faster than they rose.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30623956</id>
	<title>In other words</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1262457660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In other words, the more the incumbents tighten their grip on technology, the more scientists will slip through their fingers?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In other words , the more the incumbents tighten their grip on technology , the more scientists will slip through their fingers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other words, the more the incumbents tighten their grip on technology, the more scientists will slip through their fingers?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30632012</id>
	<title>Sorry, rubbish</title>
	<author>Kupfernigk</author>
	<datestamp>1262538060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Very, very few actors, bankers or politicians earn a great deal of money.<ul> <li>In the City boom, the most-demanded skills were in maths, physics and computing.</li><li>Structural engineers now earn more than architects.</li><li>Maths and science graduates can expect accelerated training and promotion in teaching</li><li>Plumbers and electricians often earn more than the bulk of lawyers and accountants, and I know at least one who has an arts degree and retrained when he found out how much more he could earn.</li></ul><p>
Public perception and reality are very different. People see a few "celebrities" in each profession and think they are the norm. A few footballers earn millions; most earn less than their contemporaries who became plumbers or carpenters. A few lawyers earn millions (Jonathan Sumption to be exact), most do not. A few actors earn millions; most are lucky to earn minimum wage. A few engineers and scientists earn millions but few people hear of them; most of them earn quite reasonable salaries. The most famous former pupil of the school just down the road is a multi-millionaire F1 driver, but it is hardly a common job; many other kids who were at that school have good jobs in technical industries, engineering, science, teaching and banking. As do mine...the only people who assign low social status to scientists, engineers and mathematicians are the underclass and the people with arts degrees who don't earn as much as they think they should.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Very , very few actors , bankers or politicians earn a great deal of money .
In the City boom , the most-demanded skills were in maths , physics and computing.Structural engineers now earn more than architects.Maths and science graduates can expect accelerated training and promotion in teachingPlumbers and electricians often earn more than the bulk of lawyers and accountants , and I know at least one who has an arts degree and retrained when he found out how much more he could earn .
Public perception and reality are very different .
People see a few " celebrities " in each profession and think they are the norm .
A few footballers earn millions ; most earn less than their contemporaries who became plumbers or carpenters .
A few lawyers earn millions ( Jonathan Sumption to be exact ) , most do not .
A few actors earn millions ; most are lucky to earn minimum wage .
A few engineers and scientists earn millions but few people hear of them ; most of them earn quite reasonable salaries .
The most famous former pupil of the school just down the road is a multi-millionaire F1 driver , but it is hardly a common job ; many other kids who were at that school have good jobs in technical industries , engineering , science , teaching and banking .
As do mine...the only people who assign low social status to scientists , engineers and mathematicians are the underclass and the people with arts degrees who do n't earn as much as they think they should .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very, very few actors, bankers or politicians earn a great deal of money.
In the City boom, the most-demanded skills were in maths, physics and computing.Structural engineers now earn more than architects.Maths and science graduates can expect accelerated training and promotion in teachingPlumbers and electricians often earn more than the bulk of lawyers and accountants, and I know at least one who has an arts degree and retrained when he found out how much more he could earn.
Public perception and reality are very different.
People see a few "celebrities" in each profession and think they are the norm.
A few footballers earn millions; most earn less than their contemporaries who became plumbers or carpenters.
A few lawyers earn millions (Jonathan Sumption to be exact), most do not.
A few actors earn millions; most are lucky to earn minimum wage.
A few engineers and scientists earn millions but few people hear of them; most of them earn quite reasonable salaries.
The most famous former pupil of the school just down the road is a multi-millionaire F1 driver, but it is hardly a common job; many other kids who were at that school have good jobs in technical industries, engineering, science, teaching and banking.
As do mine...the only people who assign low social status to scientists, engineers and mathematicians are the underclass and the people with arts degrees who don't earn as much as they think they should.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30624036</id>
	<title>Re:Science downhill slide</title>
	<author>csokat</author>
	<datestamp>1262458080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think you'll find that in investment banking we do desire mathematicians, physicists and engineers (being in a bank and a trained physicist myself I think I'm well qualified to correct you)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 'll find that in investment banking we do desire mathematicians , physicists and engineers ( being in a bank and a trained physicist myself I think I 'm well qualified to correct you )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you'll find that in investment banking we do desire mathematicians, physicists and engineers (being in a bank and a trained physicist myself I think I'm well qualified to correct you)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30629230</id>
	<title>Re:I agree</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262452980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sounds like blissfully wishful thinking for the anti-US Lefties/Greenies crowd</p></div><p>Sounds like a Fox News wingnut.</p><p>Or did you have anything useful to contribute to this discussion?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like blissfully wishful thinking for the anti-US Lefties/Greenies crowdSounds like a Fox News wingnut.Or did you have anything useful to contribute to this discussion ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like blissfully wishful thinking for the anti-US Lefties/Greenies crowdSounds like a Fox News wingnut.Or did you have anything useful to contribute to this discussion?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30625752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30624514</id>
	<title>Re:"Science" is not just "Eureka"</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1262460780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>the USA will be the place to go to make cheap porn and exploit people who don't have any other options.  USA, the new Romania.</p></div></blockquote><p>Romanian chicks aren't fat.</p><p>Ermmm, so I'm told.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the USA will be the place to go to make cheap porn and exploit people who do n't have any other options .
USA , the new Romania.Romanian chicks are n't fat.Ermmm , so I 'm told .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the USA will be the place to go to make cheap porn and exploit people who don't have any other options.
USA, the new Romania.Romanian chicks aren't fat.Ermmm, so I'm told.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621842</id>
	<title>Re:I expect so...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262443740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The population ratio would probably be roughly equivalent in the last few decades yet US and a few other "rich" countries were able to maintain their scientific lead in the past. The point here is not that we expect the US to be the leader of everything but that there seems to be a large drop off in scientific/research investment in the last decade. We also see a drop in the quality of education (i.e. why are we still arguing about evolution in 20XX) standards and that will have a long term effect.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The population ratio would probably be roughly equivalent in the last few decades yet US and a few other " rich " countries were able to maintain their scientific lead in the past .
The point here is not that we expect the US to be the leader of everything but that there seems to be a large drop off in scientific/research investment in the last decade .
We also see a drop in the quality of education ( i.e .
why are we still arguing about evolution in 20XX ) standards and that will have a long term effect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The population ratio would probably be roughly equivalent in the last few decades yet US and a few other "rich" countries were able to maintain their scientific lead in the past.
The point here is not that we expect the US to be the leader of everything but that there seems to be a large drop off in scientific/research investment in the last decade.
We also see a drop in the quality of education (i.e.
why are we still arguing about evolution in 20XX) standards and that will have a long term effect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30626854</id>
	<title>Re:Short term thinking maybe?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262431860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Companies are increasingly run by groups of investors who put intense pressure on boards to make the quarterly numbers any way possible.</i></p><p>This right here is the single biggest problem. Research which may not pay off for years gets neglected, trimmed back, then canceled; short-term things that make the bottom line look better like staff reductions and selling off the most profitable portions of the business are emphasized until the company is just a hollow shell; capital investment is a definite no-no since investing in any capital improvements hurt the bottom line immediately while promising any payback sometime in the future.</p><p>The end result is, naturally, a company with 0 workers (people cost money), no manufacturing capability (machines cost money) and no products (if we make anything that is worth a damn, we have to sell it to make this quarter's profits, if we make anything that's only marginally worth a damn, we can't sell it and we have to kill it to add any savings to this quarter's profits).</p><p>And this is business?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Companies are increasingly run by groups of investors who put intense pressure on boards to make the quarterly numbers any way possible.This right here is the single biggest problem .
Research which may not pay off for years gets neglected , trimmed back , then canceled ; short-term things that make the bottom line look better like staff reductions and selling off the most profitable portions of the business are emphasized until the company is just a hollow shell ; capital investment is a definite no-no since investing in any capital improvements hurt the bottom line immediately while promising any payback sometime in the future.The end result is , naturally , a company with 0 workers ( people cost money ) , no manufacturing capability ( machines cost money ) and no products ( if we make anything that is worth a damn , we have to sell it to make this quarter 's profits , if we make anything that 's only marginally worth a damn , we ca n't sell it and we have to kill it to add any savings to this quarter 's profits ) .And this is business ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Companies are increasingly run by groups of investors who put intense pressure on boards to make the quarterly numbers any way possible.This right here is the single biggest problem.
Research which may not pay off for years gets neglected, trimmed back, then canceled; short-term things that make the bottom line look better like staff reductions and selling off the most profitable portions of the business are emphasized until the company is just a hollow shell; capital investment is a definite no-no since investing in any capital improvements hurt the bottom line immediately while promising any payback sometime in the future.The end result is, naturally, a company with 0 workers (people cost money), no manufacturing capability (machines cost money) and no products (if we make anything that is worth a damn, we have to sell it to make this quarter's profits, if we make anything that's only marginally worth a damn, we can't sell it and we have to kill it to add any savings to this quarter's profits).And this is business?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622406</id>
	<title>Nice trick CNN (CNN "Pirates" ad revenue)</title>
	<author>Zero\_\_Kelvin</author>
	<datestamp>1262449020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you hover over the "E-Mail" button, it is a link to the same page.  Seems like CNN is not above scamming the Internet for revenue by tricking people into hitting their page more often, thus generating more ad revenue.  I wonder when they will have an article on how supposedly respectable sites "pirate" ad revenue by exploiting the ignorance of the typical reader who visits their site.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you hover over the " E-Mail " button , it is a link to the same page .
Seems like CNN is not above scamming the Internet for revenue by tricking people into hitting their page more often , thus generating more ad revenue .
I wonder when they will have an article on how supposedly respectable sites " pirate " ad revenue by exploiting the ignorance of the typical reader who visits their site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you hover over the "E-Mail" button, it is a link to the same page.
Seems like CNN is not above scamming the Internet for revenue by tricking people into hitting their page more often, thus generating more ad revenue.
I wonder when they will have an article on how supposedly respectable sites "pirate" ad revenue by exploiting the ignorance of the typical reader who visits their site.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30623490</id>
	<title>They have always been with us.</title>
	<author>taxman\_10m</author>
	<datestamp>1262455320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A segment of the population has always been like that.  It's hard to blame them for the entire state of things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A segment of the population has always been like that .
It 's hard to blame them for the entire state of things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A segment of the population has always been like that.
It's hard to blame them for the entire state of things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30628692</id>
	<title>Re:Short term thinking maybe?</title>
	<author>rdnetto</author>
	<datestamp>1262447460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Students are staying away from science and math because of a short term (or maybe a long term) worry about employability. They also realize that law, medicine and MBA-type pursuits are much more lucrative if they're smart.</p></div><p>This, more than anything else. I just finished my secondary education and am about to start uni. I love science/math/programming, consider myself to be a real geek and was in the top 100 for my state (I live in Vic, Australia). I suspect I'd enjoy engineering. But I'll probably go into law because the pay is better. If you want to encourage development in the STEM fields, you need to increase the mean wages in those areas and improve the public perception of those fields.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Students are staying away from science and math because of a short term ( or maybe a long term ) worry about employability .
They also realize that law , medicine and MBA-type pursuits are much more lucrative if they 're smart.This , more than anything else .
I just finished my secondary education and am about to start uni .
I love science/math/programming , consider myself to be a real geek and was in the top 100 for my state ( I live in Vic , Australia ) .
I suspect I 'd enjoy engineering .
But I 'll probably go into law because the pay is better .
If you want to encourage development in the STEM fields , you need to increase the mean wages in those areas and improve the public perception of those fields .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Students are staying away from science and math because of a short term (or maybe a long term) worry about employability.
They also realize that law, medicine and MBA-type pursuits are much more lucrative if they're smart.This, more than anything else.
I just finished my secondary education and am about to start uni.
I love science/math/programming, consider myself to be a real geek and was in the top 100 for my state (I live in Vic, Australia).
I suspect I'd enjoy engineering.
But I'll probably go into law because the pay is better.
If you want to encourage development in the STEM fields, you need to increase the mean wages in those areas and improve the public perception of those fields.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30630070</id>
	<title>Re:I blame the MBA</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1262549460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If the models are wrong, you need to demonstrate why; otherwise they ain't going away.</p></div><p>No-one said they're wrong. They just, well.. emphasize short-term results. Because people want to have all of it <em>tomorrow</em>, and after that the world can burn for all they care.</p><p>The problem is the "burning world" part. Which is where we get to TFA.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the models are wrong , you need to demonstrate why ; otherwise they ai n't going away.No-one said they 're wrong .
They just , well.. emphasize short-term results .
Because people want to have all of it tomorrow , and after that the world can burn for all they care.The problem is the " burning world " part .
Which is where we get to TFA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the models are wrong, you need to demonstrate why; otherwise they ain't going away.No-one said they're wrong.
They just, well.. emphasize short-term results.
Because people want to have all of it tomorrow, and after that the world can burn for all they care.The problem is the "burning world" part.
Which is where we get to TFA.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30626716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622980</id>
	<title>Re:We have a creationist "museum"...</title>
	<author>Yaos</author>
	<datestamp>1262452500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We also have your terrible posts but that does not make slashdot a bad website.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We also have your terrible posts but that does not make slashdot a bad website .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We also have your terrible posts but that does not make slashdot a bad website.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30624302</id>
	<title>Re:not news</title>
	<author>hjrnunes</author>
	<datestamp>1262459460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, about the Climate Change or Global Warming, I find it funny that people come and say the we have no proof of that. The other day I was hearing a known analyst on tv saying just that. I remember the same guy saying there were WMDs in Iraq well after US troops overrun the country, that Saddam hid them in a boat of truck in the desert... I'm not saying the same applies to you... My point is that while some disagreement seems to exist, that's more on <b>how</b> it's going to affect us, because the large majority - it no longer takes a scientist to see that - can't deny something is happening. But even if people don't want to believe the warming there's a whole array of other nice problems: garbage, garbage on the sea, extinction, deforestation, and our old but somewhat forgotten friend - the ozone hole! Now, are the scientists still trying to find proof for these too, I ask? </p><p>I sure think it's changing. In fact I'm sure. I hear my parents and grandparents saying how it used to rain more or how it used to be colder in Winter. Hell, seasons are blurring since a few years back. More extreme weather phenomena is happening... And it's going to get worse I fear.</p><p>As for research, we don't have much of that here, we slightly have some in the Universities but that's it. But in the US? Come on, cut a few percent off the defense budget and there's plenty dough for everyone. Why should people have to choose between having private or public R&amp;D? They can have both.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , about the Climate Change or Global Warming , I find it funny that people come and say the we have no proof of that .
The other day I was hearing a known analyst on tv saying just that .
I remember the same guy saying there were WMDs in Iraq well after US troops overrun the country , that Saddam hid them in a boat of truck in the desert... I 'm not saying the same applies to you... My point is that while some disagreement seems to exist , that 's more on how it 's going to affect us , because the large majority - it no longer takes a scientist to see that - ca n't deny something is happening .
But even if people do n't want to believe the warming there 's a whole array of other nice problems : garbage , garbage on the sea , extinction , deforestation , and our old but somewhat forgotten friend - the ozone hole !
Now , are the scientists still trying to find proof for these too , I ask ?
I sure think it 's changing .
In fact I 'm sure .
I hear my parents and grandparents saying how it used to rain more or how it used to be colder in Winter .
Hell , seasons are blurring since a few years back .
More extreme weather phenomena is happening... And it 's going to get worse I fear.As for research , we do n't have much of that here , we slightly have some in the Universities but that 's it .
But in the US ?
Come on , cut a few percent off the defense budget and there 's plenty dough for everyone .
Why should people have to choose between having private or public R&amp;D ?
They can have both .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, about the Climate Change or Global Warming, I find it funny that people come and say the we have no proof of that.
The other day I was hearing a known analyst on tv saying just that.
I remember the same guy saying there were WMDs in Iraq well after US troops overrun the country, that Saddam hid them in a boat of truck in the desert... I'm not saying the same applies to you... My point is that while some disagreement seems to exist, that's more on how it's going to affect us, because the large majority - it no longer takes a scientist to see that - can't deny something is happening.
But even if people don't want to believe the warming there's a whole array of other nice problems: garbage, garbage on the sea, extinction, deforestation, and our old but somewhat forgotten friend - the ozone hole!
Now, are the scientists still trying to find proof for these too, I ask?
I sure think it's changing.
In fact I'm sure.
I hear my parents and grandparents saying how it used to rain more or how it used to be colder in Winter.
Hell, seasons are blurring since a few years back.
More extreme weather phenomena is happening... And it's going to get worse I fear.As for research, we don't have much of that here, we slightly have some in the Universities but that's it.
But in the US?
Come on, cut a few percent off the defense budget and there's plenty dough for everyone.
Why should people have to choose between having private or public R&amp;D?
They can have both.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621868</id>
	<title>Smart people are discriminated against in US...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262443980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>American society absolutely hates smart people these days. They are called derogatory names, like "nerds", and "geeks", ridiculed and made fun of. The net result of that is in years to come only rednecks would be left in US and other countries which value smart people would have replaced US as world leaders. This is called evolution - survival of the best and the fittest.</p><p>By the way, if we have laws to prevent discrimination against races, why is there no anti-discrimination law for discrimination against intelligent people? Calling someone a "geek" and bullying him and making fun of him just because he is more intelligent than you should be against the law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>American society absolutely hates smart people these days .
They are called derogatory names , like " nerds " , and " geeks " , ridiculed and made fun of .
The net result of that is in years to come only rednecks would be left in US and other countries which value smart people would have replaced US as world leaders .
This is called evolution - survival of the best and the fittest.By the way , if we have laws to prevent discrimination against races , why is there no anti-discrimination law for discrimination against intelligent people ?
Calling someone a " geek " and bullying him and making fun of him just because he is more intelligent than you should be against the law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>American society absolutely hates smart people these days.
They are called derogatory names, like "nerds", and "geeks", ridiculed and made fun of.
The net result of that is in years to come only rednecks would be left in US and other countries which value smart people would have replaced US as world leaders.
This is called evolution - survival of the best and the fittest.By the way, if we have laws to prevent discrimination against races, why is there no anti-discrimination law for discrimination against intelligent people?
Calling someone a "geek" and bullying him and making fun of him just because he is more intelligent than you should be against the law.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621822</id>
	<title>us vs. them</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262443560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BTW. Alexa claims only about 47.1\% of us here at<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. are from US. I'm unsure how representative Alexa is for global stats (global rankings rarely are), but the rest of the world'd be sooner underrepresented than not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BTW .
Alexa claims only about 47.1 \ % of us here at / .
are from US .
I 'm unsure how representative Alexa is for global stats ( global rankings rarely are ) , but the rest of the world 'd be sooner underrepresented than not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BTW.
Alexa claims only about 47.1\% of us here at /.
are from US.
I'm unsure how representative Alexa is for global stats (global rankings rarely are), but the rest of the world'd be sooner underrepresented than not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621858</id>
	<title>In a modern, globalised world</title>
	<author>Jacques Chester</author>
	<datestamp>1262443860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who cares where the research happens, so long as it happens and happens well? Science should be without borders. Reducing it to a penis-measuring contest is hardly edifying.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who cares where the research happens , so long as it happens and happens well ?
Science should be without borders .
Reducing it to a penis-measuring contest is hardly edifying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who cares where the research happens, so long as it happens and happens well?
Science should be without borders.
Reducing it to a penis-measuring contest is hardly edifying.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30628092</id>
	<title>Your Statement is Illogical</title>
	<author>Yergle143</author>
	<datestamp>1262440560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First off I am a frequent lurker of the Polywell community and if you are being intellectually<br>honest you know darn well that the potential device has only a slim chance of being<br>better than ITER. The lack of funds is one thing true, the other is the performance of science<br>(in this case fusion) without a proper amount of community (yes boring democratic government)<br>peer review so that in 30 years on the most basic assumptions have yet to be verified.</p><p>Secondly were "climate change" false or a scam there would be zero reason to develop Polywell<br>since this country has ample coal reserves -- enough to last 100's of years.</p><p>Thirdly I have been long been an academic researcher, now am in industry and I will tell you<br>that nothing innovative in science comes except from government funding. The halcyon<br>days of Bell Labs funding astronomy are long gone. There is a difference between science<br>and technology.</p><p>Capitalism, as practiced worldwide has advantages in terms of efficiency, but few in terms of<br>"the vision thing".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First off I am a frequent lurker of the Polywell community and if you are being intellectuallyhonest you know darn well that the potential device has only a slim chance of beingbetter than ITER .
The lack of funds is one thing true , the other is the performance of science ( in this case fusion ) without a proper amount of community ( yes boring democratic government ) peer review so that in 30 years on the most basic assumptions have yet to be verified.Secondly were " climate change " false or a scam there would be zero reason to develop Polywellsince this country has ample coal reserves -- enough to last 100 's of years.Thirdly I have been long been an academic researcher , now am in industry and I will tell youthat nothing innovative in science comes except from government funding .
The halcyondays of Bell Labs funding astronomy are long gone .
There is a difference between scienceand technology.Capitalism , as practiced worldwide has advantages in terms of efficiency , but few in terms of " the vision thing " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First off I am a frequent lurker of the Polywell community and if you are being intellectuallyhonest you know darn well that the potential device has only a slim chance of beingbetter than ITER.
The lack of funds is one thing true, the other is the performance of science(in this case fusion) without a proper amount of community (yes boring democratic government)peer review so that in 30 years on the most basic assumptions have yet to be verified.Secondly were "climate change" false or a scam there would be zero reason to develop Polywellsince this country has ample coal reserves -- enough to last 100's of years.Thirdly I have been long been an academic researcher, now am in industry and I will tell youthat nothing innovative in science comes except from government funding.
The halcyondays of Bell Labs funding astronomy are long gone.
There is a difference between scienceand technology.Capitalism, as practiced worldwide has advantages in terms of efficiency, but few in terms of"the vision thing".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622716</id>
	<title>Don't Worry America!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262451360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>" The fall is not from a cliff. More like a slow, downward slide -- almost imperceptible from day to day. But as the years pass America will have descended from leaders to players to merely followers as we fade to insignificance, at best hitching a ride on the innovations of others.'""</p><p>Don't worry! I'm sure whatever administration in power at the time you obviously realize you're only players will find an excuse to bomb the living shit out of whatever country replaces you. As they pull themselves out of the mess with your "help" I'm sure your corporations will find a way to steal enough tech to catch back up.</p><p>I'm only being sarcastic here, but in the back of my mind I could see it happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The fall is not from a cliff .
More like a slow , downward slide -- almost imperceptible from day to day .
But as the years pass America will have descended from leaders to players to merely followers as we fade to insignificance , at best hitching a ride on the innovations of others .
' " " Do n't worry !
I 'm sure whatever administration in power at the time you obviously realize you 're only players will find an excuse to bomb the living shit out of whatever country replaces you .
As they pull themselves out of the mess with your " help " I 'm sure your corporations will find a way to steal enough tech to catch back up.I 'm only being sarcastic here , but in the back of my mind I could see it happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" The fall is not from a cliff.
More like a slow, downward slide -- almost imperceptible from day to day.
But as the years pass America will have descended from leaders to players to merely followers as we fade to insignificance, at best hitching a ride on the innovations of others.
'""Don't worry!
I'm sure whatever administration in power at the time you obviously realize you're only players will find an excuse to bomb the living shit out of whatever country replaces you.
As they pull themselves out of the mess with your "help" I'm sure your corporations will find a way to steal enough tech to catch back up.I'm only being sarcastic here, but in the back of my mind I could see it happen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622394</id>
	<title>Re:I expect so...</title>
	<author>Trails</author>
	<datestamp>1262448900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The politicking of education an science seem to me to be the biggest threat/detriment.  It's not just the corruption of knowledge and progress, it's the tolerance of it that begets more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The politicking of education an science seem to me to be the biggest threat/detriment .
It 's not just the corruption of knowledge and progress , it 's the tolerance of it that begets more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The politicking of education an science seem to me to be the biggest threat/detriment.
It's not just the corruption of knowledge and progress, it's the tolerance of it that begets more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30623210</id>
	<title>Re:Science downhill slide</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262453820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the UK English was further dumbed down into Media Studies for those who want to be employed in the media without being able to string a coherent sentence together.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the UK English was further dumbed down into Media Studies for those who want to be employed in the media without being able to string a coherent sentence together .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the UK English was further dumbed down into Media Studies for those who want to be employed in the media without being able to string a coherent sentence together.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622782</id>
	<title>Re:Actually this has happened for a while now</title>
	<author>Cyberax</author>
	<datestamp>1262451660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You might notice, that China right now doesn't do any innovation-heavy jobs. They basically specialize on manufacturing and assembly.</p><p>Of course, China tries to fix this. By providing free higher education and sponsoring (welfare!) bright students (including study at foreign universities).</p><p>Also, corporate taxes in Europe are way higher than in the USA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You might notice , that China right now does n't do any innovation-heavy jobs .
They basically specialize on manufacturing and assembly.Of course , China tries to fix this .
By providing free higher education and sponsoring ( welfare !
) bright students ( including study at foreign universities ) .Also , corporate taxes in Europe are way higher than in the USA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You might notice, that China right now doesn't do any innovation-heavy jobs.
They basically specialize on manufacturing and assembly.Of course, China tries to fix this.
By providing free higher education and sponsoring (welfare!
) bright students (including study at foreign universities).Also, corporate taxes in Europe are way higher than in the USA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30624044</id>
	<title>The US innovates all the time!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262458140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The US innovates all the time!  Look at how many patents are filed!  And you might say they're the only ones trying to drive innovation around the world by spreading their patents/rights protection regulations!  Without that, why would anyone have any incentive to conduct scientific research?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The US innovates all the time !
Look at how many patents are filed !
And you might say they 're the only ones trying to drive innovation around the world by spreading their patents/rights protection regulations !
Without that , why would anyone have any incentive to conduct scientific research ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US innovates all the time!
Look at how many patents are filed!
And you might say they're the only ones trying to drive innovation around the world by spreading their patents/rights protection regulations!
Without that, why would anyone have any incentive to conduct scientific research?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30629114</id>
	<title>Re:I have seen the lecture you are referring too.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262451600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where are you going to get ethics and morality from when you don't have religion?</p><p>When religion fails you have radical extreme terrorist in one part of the world.</p><p>When religion fails you have corrupt congressmen and corrupt businessmen in another part of the world.</p><p>When religion fails on an individual level your society spends more on prisons than the do on education.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where are you going to get ethics and morality from when you do n't have religion ? When religion fails you have radical extreme terrorist in one part of the world.When religion fails you have corrupt congressmen and corrupt businessmen in another part of the world.When religion fails on an individual level your society spends more on prisons than the do on education .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where are you going to get ethics and morality from when you don't have religion?When religion fails you have radical extreme terrorist in one part of the world.When religion fails you have corrupt congressmen and corrupt businessmen in another part of the world.When religion fails on an individual level your society spends more on prisons than the do on education.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30623900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30624026</id>
	<title>Re:not news</title>
	<author>XDirtypunkX</author>
	<datestamp>1262458020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In an odd coincidence, when those plants were growing with all that carbon dioxide in the air, it was a lot hotter than it is now! Obviously that warming wasn't man made so this must not be either, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In an odd coincidence , when those plants were growing with all that carbon dioxide in the air , it was a lot hotter than it is now !
Obviously that warming was n't man made so this must not be either , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In an odd coincidence, when those plants were growing with all that carbon dioxide in the air, it was a lot hotter than it is now!
Obviously that warming wasn't man made so this must not be either, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30624422</id>
	<title>Re:Smart people are discriminated against in US...</title>
	<author>Tangentc</author>
	<datestamp>1262460120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now that's just stupid.</p><p>You think that kids are only called nerds or geeks in the U.S.? This is a global phenomenon, yet it doesn't stop everyone else from making progress. Hell, even in the rest of the Anglophone world there's Tall Poppy Syndrome, which isn't entirely unrelated to American anti-intellectualism.</p><p>It could definitely be argued that the politicization of anti-intellectualism is what really is driving downward, but it's a fairly complex issue. Education certainly has a hand in this. We've been falling massively behind in our science EDUCATION for a while now. I would say that we should try to increase the exposure of students to the sciences from a primary level, and then keep using more flashy or exciting demonstrations in the classroom. I mean, hey, it might be shameless, but I'd also be lying if I claimed that the fact that I like explosions didn't factor at all into my pursuit of Chemistry early on.</p><p>Now of course that doesn't solve everything, and I think anti-intellectualism plays a part in all of this, but it's certainly not everything.</p><p>Also, I have to make the obligatory comment that if you think evolution is about the survival of the "best" or "smartest" then you clearly learned about it in an American school.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now that 's just stupid.You think that kids are only called nerds or geeks in the U.S. ?
This is a global phenomenon , yet it does n't stop everyone else from making progress .
Hell , even in the rest of the Anglophone world there 's Tall Poppy Syndrome , which is n't entirely unrelated to American anti-intellectualism.It could definitely be argued that the politicization of anti-intellectualism is what really is driving downward , but it 's a fairly complex issue .
Education certainly has a hand in this .
We 've been falling massively behind in our science EDUCATION for a while now .
I would say that we should try to increase the exposure of students to the sciences from a primary level , and then keep using more flashy or exciting demonstrations in the classroom .
I mean , hey , it might be shameless , but I 'd also be lying if I claimed that the fact that I like explosions did n't factor at all into my pursuit of Chemistry early on.Now of course that does n't solve everything , and I think anti-intellectualism plays a part in all of this , but it 's certainly not everything.Also , I have to make the obligatory comment that if you think evolution is about the survival of the " best " or " smartest " then you clearly learned about it in an American school .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now that's just stupid.You think that kids are only called nerds or geeks in the U.S.?
This is a global phenomenon, yet it doesn't stop everyone else from making progress.
Hell, even in the rest of the Anglophone world there's Tall Poppy Syndrome, which isn't entirely unrelated to American anti-intellectualism.It could definitely be argued that the politicization of anti-intellectualism is what really is driving downward, but it's a fairly complex issue.
Education certainly has a hand in this.
We've been falling massively behind in our science EDUCATION for a while now.
I would say that we should try to increase the exposure of students to the sciences from a primary level, and then keep using more flashy or exciting demonstrations in the classroom.
I mean, hey, it might be shameless, but I'd also be lying if I claimed that the fact that I like explosions didn't factor at all into my pursuit of Chemistry early on.Now of course that doesn't solve everything, and I think anti-intellectualism plays a part in all of this, but it's certainly not everything.Also, I have to make the obligatory comment that if you think evolution is about the survival of the "best" or "smartest" then you clearly learned about it in an American school.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30625752</id>
	<title>Re:I agree</title>
	<author>INT\_QRK</author>
	<datestamp>1262424720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sounds like blissfully wishful thinking for the anti-US Lefties/Greenies crowd...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like blissfully wishful thinking for the anti-US Lefties/Greenies crowd.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like blissfully wishful thinking for the anti-US Lefties/Greenies crowd...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622804</id>
	<title>yeah, not sure about this</title>
	<author>buddyglass</author>
	<datestamp>1262451780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The U.S. has some things going for it that may tend to mitigate or completely counter this decline.  For one, English is the lingua franca of the world, and the U.S. is by far the largest English-speaking economy.  Its easy for non-U.S. would-be scientists to come do research at U.S. universities because they most likely already know English.  China could create the best universities in the world, but they'd have a much harder time attracting international students because far fewer people learn Chinese as a second language compared to English.</p><p>You could argue for the E.U., maybe, but again there's the language issue.  Even if all university classes are conducted in English (which would be unlikely), any prospective student still has to contemplate moving to a country where, outside classes, he's not going to speak the language.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The U.S. has some things going for it that may tend to mitigate or completely counter this decline .
For one , English is the lingua franca of the world , and the U.S. is by far the largest English-speaking economy .
Its easy for non-U.S. would-be scientists to come do research at U.S. universities because they most likely already know English .
China could create the best universities in the world , but they 'd have a much harder time attracting international students because far fewer people learn Chinese as a second language compared to English.You could argue for the E.U. , maybe , but again there 's the language issue .
Even if all university classes are conducted in English ( which would be unlikely ) , any prospective student still has to contemplate moving to a country where , outside classes , he 's not going to speak the language .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The U.S. has some things going for it that may tend to mitigate or completely counter this decline.
For one, English is the lingua franca of the world, and the U.S. is by far the largest English-speaking economy.
Its easy for non-U.S. would-be scientists to come do research at U.S. universities because they most likely already know English.
China could create the best universities in the world, but they'd have a much harder time attracting international students because far fewer people learn Chinese as a second language compared to English.You could argue for the E.U., maybe, but again there's the language issue.
Even if all university classes are conducted in English (which would be unlikely), any prospective student still has to contemplate moving to a country where, outside classes, he's not going to speak the language.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621900</id>
	<title>The Beatles were great for declining Britain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262444400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what sort of music do the Chinese like these days?  What's the market for cultural tourism and what does a Bed and Breakfast feed Chinese for breakfast?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what sort of music do the Chinese like these days ?
What 's the market for cultural tourism and what does a Bed and Breakfast feed Chinese for breakfast ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what sort of music do the Chinese like these days?
What's the market for cultural tourism and what does a Bed and Breakfast feed Chinese for breakfast?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30625210</id>
	<title>Re:UAVs on US soil?</title>
	<author>EdipisReks</author>
	<datestamp>1262464860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Surely you jest. I'm against the use of UAVs, period. You seriously want some automated plane firing missiles at suspected "terrorists" in America? Or anywhere, for that matter? Where innocent people will be killed? Let's hope UAVs remain at a standstill in this country. We've got enough problems with Homeland Insecurity going nuts with every "boo" the so-called "terrorists" do.</p></div></blockquote><p>

surely you realize that, while all UCAVs are UAVs, not all UAVs are UCAVs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Surely you jest .
I 'm against the use of UAVs , period .
You seriously want some automated plane firing missiles at suspected " terrorists " in America ?
Or anywhere , for that matter ?
Where innocent people will be killed ?
Let 's hope UAVs remain at a standstill in this country .
We 've got enough problems with Homeland Insecurity going nuts with every " boo " the so-called " terrorists " do .
surely you realize that , while all UCAVs are UAVs , not all UAVs are UCAVs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surely you jest.
I'm against the use of UAVs, period.
You seriously want some automated plane firing missiles at suspected "terrorists" in America?
Or anywhere, for that matter?
Where innocent people will be killed?
Let's hope UAVs remain at a standstill in this country.
We've got enough problems with Homeland Insecurity going nuts with every "boo" the so-called "terrorists" do.
surely you realize that, while all UCAVs are UAVs, not all UAVs are UCAVs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30623194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622344</id>
	<title>Smart Americans would be stupid pursue STEM career</title>
	<author>walterbyrd</author>
	<datestamp>1262448540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Massive offshoring, and importing of guest workers, has driven the salaries of many STEM workers below a living wage. US citizens are pushed aside to make room for the flood of offshore workers. Needless to say, this situation discourages Americans from pursuing a STEM career. Smart Americans are studying to go into finance, or something. If the US has not already lost it's technology edge, it soon will.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Massive offshoring , and importing of guest workers , has driven the salaries of many STEM workers below a living wage .
US citizens are pushed aside to make room for the flood of offshore workers .
Needless to say , this situation discourages Americans from pursuing a STEM career .
Smart Americans are studying to go into finance , or something .
If the US has not already lost it 's technology edge , it soon will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Massive offshoring, and importing of guest workers, has driven the salaries of many STEM workers below a living wage.
US citizens are pushed aside to make room for the flood of offshore workers.
Needless to say, this situation discourages Americans from pursuing a STEM career.
Smart Americans are studying to go into finance, or something.
If the US has not already lost it's technology edge, it soon will.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30627556</id>
	<title>Re:Smart Americans would be stupid pursue STEM car</title>
	<author>turkeyfish</author>
	<datestamp>1262436480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sort of hard to imagine careers in finance will be stable in the US in the future.  Whatever finances we have these days seem to be based on inflows of foreign funds.  Too many careers in  "finance", will only mean a decrease in the rate of return on investment on borrowed funds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sort of hard to imagine careers in finance will be stable in the US in the future .
Whatever finances we have these days seem to be based on inflows of foreign funds .
Too many careers in " finance " , will only mean a decrease in the rate of return on investment on borrowed funds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sort of hard to imagine careers in finance will be stable in the US in the future.
Whatever finances we have these days seem to be based on inflows of foreign funds.
Too many careers in  "finance", will only mean a decrease in the rate of return on investment on borrowed funds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621908</id>
	<title>Disruption is essential</title>
	<author>dpilot</author>
	<datestamp>1262444520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Disruption is the essence of progress.  Some of what was is superseded by something new.  Typically the incumbent technologies and powers either fight progress tooth and nail, try to co-opt it, or try to at least manage it's pace to something they can control.  When too much incumbent power is too successful at slowing progress, that progress tends to move somewhere else.</p><p>In recent years, those incumbent powers have been quite successful in the US.  One can hope that that trend doesn't continue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Disruption is the essence of progress .
Some of what was is superseded by something new .
Typically the incumbent technologies and powers either fight progress tooth and nail , try to co-opt it , or try to at least manage it 's pace to something they can control .
When too much incumbent power is too successful at slowing progress , that progress tends to move somewhere else.In recent years , those incumbent powers have been quite successful in the US .
One can hope that that trend does n't continue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disruption is the essence of progress.
Some of what was is superseded by something new.
Typically the incumbent technologies and powers either fight progress tooth and nail, try to co-opt it, or try to at least manage it's pace to something they can control.
When too much incumbent power is too successful at slowing progress, that progress tends to move somewhere else.In recent years, those incumbent powers have been quite successful in the US.
One can hope that that trend doesn't continue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30627972</id>
	<title>Re:I blame the MBA</title>
	<author>frank\_adrian314159</author>
	<datestamp>1262439600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Decisions were routinely made with no consideration of second or third order effects.</i> </p><p>Sometimes business people do not have the luxury of contemplating second- or third-order effects.  The US military has a 2010 budget of approximately 1 trillion dollars.  It currently has about 1.5 million personnel.  This means it has the luxury of spending about $600,000 in burden cost for each of its employees.  In my business (software), we spend ~$150,000 per person.  Most industries have average burden costs of between 70-100,000.  If you give me financial leeway to spend four to eight times as much (like the military has), I could do a much better job of considering second- and third-order effects.  As it is, you often have very little leeway other than to screw your people over - e.g., you don't have the budget for the seven people you have to do the job with, so you overwork five, etc.</p><p>Yes, businesses could do better (and many of us have learned the principles you mentioned in your post).  But assuming that businesses are run any worse (or better) than the military, once you factor in dollar amounts, is unwarranted.  Plus, last time I checked, I couldn't send an employee to the stockade.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Decisions were routinely made with no consideration of second or third order effects .
Sometimes business people do not have the luxury of contemplating second- or third-order effects .
The US military has a 2010 budget of approximately 1 trillion dollars .
It currently has about 1.5 million personnel .
This means it has the luxury of spending about $ 600,000 in burden cost for each of its employees .
In my business ( software ) , we spend ~ $ 150,000 per person .
Most industries have average burden costs of between 70-100,000 .
If you give me financial leeway to spend four to eight times as much ( like the military has ) , I could do a much better job of considering second- and third-order effects .
As it is , you often have very little leeway other than to screw your people over - e.g. , you do n't have the budget for the seven people you have to do the job with , so you overwork five , etc.Yes , businesses could do better ( and many of us have learned the principles you mentioned in your post ) .
But assuming that businesses are run any worse ( or better ) than the military , once you factor in dollar amounts , is unwarranted .
Plus , last time I checked , I could n't send an employee to the stockade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Decisions were routinely made with no consideration of second or third order effects.
Sometimes business people do not have the luxury of contemplating second- or third-order effects.
The US military has a 2010 budget of approximately 1 trillion dollars.
It currently has about 1.5 million personnel.
This means it has the luxury of spending about $600,000 in burden cost for each of its employees.
In my business (software), we spend ~$150,000 per person.
Most industries have average burden costs of between 70-100,000.
If you give me financial leeway to spend four to eight times as much (like the military has), I could do a much better job of considering second- and third-order effects.
As it is, you often have very little leeway other than to screw your people over - e.g., you don't have the budget for the seven people you have to do the job with, so you overwork five, etc.Yes, businesses could do better (and many of us have learned the principles you mentioned in your post).
But assuming that businesses are run any worse (or better) than the military, once you factor in dollar amounts, is unwarranted.
Plus, last time I checked, I couldn't send an employee to the stockade.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621820</id>
	<title>Strange conclusion based on the named fact</title>
	<author>ugen</author>
	<datestamp>1262443560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>US may be taking a back seat in science, but what is described in the article has nothing to do with that.</p><p>Russian space agency needs money very much like NASA. The proposal to shoot down an asteroid (which, according to recent calculations is not an imminent threat) is made primarily to raise their profile, and perhaps get some cash. It certainly helps that the cause is "you will die unless you pay". If you read the original russian announcement you'd notice that they "will need 100s of millions of dollars" and they hope US and European partners will bring some dough to the table<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>I am somewhat familiar with a state of Russian science, and while it may be that over countries are going ahead of US - Russia is not one of them. Real science in Russia is, unfortunately, taking a backseat to populist crackpottery (such as controlling the clouds or making machines that cure all diseases with "magnetism" and other such things bordering on mysticism) that is in style with the new rich, who are ready to pay for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>US may be taking a back seat in science , but what is described in the article has nothing to do with that.Russian space agency needs money very much like NASA .
The proposal to shoot down an asteroid ( which , according to recent calculations is not an imminent threat ) is made primarily to raise their profile , and perhaps get some cash .
It certainly helps that the cause is " you will die unless you pay " .
If you read the original russian announcement you 'd notice that they " will need 100s of millions of dollars " and they hope US and European partners will bring some dough to the table : ) I am somewhat familiar with a state of Russian science , and while it may be that over countries are going ahead of US - Russia is not one of them .
Real science in Russia is , unfortunately , taking a backseat to populist crackpottery ( such as controlling the clouds or making machines that cure all diseases with " magnetism " and other such things bordering on mysticism ) that is in style with the new rich , who are ready to pay for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>US may be taking a back seat in science, but what is described in the article has nothing to do with that.Russian space agency needs money very much like NASA.
The proposal to shoot down an asteroid (which, according to recent calculations is not an imminent threat) is made primarily to raise their profile, and perhaps get some cash.
It certainly helps that the cause is "you will die unless you pay".
If you read the original russian announcement you'd notice that they "will need 100s of millions of dollars" and they hope US and European partners will bring some dough to the table :)I am somewhat familiar with a state of Russian science, and while it may be that over countries are going ahead of US - Russia is not one of them.
Real science in Russia is, unfortunately, taking a backseat to populist crackpottery (such as controlling the clouds or making machines that cure all diseases with "magnetism" and other such things bordering on mysticism) that is in style with the new rich, who are ready to pay for it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30630262</id>
	<title>Re:Short term thinking maybe?</title>
	<author>JetTredmont</author>
	<datestamp>1262552220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>IBM, AT&amp;T, HP, etc. have all cut back their research labs and divisions. That's not a total surprise; can you imagine trying to explain to some hedge fund guy who holds 10\% of the company stock why he's spending money on research?</p></div><p>How about, "the company that basically 'won' the last decade spent big and smart on R&amp;D in the 2001-2002 dot-com crash."</p><p>ref: <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123819035034460761.html" title="wsj.com" rel="nofollow">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123819035034460761.html</a> [wsj.com]</p><p>You don't get iPods and iPhones without research money.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>IBM , AT&amp;T , HP , etc .
have all cut back their research labs and divisions .
That 's not a total surprise ; can you imagine trying to explain to some hedge fund guy who holds 10 \ % of the company stock why he 's spending money on research ? How about , " the company that basically 'won ' the last decade spent big and smart on R&amp;D in the 2001-2002 dot-com crash .
" ref : http : //online.wsj.com/article/SB123819035034460761.html [ wsj.com ] You do n't get iPods and iPhones without research money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IBM, AT&amp;T, HP, etc.
have all cut back their research labs and divisions.
That's not a total surprise; can you imagine trying to explain to some hedge fund guy who holds 10\% of the company stock why he's spending money on research?How about, "the company that basically 'won' the last decade spent big and smart on R&amp;D in the 2001-2002 dot-com crash.
"ref: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123819035034460761.html [wsj.com]You don't get iPods and iPhones without research money.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30626488</id>
	<title>Historical decline of Science in Muslim lands ...</title>
	<author>kbahey</author>
	<datestamp>1262429460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As much as the claim "a bunch of Imams got together and basically stated that Math and Science were of the devil" plays into contemporary stereotypes, it is a very superficial and incomplete assessment.</p><p>What happened was a period of scientific breakthroughs and constant progress in conjunction with the expanding empires of Islam from Andalusian Spain, to Kashgar in Western China.</p><p>Then, several events started the slow but steady decline. The first was the Mongol invasion from the east, which destroyed Baghdad as a seat of science (and government) for the Muslim east. Great libraries were lost in the event. The Silk Road trade was eliminated, and with it all the hinterland that produced luminaries such as Al-Farabi, Al-Biruni and many more for many centuries.</p><p>The second was the Reconquista in Spain which took several centuries. Again, untold amounts of books were burned or lost.</p><p>Then following the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks, 1492 saw two events: the final fall of Muslim Spain, and Columbus' discovery of America. With the wealth of the Americas, Europe now had access to new trade and riches, and developed many technologies for sailing, trade, military,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...etc. No longer were they constrained by the Muslim Orient being a barrier between them and trade limited to India and China.</p><p>Then came the rejection of modern technology: the most stark example is the printing press. While Europe started the Renaissance, and printed books started an intellectual revolution, the printing press was rejected in Muslim lands. I am not sure why, but perhaps the Ottoman authorities feared it as a means of insubordination. Regardless, the end result was 3 centuries of relying on manuscripts only, causing poor dissemination of knowledge.</p><p>You can see the effect even in religious disciplines, for example, jurisprudence: the later commentators were just compilers/editors/summarizers of earlier texts. Even they declared that the "door to ijtihad has been closed", and all that has been said has been said, nothing new was to come about. This decline happened under late Mameluke and Ottoman rule.</p><p>This was soon followed by the colonialism period from Mughal India (1700s by the British East India Company), North Africa (France 1830s), Egypt (Britian 1882), Palestinian mandate, and the rest of it.</p><p>Following World War II, military dictators came to power (Nasser, Sukarno, Assad, Saddam, Qaddafi,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...etc.)</p><p>At least the Arab countries have not yet recovered from those last 2 stages.</p><p>For more on Science under Islam, watch this awesome BBC documentary: <a href="http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-3342750741448358648&amp;ei=0rY\_S\_iWMdmHlAfF-Mz0Ag" title="google.ca">Science and Islam - Episode 1</a> [google.ca].</p><p>The three episodes are described here:</p><ul><li> <a href="http://www.tvo.org/TVO/WebObjects/TVO.woa?b?1019551260932400000" title="tvo.org">Science and Islam: The Language of Science</a> [tvo.org]</li><li> <a href="http://www.tvo.org/TVO/WebObjects/TVO.woa?b?1019561261537200000" title="tvo.org">Science and Islam: The Empire of Reason</a> [tvo.org]</li><li> <a href="http://www.tvo.org/TVO/WebObjects/TVO.woa?b?1019571262142001000" title="tvo.org">Science and Islam: The Power of Doubt</a> [tvo.org]</li></ul><p>Also articles, books and talks by Dr. George Saliba (Columbia University) are highly recommended in this regard. He is interviewed in the above documentary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As much as the claim " a bunch of Imams got together and basically stated that Math and Science were of the devil " plays into contemporary stereotypes , it is a very superficial and incomplete assessment.What happened was a period of scientific breakthroughs and constant progress in conjunction with the expanding empires of Islam from Andalusian Spain , to Kashgar in Western China.Then , several events started the slow but steady decline .
The first was the Mongol invasion from the east , which destroyed Baghdad as a seat of science ( and government ) for the Muslim east .
Great libraries were lost in the event .
The Silk Road trade was eliminated , and with it all the hinterland that produced luminaries such as Al-Farabi , Al-Biruni and many more for many centuries.The second was the Reconquista in Spain which took several centuries .
Again , untold amounts of books were burned or lost.Then following the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks , 1492 saw two events : the final fall of Muslim Spain , and Columbus ' discovery of America .
With the wealth of the Americas , Europe now had access to new trade and riches , and developed many technologies for sailing , trade , military , ...etc .
No longer were they constrained by the Muslim Orient being a barrier between them and trade limited to India and China.Then came the rejection of modern technology : the most stark example is the printing press .
While Europe started the Renaissance , and printed books started an intellectual revolution , the printing press was rejected in Muslim lands .
I am not sure why , but perhaps the Ottoman authorities feared it as a means of insubordination .
Regardless , the end result was 3 centuries of relying on manuscripts only , causing poor dissemination of knowledge.You can see the effect even in religious disciplines , for example , jurisprudence : the later commentators were just compilers/editors/summarizers of earlier texts .
Even they declared that the " door to ijtihad has been closed " , and all that has been said has been said , nothing new was to come about .
This decline happened under late Mameluke and Ottoman rule.This was soon followed by the colonialism period from Mughal India ( 1700s by the British East India Company ) , North Africa ( France 1830s ) , Egypt ( Britian 1882 ) , Palestinian mandate , and the rest of it.Following World War II , military dictators came to power ( Nasser , Sukarno , Assad , Saddam , Qaddafi , ...etc .
) At least the Arab countries have not yet recovered from those last 2 stages.For more on Science under Islam , watch this awesome BBC documentary : Science and Islam - Episode 1 [ google.ca ] .The three episodes are described here : Science and Islam : The Language of Science [ tvo.org ] Science and Islam : The Empire of Reason [ tvo.org ] Science and Islam : The Power of Doubt [ tvo.org ] Also articles , books and talks by Dr. George Saliba ( Columbia University ) are highly recommended in this regard .
He is interviewed in the above documentary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As much as the claim "a bunch of Imams got together and basically stated that Math and Science were of the devil" plays into contemporary stereotypes, it is a very superficial and incomplete assessment.What happened was a period of scientific breakthroughs and constant progress in conjunction with the expanding empires of Islam from Andalusian Spain, to Kashgar in Western China.Then, several events started the slow but steady decline.
The first was the Mongol invasion from the east, which destroyed Baghdad as a seat of science (and government) for the Muslim east.
Great libraries were lost in the event.
The Silk Road trade was eliminated, and with it all the hinterland that produced luminaries such as Al-Farabi, Al-Biruni and many more for many centuries.The second was the Reconquista in Spain which took several centuries.
Again, untold amounts of books were burned or lost.Then following the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks, 1492 saw two events: the final fall of Muslim Spain, and Columbus' discovery of America.
With the wealth of the Americas, Europe now had access to new trade and riches, and developed many technologies for sailing, trade, military, ...etc.
No longer were they constrained by the Muslim Orient being a barrier between them and trade limited to India and China.Then came the rejection of modern technology: the most stark example is the printing press.
While Europe started the Renaissance, and printed books started an intellectual revolution, the printing press was rejected in Muslim lands.
I am not sure why, but perhaps the Ottoman authorities feared it as a means of insubordination.
Regardless, the end result was 3 centuries of relying on manuscripts only, causing poor dissemination of knowledge.You can see the effect even in religious disciplines, for example, jurisprudence: the later commentators were just compilers/editors/summarizers of earlier texts.
Even they declared that the "door to ijtihad has been closed", and all that has been said has been said, nothing new was to come about.
This decline happened under late Mameluke and Ottoman rule.This was soon followed by the colonialism period from Mughal India (1700s by the British East India Company), North Africa (France 1830s), Egypt (Britian 1882), Palestinian mandate, and the rest of it.Following World War II, military dictators came to power (Nasser, Sukarno, Assad, Saddam, Qaddafi, ...etc.
)At least the Arab countries have not yet recovered from those last 2 stages.For more on Science under Islam, watch this awesome BBC documentary: Science and Islam - Episode 1 [google.ca].The three episodes are described here: Science and Islam: The Language of Science [tvo.org] Science and Islam: The Empire of Reason [tvo.org] Science and Islam: The Power of Doubt [tvo.org]Also articles, books and talks by Dr. George Saliba (Columbia University) are highly recommended in this regard.
He is interviewed in the above documentary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622370</id>
	<title>I agree</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262448660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>this nightmare started in 1980 with reagan and has continued ever since.  Poppa Bush tried to give it more funding, but Clinton did little and W out and out destroyed it.  It remains to be seen what Obama really will do, but it does not look all that good.</htmltext>
<tokenext>this nightmare started in 1980 with reagan and has continued ever since .
Poppa Bush tried to give it more funding , but Clinton did little and W out and out destroyed it .
It remains to be seen what Obama really will do , but it does not look all that good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this nightmare started in 1980 with reagan and has continued ever since.
Poppa Bush tried to give it more funding, but Clinton did little and W out and out destroyed it.
It remains to be seen what Obama really will do, but it does not look all that good.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622768</id>
	<title>I have a hard time believing it</title>
	<author>NotSoHeavyD3</author>
	<datestamp>1262451660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I mean Islam last I checked has no real central authority. Actually more to the point the Islamic world isn't even one culture, let alone one country so what Tyson said is probably a gross simplification. (Admittedly I'm kind of biased against him.) Actually looking on the wiki about it

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic\_science#Decline" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic\_science#Decline</a> [wikipedia.org]

Makes it sound like it was more than just "Oh my god religion" doing it's thing. (Things like Mogol invasion, fights between different parts of the Islamic world, etc. Actually they point out other parts of that sphere kept doing scientific research. Of course creationist still suck.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean Islam last I checked has no real central authority .
Actually more to the point the Islamic world is n't even one culture , let alone one country so what Tyson said is probably a gross simplification .
( Admittedly I 'm kind of biased against him .
) Actually looking on the wiki about it http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic \ _science # Decline [ wikipedia.org ] Makes it sound like it was more than just " Oh my god religion " doing it 's thing .
( Things like Mogol invasion , fights between different parts of the Islamic world , etc .
Actually they point out other parts of that sphere kept doing scientific research .
Of course creationist still suck .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean Islam last I checked has no real central authority.
Actually more to the point the Islamic world isn't even one culture, let alone one country so what Tyson said is probably a gross simplification.
(Admittedly I'm kind of biased against him.
) Actually looking on the wiki about it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic\_science#Decline [wikipedia.org]

Makes it sound like it was more than just "Oh my god religion" doing it's thing.
(Things like Mogol invasion, fights between different parts of the Islamic world, etc.
Actually they point out other parts of that sphere kept doing scientific research.
Of course creationist still suck.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622122</id>
	<title>Re:I expect so...</title>
	<author>g0bshiTe</author>
	<datestamp>1262446620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree education has much to do with it, as does mainstream media, and even school itself.<br> <br>Think back when you were in high school and didn't really know what you wanted to do the rest of your life, which sounds better? Rock star, actor or actress, sports figure, or research scientist.<br> <br>Given those choices the last I would pick would be research scientist. We are a nation of 'me's, what will it get me, how much will it earn me. Upon reflection now, I think it would be way cooler to be a research scientist, than any of the others, but back then when I would need to develop the interest in that field and the wonderlust, I would have chosen any 1 of the others first.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree education has much to do with it , as does mainstream media , and even school itself .
Think back when you were in high school and did n't really know what you wanted to do the rest of your life , which sounds better ?
Rock star , actor or actress , sports figure , or research scientist .
Given those choices the last I would pick would be research scientist .
We are a nation of 'me 's , what will it get me , how much will it earn me .
Upon reflection now , I think it would be way cooler to be a research scientist , than any of the others , but back then when I would need to develop the interest in that field and the wonderlust , I would have chosen any 1 of the others first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree education has much to do with it, as does mainstream media, and even school itself.
Think back when you were in high school and didn't really know what you wanted to do the rest of your life, which sounds better?
Rock star, actor or actress, sports figure, or research scientist.
Given those choices the last I would pick would be research scientist.
We are a nation of 'me's, what will it get me, how much will it earn me.
Upon reflection now, I think it would be way cooler to be a research scientist, than any of the others, but back then when I would need to develop the interest in that field and the wonderlust, I would have chosen any 1 of the others first.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30630252</id>
	<title>Re:I have seen the lecture you are referring too.</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1262552040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My view is much simpler. A bunch of imams didn't get together and ban rational thought. Nor did the rate of progress in Islamic society slow down. What happened instead is that Europe vastly accelerated the rate of development of science and engineering, passing everyone else in the world.</p></div><p>Nope, doesn't work out. The problem is that Islamic world had started to regress <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic\_golden\_age#End\_of\_the\_Golden\_Age" title="wikipedia.org">before</a> [wikipedia.org] Europe progressed far enough to become a truly competitive threat. Furthermore, there have been a distinct correlation between <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ijtihad#Ijtihad" title="wikipedia.org">rational and critical thinking in religios matters</a> [wikipedia.org] being replaced by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqlid" title="wikipedia.org">fundamentalist scriptural literalism</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My view is much simpler .
A bunch of imams did n't get together and ban rational thought .
Nor did the rate of progress in Islamic society slow down .
What happened instead is that Europe vastly accelerated the rate of development of science and engineering , passing everyone else in the world.Nope , does n't work out .
The problem is that Islamic world had started to regress before [ wikipedia.org ] Europe progressed far enough to become a truly competitive threat .
Furthermore , there have been a distinct correlation between rational and critical thinking in religios matters [ wikipedia.org ] being replaced by fundamentalist scriptural literalism [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My view is much simpler.
A bunch of imams didn't get together and ban rational thought.
Nor did the rate of progress in Islamic society slow down.
What happened instead is that Europe vastly accelerated the rate of development of science and engineering, passing everyone else in the world.Nope, doesn't work out.
The problem is that Islamic world had started to regress before [wikipedia.org] Europe progressed far enough to become a truly competitive threat.
Furthermore, there have been a distinct correlation between rational and critical thinking in religios matters [wikipedia.org] being replaced by fundamentalist scriptural literalism [wikipedia.org].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30623930</id>
	<title>Re:Science downhill slide</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262457540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>necessity is the mother of invention, and necessity often comes from industry.  so what happens when you export your industry?  well the science goes with it.  look around the world, how much science comes from countries with no industry?  how much science does ethiopia make?  what about south africa?  the usa is quickly deporting it's industrial base so it is joining that club.  the no science club.  of course if your goal is to make money in finance that's not an issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>necessity is the mother of invention , and necessity often comes from industry .
so what happens when you export your industry ?
well the science goes with it .
look around the world , how much science comes from countries with no industry ?
how much science does ethiopia make ?
what about south africa ?
the usa is quickly deporting it 's industrial base so it is joining that club .
the no science club .
of course if your goal is to make money in finance that 's not an issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>necessity is the mother of invention, and necessity often comes from industry.
so what happens when you export your industry?
well the science goes with it.
look around the world, how much science comes from countries with no industry?
how much science does ethiopia make?
what about south africa?
the usa is quickly deporting it's industrial base so it is joining that club.
the no science club.
of course if your goal is to make money in finance that's not an issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30624010</id>
	<title>Re:Strange conclusion based on the named fact</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262457900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is definitely a resurgence in Russian science coming almost entirely out of the old Soviet design bureaus and 3-5 major Russian universities, but this resurgence is coming from a VERY low base and following 2 decades of historic and unprecedented declines. And as with the Soviets most Russian R&amp;D dollars are still going to defense and aerospace. In IT, civilian electronics and pharma there is basically zero Russian presence. They are stressing engineering education again and going around closing fluff social science programs at their lesser schools, but they will never be what they once were. They are trying to take the place of a Korea or Taiwan in electronics, a tier 2 chips maker and its uncertain whether they can pull even that modest goal off. 5 billion invested in chip making by the state since 2004 and little to show for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is definitely a resurgence in Russian science coming almost entirely out of the old Soviet design bureaus and 3-5 major Russian universities , but this resurgence is coming from a VERY low base and following 2 decades of historic and unprecedented declines .
And as with the Soviets most Russian R&amp;D dollars are still going to defense and aerospace .
In IT , civilian electronics and pharma there is basically zero Russian presence .
They are stressing engineering education again and going around closing fluff social science programs at their lesser schools , but they will never be what they once were .
They are trying to take the place of a Korea or Taiwan in electronics , a tier 2 chips maker and its uncertain whether they can pull even that modest goal off .
5 billion invested in chip making by the state since 2004 and little to show for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is definitely a resurgence in Russian science coming almost entirely out of the old Soviet design bureaus and 3-5 major Russian universities, but this resurgence is coming from a VERY low base and following 2 decades of historic and unprecedented declines.
And as with the Soviets most Russian R&amp;D dollars are still going to defense and aerospace.
In IT, civilian electronics and pharma there is basically zero Russian presence.
They are stressing engineering education again and going around closing fluff social science programs at their lesser schools, but they will never be what they once were.
They are trying to take the place of a Korea or Taiwan in electronics, a tier 2 chips maker and its uncertain whether they can pull even that modest goal off.
5 billion invested in chip making by the state since 2004 and little to show for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30623794</id>
	<title>Re:"Science" is not just "Eureka"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262456820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sadly, we threw it all away, in our pursuit of crap courses like equine aromatherapy and womyns studies</p></div><p>Is that aromatherapy for horses, or aromatherapy <i>using</i> horses, because one of those sounds pretty cool.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sadly , we threw it all away , in our pursuit of crap courses like equine aromatherapy and womyns studiesIs that aromatherapy for horses , or aromatherapy using horses , because one of those sounds pretty cool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sadly, we threw it all away, in our pursuit of crap courses like equine aromatherapy and womyns studiesIs that aromatherapy for horses, or aromatherapy using horses, because one of those sounds pretty cool.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621836</id>
	<title>Re:I expect so...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262443680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now it's quite difficult for someone with a PhD to get a visa to work in the USA (unless they're just transferring within the same multinational company) and the desire to work in America is significantly lowered by the insane anti-terror legislation,</p></div><p>It's sad really, the most rabid believers in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American\_exceptionalism" title="wikipedia.org">American Exceptionalism</a> [wikipedia.org] are the exact same rabid supporters of the policies that are destroying it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now it 's quite difficult for someone with a PhD to get a visa to work in the USA ( unless they 're just transferring within the same multinational company ) and the desire to work in America is significantly lowered by the insane anti-terror legislation,It 's sad really , the most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism [ wikipedia.org ] are the exact same rabid supporters of the policies that are destroying it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now it's quite difficult for someone with a PhD to get a visa to work in the USA (unless they're just transferring within the same multinational company) and the desire to work in America is significantly lowered by the insane anti-terror legislation,It's sad really, the most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism [wikipedia.org] are the exact same rabid supporters of the policies that are destroying it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30627292</id>
	<title>Re:Internally Mirrored Glasses</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1262434680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't recall being asked if I'd like to have my science credited to the US, either upon entry into the science workforce or at the outset of each study. I resent being appropriated.</p><p>Tyson is an educator/entertainer and a scientist. None of this makes him qualified in any way to speak on the political implications of "scientific leadership", whatever that is supposed to be. Tyson should perhaps stick to the science, perhaps even doing some on the subject raised here. He might be surprised to find that scientific leadership is not what drives economic strength and security. If asked, I'm sure the economic and security leaderships would be glad to explain this fully.</p><p>From whence this wind blown rhetoric, Tyson? Scientific leadership has led nothing in this country but science itself for our entire history. And whither blowest? Is there some science pulpit coming open in the political arena? Science Czar perhaps? If so, you've got the talking pretty part down, but could use some work when it comes to realism. Willing suspension of disbelief applies to drama, not politics nor science.</p><p>To lead one must be involved. The more science is involved with politics the less it is allowed to lead itself much less any other segments of society. Scientists who attempt to lead more than science suffer from the handicap of relying on truth. Other practicing politicians do not suffer this same problem, and will eat your lunch.</p><p>For someone whose training is in an observational science, Tyson seems peculiarly unable or unwilling to observe the relationship of science to politics across history. Too close maybe? As an astronomer you should be familiar with that in order to be able to focus your instrument on a target, you need go be quite some distance away. As for me, that's where I plan to keep my science, because I've had mine looked over by the Department of Appropriation of Research for Political Agendas(DARPA) and those people piss me off and scare me.</p><p>And until the general population sees fit to show up at the lab to do their share of the work, fuck this 'we' shit. I do science for Science's sake. If there were an alternative called US Science, I'd refuse to do that sort. Luckily outside of politically motivated rhetoric there isn't.</p></div><p>Wrong mod applied. I'm serious and am carrying on discussion in a serious manner. That's not a troll. I may be critical, but rightly so and specify where and why, so flamebait wouldn't apply either.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't recall being asked if I 'd like to have my science credited to the US , either upon entry into the science workforce or at the outset of each study .
I resent being appropriated.Tyson is an educator/entertainer and a scientist .
None of this makes him qualified in any way to speak on the political implications of " scientific leadership " , whatever that is supposed to be .
Tyson should perhaps stick to the science , perhaps even doing some on the subject raised here .
He might be surprised to find that scientific leadership is not what drives economic strength and security .
If asked , I 'm sure the economic and security leaderships would be glad to explain this fully.From whence this wind blown rhetoric , Tyson ?
Scientific leadership has led nothing in this country but science itself for our entire history .
And whither blowest ?
Is there some science pulpit coming open in the political arena ?
Science Czar perhaps ?
If so , you 've got the talking pretty part down , but could use some work when it comes to realism .
Willing suspension of disbelief applies to drama , not politics nor science.To lead one must be involved .
The more science is involved with politics the less it is allowed to lead itself much less any other segments of society .
Scientists who attempt to lead more than science suffer from the handicap of relying on truth .
Other practicing politicians do not suffer this same problem , and will eat your lunch.For someone whose training is in an observational science , Tyson seems peculiarly unable or unwilling to observe the relationship of science to politics across history .
Too close maybe ?
As an astronomer you should be familiar with that in order to be able to focus your instrument on a target , you need go be quite some distance away .
As for me , that 's where I plan to keep my science , because I 've had mine looked over by the Department of Appropriation of Research for Political Agendas ( DARPA ) and those people piss me off and scare me.And until the general population sees fit to show up at the lab to do their share of the work , fuck this 'we ' shit .
I do science for Science 's sake .
If there were an alternative called US Science , I 'd refuse to do that sort .
Luckily outside of politically motivated rhetoric there is n't.Wrong mod applied .
I 'm serious and am carrying on discussion in a serious manner .
That 's not a troll .
I may be critical , but rightly so and specify where and why , so flamebait would n't apply either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't recall being asked if I'd like to have my science credited to the US, either upon entry into the science workforce or at the outset of each study.
I resent being appropriated.Tyson is an educator/entertainer and a scientist.
None of this makes him qualified in any way to speak on the political implications of "scientific leadership", whatever that is supposed to be.
Tyson should perhaps stick to the science, perhaps even doing some on the subject raised here.
He might be surprised to find that scientific leadership is not what drives economic strength and security.
If asked, I'm sure the economic and security leaderships would be glad to explain this fully.From whence this wind blown rhetoric, Tyson?
Scientific leadership has led nothing in this country but science itself for our entire history.
And whither blowest?
Is there some science pulpit coming open in the political arena?
Science Czar perhaps?
If so, you've got the talking pretty part down, but could use some work when it comes to realism.
Willing suspension of disbelief applies to drama, not politics nor science.To lead one must be involved.
The more science is involved with politics the less it is allowed to lead itself much less any other segments of society.
Scientists who attempt to lead more than science suffer from the handicap of relying on truth.
Other practicing politicians do not suffer this same problem, and will eat your lunch.For someone whose training is in an observational science, Tyson seems peculiarly unable or unwilling to observe the relationship of science to politics across history.
Too close maybe?
As an astronomer you should be familiar with that in order to be able to focus your instrument on a target, you need go be quite some distance away.
As for me, that's where I plan to keep my science, because I've had mine looked over by the Department of Appropriation of Research for Political Agendas(DARPA) and those people piss me off and scare me.And until the general population sees fit to show up at the lab to do their share of the work, fuck this 'we' shit.
I do science for Science's sake.
If there were an alternative called US Science, I'd refuse to do that sort.
Luckily outside of politically motivated rhetoric there isn't.Wrong mod applied.
I'm serious and am carrying on discussion in a serious manner.
That's not a troll.
I may be critical, but rightly so and specify where and why, so flamebait wouldn't apply either.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622576</id>
	<title>Re:In a modern, globalised world</title>
	<author>SlothDead</author>
	<datestamp>1262450280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wrong!<br>It would be best if every country was good at science. If the USA stopped their anti science bias ("Evolution isn't real, me saying that climate change is fake is as valid as a climate scientist saying it is!") the whole world would benefit from that. And guess what: that includes the USA, so go ahead!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wrong ! It would be best if every country was good at science .
If the USA stopped their anti science bias ( " Evolution is n't real , me saying that climate change is fake is as valid as a climate scientist saying it is !
" ) the whole world would benefit from that .
And guess what : that includes the USA , so go ahead !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wrong!It would be best if every country was good at science.
If the USA stopped their anti science bias ("Evolution isn't real, me saying that climate change is fake is as valid as a climate scientist saying it is!
") the whole world would benefit from that.
And guess what: that includes the USA, so go ahead!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621998</id>
	<title>Well, duh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262445420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Guess what happens when you keep trying to teach controversies that do not exist, define reality as a matter of religious freedom and get "fair time" for stupidity in classrooms.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Guess what happens when you keep trying to teach controversies that do not exist , define reality as a matter of religious freedom and get " fair time " for stupidity in classrooms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guess what happens when you keep trying to teach controversies that do not exist, define reality as a matter of religious freedom and get "fair time" for stupidity in classrooms.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622426</id>
	<title>Tyson has it wrong.</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1262449200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The item about Russia and Apophis  is a none item. First, Russia has been screaming about doing more space for the last decade and yet, the majority of their funding has been from America, not their own government. Second, this has a LOT more to do with Russia's new focus on doing space weapons. It is certain that they will announce a solution to Apophis. It will be:<ol>
<li>A sat system that tracks 10's of 1000's of missiles^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h meteors.</li>
<li>A new missile system that can send 1000+ nuke warheads accurately to at least 1/2 of the circumference of the earth.</li>
<li>A new anti-meteor system using lasers and ABMs that can discern the difference between meteors that contain nuclear warheads and those that are dummies.</li>
</ol><p>
Had Russia been even the LEAST bit sincere about that, it would include some levels of partners, be it China, EU, or even America.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The item about Russia and Apophis is a none item .
First , Russia has been screaming about doing more space for the last decade and yet , the majority of their funding has been from America , not their own government .
Second , this has a LOT more to do with Russia 's new focus on doing space weapons .
It is certain that they will announce a solution to Apophis .
It will be : A sat system that tracks 10 's of 1000 's of missiles ^ h ^ h ^ h ^ h ^ h ^ h ^ h ^ h meteors .
A new missile system that can send 1000 + nuke warheads accurately to at least 1/2 of the circumference of the earth .
A new anti-meteor system using lasers and ABMs that can discern the difference between meteors that contain nuclear warheads and those that are dummies .
Had Russia been even the LEAST bit sincere about that , it would include some levels of partners , be it China , EU , or even America .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The item about Russia and Apophis  is a none item.
First, Russia has been screaming about doing more space for the last decade and yet, the majority of their funding has been from America, not their own government.
Second, this has a LOT more to do with Russia's new focus on doing space weapons.
It is certain that they will announce a solution to Apophis.
It will be:
A sat system that tracks 10's of 1000's of missiles^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h meteors.
A new missile system that can send 1000+ nuke warheads accurately to at least 1/2 of the circumference of the earth.
A new anti-meteor system using lasers and ABMs that can discern the difference between meteors that contain nuclear warheads and those that are dummies.
Had Russia been even the LEAST bit sincere about that, it would include some levels of partners, be it China, EU, or even America.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30624754</id>
	<title>Re:I blame the MBA</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1262462220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No offense, but someone has to take the short term view. One of the key problems with US scientific research is the near absence of short term goals. This results in a serious problem in turning scientific discoveries into benefits to society. I'm not speaking of finding the magical discovery that will help next quarter meet expectations. But rather that any science performed on Other Peoples' Money should have some near future benefit. Not the hazy "all research is valuable" tripe that is routinely used to justify squandering of public funds. The problem is that when you lose short term goals, you also lose the ability to evaluate the research. We have to make choices now about which research to support and to what degree. How can we make good decisions about long term research when most of the outcome is decades or centuries in the future?<br> <br>

For anyone thinking about dredging up counterexamples, keep in mind that research that is valuable to us today usually had value when it was discovered. The value might be pedestrian (like the contemporary benefits of first exploring electricity included lightning rods) or abstract (the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Least\_squares" title="wikipedia.org">least squares method</a> [wikipedia.org] was first developed by Carl Gauss in order to more conveniently determine the orbit of an asteroid). I don't know of any research that didn't have value at the time it was conducted yet resulted in considerable value at some later time.<br> <br>

Neither is serendipity excluded. For example, there was a Slashdot story about serendipitous discoveries in astronomy. In each of those cases, the scientists involved had some short term goals. They weren't counting on finding these discoveries (hence, why they were serendipitous), but they did plan on doing something. A short term evaluation would note both accomplishment (or not) of the desired goals as well as any serendipity that occurred.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No offense , but someone has to take the short term view .
One of the key problems with US scientific research is the near absence of short term goals .
This results in a serious problem in turning scientific discoveries into benefits to society .
I 'm not speaking of finding the magical discovery that will help next quarter meet expectations .
But rather that any science performed on Other Peoples ' Money should have some near future benefit .
Not the hazy " all research is valuable " tripe that is routinely used to justify squandering of public funds .
The problem is that when you lose short term goals , you also lose the ability to evaluate the research .
We have to make choices now about which research to support and to what degree .
How can we make good decisions about long term research when most of the outcome is decades or centuries in the future ?
For anyone thinking about dredging up counterexamples , keep in mind that research that is valuable to us today usually had value when it was discovered .
The value might be pedestrian ( like the contemporary benefits of first exploring electricity included lightning rods ) or abstract ( the least squares method [ wikipedia.org ] was first developed by Carl Gauss in order to more conveniently determine the orbit of an asteroid ) .
I do n't know of any research that did n't have value at the time it was conducted yet resulted in considerable value at some later time .
Neither is serendipity excluded .
For example , there was a Slashdot story about serendipitous discoveries in astronomy .
In each of those cases , the scientists involved had some short term goals .
They were n't counting on finding these discoveries ( hence , why they were serendipitous ) , but they did plan on doing something .
A short term evaluation would note both accomplishment ( or not ) of the desired goals as well as any serendipity that occurred .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No offense, but someone has to take the short term view.
One of the key problems with US scientific research is the near absence of short term goals.
This results in a serious problem in turning scientific discoveries into benefits to society.
I'm not speaking of finding the magical discovery that will help next quarter meet expectations.
But rather that any science performed on Other Peoples' Money should have some near future benefit.
Not the hazy "all research is valuable" tripe that is routinely used to justify squandering of public funds.
The problem is that when you lose short term goals, you also lose the ability to evaluate the research.
We have to make choices now about which research to support and to what degree.
How can we make good decisions about long term research when most of the outcome is decades or centuries in the future?
For anyone thinking about dredging up counterexamples, keep in mind that research that is valuable to us today usually had value when it was discovered.
The value might be pedestrian (like the contemporary benefits of first exploring electricity included lightning rods) or abstract (the least squares method [wikipedia.org] was first developed by Carl Gauss in order to more conveniently determine the orbit of an asteroid).
I don't know of any research that didn't have value at the time it was conducted yet resulted in considerable value at some later time.
Neither is serendipity excluded.
For example, there was a Slashdot story about serendipitous discoveries in astronomy.
In each of those cases, the scientists involved had some short term goals.
They weren't counting on finding these discoveries (hence, why they were serendipitous), but they did plan on doing something.
A short term evaluation would note both accomplishment (or not) of the desired goals as well as any serendipity that occurred.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30623082</id>
	<title>Re:I expect so...</title>
	<author>hedwards</author>
	<datestamp>1262453160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's generally how that works. Arrogance and ignorance tend to go hand in hand and it's difficult under even the best of circumstances to stay the leader forever. But in this case with a sizable portion of the population that doesn't want to be educated it's difficult indeed to remain the leader. Coddling religious idiots need to believe in absurdities like virgin births, new Earth and ID is hardly the path to enlightenment. Not to mention more easily dispatched notions like the US as a Christian nation, God always being on our currency and how our healthcare system only beats the tar out of other systems from age 65 and up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's generally how that works .
Arrogance and ignorance tend to go hand in hand and it 's difficult under even the best of circumstances to stay the leader forever .
But in this case with a sizable portion of the population that does n't want to be educated it 's difficult indeed to remain the leader .
Coddling religious idiots need to believe in absurdities like virgin births , new Earth and ID is hardly the path to enlightenment .
Not to mention more easily dispatched notions like the US as a Christian nation , God always being on our currency and how our healthcare system only beats the tar out of other systems from age 65 and up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's generally how that works.
Arrogance and ignorance tend to go hand in hand and it's difficult under even the best of circumstances to stay the leader forever.
But in this case with a sizable portion of the population that doesn't want to be educated it's difficult indeed to remain the leader.
Coddling religious idiots need to believe in absurdities like virgin births, new Earth and ID is hardly the path to enlightenment.
Not to mention more easily dispatched notions like the US as a Christian nation, God always being on our currency and how our healthcare system only beats the tar out of other systems from age 65 and up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30636982</id>
	<title>Re:not news</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1262534580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>But Australia and Korea are kicking butt on this research outside of military applications because they have commercially viable potential.</p></div></blockquote><p>

You may be shocked to learn that much of Australia's research is coming from our Universities. Universities may or may not be government funded but they do have a stake in them regardless and usually provide some money. In addition to this we have government funded research centres like CISRO who are responsible for many innovations.<br> <br>

The libertarian "privatise research" model has never really been applied because it simply doesn't work. If we leave R&amp;D up to the corporations we end up with no theoretical research being done and just enough applied research to get the next revision of a product out. We'll end up at a complete technological stand still. The government is not the issue, its US society that's the issue, you've fostered a society that is anti-intellectual, where being smart means being shunned and now the US is reaping the dividends.<br> <br>

Further more, NASA and the US military produce a lot of new tech, you just wont see it for 10 or 20 years when it becomes commercially available after NASA have done the hard work.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But Australia and Korea are kicking butt on this research outside of military applications because they have commercially viable potential .
You may be shocked to learn that much of Australia 's research is coming from our Universities .
Universities may or may not be government funded but they do have a stake in them regardless and usually provide some money .
In addition to this we have government funded research centres like CISRO who are responsible for many innovations .
The libertarian " privatise research " model has never really been applied because it simply does n't work .
If we leave R&amp;D up to the corporations we end up with no theoretical research being done and just enough applied research to get the next revision of a product out .
We 'll end up at a complete technological stand still .
The government is not the issue , its US society that 's the issue , you 've fostered a society that is anti-intellectual , where being smart means being shunned and now the US is reaping the dividends .
Further more , NASA and the US military produce a lot of new tech , you just wont see it for 10 or 20 years when it becomes commercially available after NASA have done the hard work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But Australia and Korea are kicking butt on this research outside of military applications because they have commercially viable potential.
You may be shocked to learn that much of Australia's research is coming from our Universities.
Universities may or may not be government funded but they do have a stake in them regardless and usually provide some money.
In addition to this we have government funded research centres like CISRO who are responsible for many innovations.
The libertarian "privatise research" model has never really been applied because it simply doesn't work.
If we leave R&amp;D up to the corporations we end up with no theoretical research being done and just enough applied research to get the next revision of a product out.
We'll end up at a complete technological stand still.
The government is not the issue, its US society that's the issue, you've fostered a society that is anti-intellectual, where being smart means being shunned and now the US is reaping the dividends.
Further more, NASA and the US military produce a lot of new tech, you just wont see it for 10 or 20 years when it becomes commercially available after NASA have done the hard work.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622940</id>
	<title>'[Scientific leadership] drives the....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262452320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...economic strength and security of nations.' , while at the same time, most published research in the US is done just because someone can get grant money for it. As somebody that has worked in research for the last 6 years, looks to me like the problem is that when the drive behind research is greed (be it wealth or ego flavor), what we get cannot be compared to what we would get if the drive was just passion for further the knowledge. I've seen that all over the place. In today's US scientific environment, you research anything you can get that comes with money attached, and not necessarily what you are better prepared to do, or like the best. Somehow take money of of the equation, do not use it as 'incentive'. Money not only does not help, but it corrupts the ideals.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...economic strength and security of nations .
' , while at the same time , most published research in the US is done just because someone can get grant money for it .
As somebody that has worked in research for the last 6 years , looks to me like the problem is that when the drive behind research is greed ( be it wealth or ego flavor ) , what we get can not be compared to what we would get if the drive was just passion for further the knowledge .
I 've seen that all over the place .
In today 's US scientific environment , you research anything you can get that comes with money attached , and not necessarily what you are better prepared to do , or like the best .
Somehow take money of of the equation , do not use it as 'incentive' .
Money not only does not help , but it corrupts the ideals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...economic strength and security of nations.
' , while at the same time, most published research in the US is done just because someone can get grant money for it.
As somebody that has worked in research for the last 6 years, looks to me like the problem is that when the drive behind research is greed (be it wealth or ego flavor), what we get cannot be compared to what we would get if the drive was just passion for further the knowledge.
I've seen that all over the place.
In today's US scientific environment, you research anything you can get that comes with money attached, and not necessarily what you are better prepared to do, or like the best.
Somehow take money of of the equation, do not use it as 'incentive'.
Money not only does not help, but it corrupts the ideals.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30637718</id>
	<title>Re:Evolution is not a fact</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262542800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That evolution occurs is a fact.  The theory is in the mechanisms that cause evolution to occur.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That evolution occurs is a fact .
The theory is in the mechanisms that cause evolution to occur .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That evolution occurs is a fact.
The theory is in the mechanisms that cause evolution to occur.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30625320</id>
	<title>Re:I have seen the lecture you are referring too.</title>
	<author>majid\_aldo</author>
	<datestamp>1262465520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>the fall of islamic science is is not as simple as that. it can be argued that islam as a religion had an easier time 'reconciling' faith with science than the christian experience. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic\_science#Decline" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic\_science#Decline</a> [wikipedia.org]

the other factor for decline is political.</htmltext>
<tokenext>the fall of islamic science is is not as simple as that .
it can be argued that islam as a religion had an easier time 'reconciling ' faith with science than the christian experience .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic \ _science # Decline [ wikipedia.org ] the other factor for decline is political .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the fall of islamic science is is not as simple as that.
it can be argued that islam as a religion had an easier time 'reconciling' faith with science than the christian experience.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic\_science#Decline [wikipedia.org]

the other factor for decline is political.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30626278</id>
	<title>Re:Short term thinking maybe?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262428140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My response to this is that ever since the US created the Department of Education, the over-all quality of the US education it has slowly but surely, gone downhill. There is way too much government control of our school system. The D of E is saturated with leftist, whose goals are more political than educational. If I had the power, I would instantly get rid of the D of E and return the schools to local control, where they should have always been. The legal system would take control of any social bias issues.<br>Secondly, as a nation, I believe that we are being distracted by non-real or manufactured problems such as "global warming". It is coming to light that a lot of the data that is used as a basis for the "global warming" ploy is phony and the real environmental science is being suppressed. If there is "global warming", it is because Mother Nature wants it that way. Unfortunately, there is so much political and monetary "inertia" to this scam. Do I believe in environmentalism? Of course and I'll be the first to say that we could do a lot better. But I'm not going to be the fatalist that the enviro-nuts would like me to be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My response to this is that ever since the US created the Department of Education , the over-all quality of the US education it has slowly but surely , gone downhill .
There is way too much government control of our school system .
The D of E is saturated with leftist , whose goals are more political than educational .
If I had the power , I would instantly get rid of the D of E and return the schools to local control , where they should have always been .
The legal system would take control of any social bias issues.Secondly , as a nation , I believe that we are being distracted by non-real or manufactured problems such as " global warming " .
It is coming to light that a lot of the data that is used as a basis for the " global warming " ploy is phony and the real environmental science is being suppressed .
If there is " global warming " , it is because Mother Nature wants it that way .
Unfortunately , there is so much political and monetary " inertia " to this scam .
Do I believe in environmentalism ?
Of course and I 'll be the first to say that we could do a lot better .
But I 'm not going to be the fatalist that the enviro-nuts would like me to be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My response to this is that ever since the US created the Department of Education, the over-all quality of the US education it has slowly but surely, gone downhill.
There is way too much government control of our school system.
The D of E is saturated with leftist, whose goals are more political than educational.
If I had the power, I would instantly get rid of the D of E and return the schools to local control, where they should have always been.
The legal system would take control of any social bias issues.Secondly, as a nation, I believe that we are being distracted by non-real or manufactured problems such as "global warming".
It is coming to light that a lot of the data that is used as a basis for the "global warming" ploy is phony and the real environmental science is being suppressed.
If there is "global warming", it is because Mother Nature wants it that way.
Unfortunately, there is so much political and monetary "inertia" to this scam.
Do I believe in environmentalism?
Of course and I'll be the first to say that we could do a lot better.
But I'm not going to be the fatalist that the enviro-nuts would like me to be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30624136</id>
	<title>Hold your horses, FUD master...</title>
	<author>copponex</author>
	<datestamp>1262458500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You state we spend money "proving" global warming. Let's assume you're right - how much is that exactly?</p><p>According to <a href="http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05461.pdf" title="gao.gov">the GAO</a> [gao.gov], it's probably around 6 billion a year. Which is about two weeks in Iraq.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Not sure that... we are doing anything never seen in the history of this planet.</p></div><p>Yes, we are burning hundreds of millions of years worth of old biomass in less than 150. We're also destroying every old growth forest on the planet. I'm fairly sure these are new events. And even a closed system will have periods of self-regulation that could be very inhospitable to our way of life.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Virgin is doing more with space technology than NASA is. And making money at it.</p></div><p>Virgin is not making money. Virgin has not been to the moon. Virgin hasn't ever placed a satellite. Virgin has never even orbited the earth as the space shuttle has. Virgin has never docked with a space station, or built one. It's performing sub-orbital flights - whoopdedoo!</p><p><div class="quote"><p>All government funded research does is take money away from people who want to spend it in some other manner and apply it towards projects that may not have any realizable benefit that's being run by people who are better at pitching funding proposals than delivering results.</p></div><p>If this is true, why are all technologically advanced civilizations run by a strong state government? And I guess rocket technology, information technology, satellites, and every other major advance of the 20th century funded directly by government research have netted us very little.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Here's food for thought. Polywell fusion has amazing potential as a viable energy source. Government funding consists of $500,000 from the US Navy and run by a private company. The researchers are not Government employees. With some Venture Capital they could be running this project with billions of capital investments</p></div><p>I thought you just said government funding was the problem? Would polywell reactors had a chance at private capital investment in the 1980s, so it could develop to the point where it may be viable? Or are you just unable to form a coherent argument if you're allowed to write more than a few sentences?</p><p>I agree that there need to be more reasonable restrictions for research and development, but that's more of a function of bad governance than private initiative. All of the programs in Australia and South Korea <b>are sponsored by their federal governments</b>.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>We don't do commercial R&amp;D because we can't afford it. All our money is going to Federal programs.</p></div><p>Commercial R&amp;D is just like commerce itself. Incredibly short sighted and hamstrung by the requirement of quick return on investment. That's why pure R&amp;D does not exist in the commercial realm, especially since the closure of Bell Labs. Modern corporations are so greedy, they are only allowed by their shareholders to perform product development. Anything that has a good chance of losing money - like pure research and development - is never even put on the table.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You state we spend money " proving " global warming .
Let 's assume you 're right - how much is that exactly ? According to the GAO [ gao.gov ] , it 's probably around 6 billion a year .
Which is about two weeks in Iraq.Not sure that... we are doing anything never seen in the history of this planet.Yes , we are burning hundreds of millions of years worth of old biomass in less than 150 .
We 're also destroying every old growth forest on the planet .
I 'm fairly sure these are new events .
And even a closed system will have periods of self-regulation that could be very inhospitable to our way of life.Virgin is doing more with space technology than NASA is .
And making money at it.Virgin is not making money .
Virgin has not been to the moon .
Virgin has n't ever placed a satellite .
Virgin has never even orbited the earth as the space shuttle has .
Virgin has never docked with a space station , or built one .
It 's performing sub-orbital flights - whoopdedoo ! All government funded research does is take money away from people who want to spend it in some other manner and apply it towards projects that may not have any realizable benefit that 's being run by people who are better at pitching funding proposals than delivering results.If this is true , why are all technologically advanced civilizations run by a strong state government ?
And I guess rocket technology , information technology , satellites , and every other major advance of the 20th century funded directly by government research have netted us very little.Here 's food for thought .
Polywell fusion has amazing potential as a viable energy source .
Government funding consists of $ 500,000 from the US Navy and run by a private company .
The researchers are not Government employees .
With some Venture Capital they could be running this project with billions of capital investmentsI thought you just said government funding was the problem ?
Would polywell reactors had a chance at private capital investment in the 1980s , so it could develop to the point where it may be viable ?
Or are you just unable to form a coherent argument if you 're allowed to write more than a few sentences ? I agree that there need to be more reasonable restrictions for research and development , but that 's more of a function of bad governance than private initiative .
All of the programs in Australia and South Korea are sponsored by their federal governments.We do n't do commercial R&amp;D because we ca n't afford it .
All our money is going to Federal programs.Commercial R&amp;D is just like commerce itself .
Incredibly short sighted and hamstrung by the requirement of quick return on investment .
That 's why pure R&amp;D does not exist in the commercial realm , especially since the closure of Bell Labs .
Modern corporations are so greedy , they are only allowed by their shareholders to perform product development .
Anything that has a good chance of losing money - like pure research and development - is never even put on the table .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You state we spend money "proving" global warming.
Let's assume you're right - how much is that exactly?According to the GAO [gao.gov], it's probably around 6 billion a year.
Which is about two weeks in Iraq.Not sure that... we are doing anything never seen in the history of this planet.Yes, we are burning hundreds of millions of years worth of old biomass in less than 150.
We're also destroying every old growth forest on the planet.
I'm fairly sure these are new events.
And even a closed system will have periods of self-regulation that could be very inhospitable to our way of life.Virgin is doing more with space technology than NASA is.
And making money at it.Virgin is not making money.
Virgin has not been to the moon.
Virgin hasn't ever placed a satellite.
Virgin has never even orbited the earth as the space shuttle has.
Virgin has never docked with a space station, or built one.
It's performing sub-orbital flights - whoopdedoo!All government funded research does is take money away from people who want to spend it in some other manner and apply it towards projects that may not have any realizable benefit that's being run by people who are better at pitching funding proposals than delivering results.If this is true, why are all technologically advanced civilizations run by a strong state government?
And I guess rocket technology, information technology, satellites, and every other major advance of the 20th century funded directly by government research have netted us very little.Here's food for thought.
Polywell fusion has amazing potential as a viable energy source.
Government funding consists of $500,000 from the US Navy and run by a private company.
The researchers are not Government employees.
With some Venture Capital they could be running this project with billions of capital investmentsI thought you just said government funding was the problem?
Would polywell reactors had a chance at private capital investment in the 1980s, so it could develop to the point where it may be viable?
Or are you just unable to form a coherent argument if you're allowed to write more than a few sentences?I agree that there need to be more reasonable restrictions for research and development, but that's more of a function of bad governance than private initiative.
All of the programs in Australia and South Korea are sponsored by their federal governments.We don't do commercial R&amp;D because we can't afford it.
All our money is going to Federal programs.Commercial R&amp;D is just like commerce itself.
Incredibly short sighted and hamstrung by the requirement of quick return on investment.
That's why pure R&amp;D does not exist in the commercial realm, especially since the closure of Bell Labs.
Modern corporations are so greedy, they are only allowed by their shareholders to perform product development.
Anything that has a good chance of losing money - like pure research and development - is never even put on the table.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30629456</id>
	<title>Re:I have seen the lecture you are referring too.</title>
	<author>nixish</author>
	<datestamp>1262456040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Buddhism also "gives you a text or other teachings that must not be questioned, that must not be doubted, that must not be tested, that has no flaws because it's holy and that you cannot improve because it's been taught by God or some other holy being."
Just saying!
Although one can argue that Buddhism is not a religion too. And in the context of the world's major religions, Christianity, Islam and "Jewish"(?), it is not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Buddhism also " gives you a text or other teachings that must not be questioned , that must not be doubted , that must not be tested , that has no flaws because it 's holy and that you can not improve because it 's been taught by God or some other holy being .
" Just saying !
Although one can argue that Buddhism is not a religion too .
And in the context of the world 's major religions , Christianity , Islam and " Jewish " ( ?
) , it is not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Buddhism also "gives you a text or other teachings that must not be questioned, that must not be doubted, that must not be tested, that has no flaws because it's holy and that you cannot improve because it's been taught by God or some other holy being.
"
Just saying!
Although one can argue that Buddhism is not a religion too.
And in the context of the world's major religions, Christianity, Islam and "Jewish"(?
), it is not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30623900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30623900</id>
	<title>Re:I have seen the lecture you are referring too.</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1262457420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>RELIGION is the problem. Don't single out one, they're all in there.</p><p>I don't mind people believing in some sort of higher being or whatever floats their boat. But stay out of science with it! Science and religion don't mix well. Science is about doubting everything that's relayed to you, testing it and trying to find flaws in those theories, trying to find better theories, trying to improve on it. Religion gives you a text or other teachings that must not be questioned, that must not be doubted, that must not be tested, that has no flaws because it's holy and that you cannot improve because it's been taught by God or some other holy being.</p><p>Religion keeps things static. And while stability is a nice thing because it gives you something to work from, not being ALLOWED to work from it means you are standing still. No improvement. No progress. It's change that drives progress, and if you cannot change you cannot progress.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>RELIGION is the problem .
Do n't single out one , they 're all in there.I do n't mind people believing in some sort of higher being or whatever floats their boat .
But stay out of science with it !
Science and religion do n't mix well .
Science is about doubting everything that 's relayed to you , testing it and trying to find flaws in those theories , trying to find better theories , trying to improve on it .
Religion gives you a text or other teachings that must not be questioned , that must not be doubted , that must not be tested , that has no flaws because it 's holy and that you can not improve because it 's been taught by God or some other holy being.Religion keeps things static .
And while stability is a nice thing because it gives you something to work from , not being ALLOWED to work from it means you are standing still .
No improvement .
No progress .
It 's change that drives progress , and if you can not change you can not progress .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RELIGION is the problem.
Don't single out one, they're all in there.I don't mind people believing in some sort of higher being or whatever floats their boat.
But stay out of science with it!
Science and religion don't mix well.
Science is about doubting everything that's relayed to you, testing it and trying to find flaws in those theories, trying to find better theories, trying to improve on it.
Religion gives you a text or other teachings that must not be questioned, that must not be doubted, that must not be tested, that has no flaws because it's holy and that you cannot improve because it's been taught by God or some other holy being.Religion keeps things static.
And while stability is a nice thing because it gives you something to work from, not being ALLOWED to work from it means you are standing still.
No improvement.
No progress.
It's change that drives progress, and if you cannot change you cannot progress.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622858</id>
	<title>Welcome to 1550.</title>
	<author>Yaos</author>
	<datestamp>1262451960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I also practice Mercantilism, and believe that all advances only effect the country the advance occurs in and that there is a limit to the advances. All advances made in a country is limited to only that country, the advances never leaves and nobody but that country can benefit from the advance. Any advances caused because of previous advances will only benefit the country the advance originally came from. I also believe that once you are behind you are behind forever, how other countries were able to get ahead after being behind is a mystery.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I also practice Mercantilism , and believe that all advances only effect the country the advance occurs in and that there is a limit to the advances .
All advances made in a country is limited to only that country , the advances never leaves and nobody but that country can benefit from the advance .
Any advances caused because of previous advances will only benefit the country the advance originally came from .
I also believe that once you are behind you are behind forever , how other countries were able to get ahead after being behind is a mystery .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I also practice Mercantilism, and believe that all advances only effect the country the advance occurs in and that there is a limit to the advances.
All advances made in a country is limited to only that country, the advances never leaves and nobody but that country can benefit from the advance.
Any advances caused because of previous advances will only benefit the country the advance originally came from.
I also believe that once you are behind you are behind forever, how other countries were able to get ahead after being behind is a mystery.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622436</id>
	<title>Re:I have seen the lecture you are referring too.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262449320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"When you have 60\% of your population denying Evolution, a scientific fact, your civilization is circling the drain."</p><p>Wow.  I guarantee you that the civilization that follows the Gospel of Jesus Christ will never collapse.  It is only when you deny Him that you will fall.</p><p>You're also making two different arguments.  Human Evolution has never been called "a scientific fact".  I'm a Christian and I believe that organisms evolve.  Where we disagree is that you believe you evolved from an ape.  I believe I am son of God, the Eternal Father.  I choose to hold humanity at a higher standard than the offspring of a dumb animal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" When you have 60 \ % of your population denying Evolution , a scientific fact , your civilization is circling the drain. " Wow .
I guarantee you that the civilization that follows the Gospel of Jesus Christ will never collapse .
It is only when you deny Him that you will fall.You 're also making two different arguments .
Human Evolution has never been called " a scientific fact " .
I 'm a Christian and I believe that organisms evolve .
Where we disagree is that you believe you evolved from an ape .
I believe I am son of God , the Eternal Father .
I choose to hold humanity at a higher standard than the offspring of a dumb animal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"When you have 60\% of your population denying Evolution, a scientific fact, your civilization is circling the drain."Wow.
I guarantee you that the civilization that follows the Gospel of Jesus Christ will never collapse.
It is only when you deny Him that you will fall.You're also making two different arguments.
Human Evolution has never been called "a scientific fact".
I'm a Christian and I believe that organisms evolve.
Where we disagree is that you believe you evolved from an ape.
I believe I am son of God, the Eternal Father.
I choose to hold humanity at a higher standard than the offspring of a dumb animal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622472</id>
	<title>Science downhill slide</title>
	<author>Wowsers</author>
	<datestamp>1262449620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are a number of factors as to why science is sliding, and it's not unique to the USA, most of the Western countries have this problem.</p><p>- In the UK, anyone on a science / engineering degree is sneered at; science, engineering and IT are SERIOUSLY uncool.<br>- In the UK, it is cool to be a moron.<br>- In the UK, there are no incentives for smart children to take up sciences (the government socially engineering moron population - easier to control).<br>- In the UK, a degree in a useless subject like English, art, politics, history, Latin, drama, can get you on the career paths which can earn LOTS of money (ie. acting, banking, politics). How many rich people do you see that are engineers? The list rapidly runs out after Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Ellison and a few others.<br>- Education in sciences is not that great, many lecturers prefer the textbook approach and not enough practical skills.</p><p>But that's the education side. The other problem is people in the sciences of engineering come up with a new gadget or process, but then find out that they can't proceed because part of their idea has already been patented by Mega rich corp..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are a number of factors as to why science is sliding , and it 's not unique to the USA , most of the Western countries have this problem.- In the UK , anyone on a science / engineering degree is sneered at ; science , engineering and IT are SERIOUSLY uncool.- In the UK , it is cool to be a moron.- In the UK , there are no incentives for smart children to take up sciences ( the government socially engineering moron population - easier to control ) .- In the UK , a degree in a useless subject like English , art , politics , history , Latin , drama , can get you on the career paths which can earn LOTS of money ( ie .
acting , banking , politics ) .
How many rich people do you see that are engineers ?
The list rapidly runs out after Bill Gates , Steve Jobs , Ellison and a few others.- Education in sciences is not that great , many lecturers prefer the textbook approach and not enough practical skills.But that 's the education side .
The other problem is people in the sciences of engineering come up with a new gadget or process , but then find out that they ca n't proceed because part of their idea has already been patented by Mega rich corp. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are a number of factors as to why science is sliding, and it's not unique to the USA, most of the Western countries have this problem.- In the UK, anyone on a science / engineering degree is sneered at; science, engineering and IT are SERIOUSLY uncool.- In the UK, it is cool to be a moron.- In the UK, there are no incentives for smart children to take up sciences (the government socially engineering moron population - easier to control).- In the UK, a degree in a useless subject like English, art, politics, history, Latin, drama, can get you on the career paths which can earn LOTS of money (ie.
acting, banking, politics).
How many rich people do you see that are engineers?
The list rapidly runs out after Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Ellison and a few others.- Education in sciences is not that great, many lecturers prefer the textbook approach and not enough practical skills.But that's the education side.
The other problem is people in the sciences of engineering come up with a new gadget or process, but then find out that they can't proceed because part of their idea has already been patented by Mega rich corp..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622680</id>
	<title>Re:In a modern, globalised world</title>
	<author>SpinyNorman</author>
	<datestamp>1262450940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It matters where it happens because the biggest application of science is industrial, and advances are closely held secrets not globally published and available to all. We're not talking about things like the discovery of DNA here, where indeed it doesn't matter (other than national prestige) where the discovery is made. We're talking about advances in material science, semiconductor manufacturing, genetic engineering and knowledge, etc, etc. The things that will allow America to maintain high wages and a high quality of life while competing with countries like China and India where wages are much less and absent technological leverage we're at a huge disadvantage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It matters where it happens because the biggest application of science is industrial , and advances are closely held secrets not globally published and available to all .
We 're not talking about things like the discovery of DNA here , where indeed it does n't matter ( other than national prestige ) where the discovery is made .
We 're talking about advances in material science , semiconductor manufacturing , genetic engineering and knowledge , etc , etc .
The things that will allow America to maintain high wages and a high quality of life while competing with countries like China and India where wages are much less and absent technological leverage we 're at a huge disadvantage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It matters where it happens because the biggest application of science is industrial, and advances are closely held secrets not globally published and available to all.
We're not talking about things like the discovery of DNA here, where indeed it doesn't matter (other than national prestige) where the discovery is made.
We're talking about advances in material science, semiconductor manufacturing, genetic engineering and knowledge, etc, etc.
The things that will allow America to maintain high wages and a high quality of life while competing with countries like China and India where wages are much less and absent technological leverage we're at a huge disadvantage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30628066</id>
	<title>Re:not news</title>
	<author>frank\_adrian314159</author>
	<datestamp>1262440380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>We don't do commercial R&amp;D because we can't afford it. All our money is going to Federal programs.</i> </p><p>Hey, stupid, corporate taxes have gone down since the 1980's.  But yet, the number of research labs run by corporations has gone down precipitously in that time.  Why? I'll give you a hint - it has nothing to do with the amount of government expenditures.  It has a lot to do with the fact that corporations don't see immediate profit in research and have closed down their labs.  And, in fact, the government has actually subsidized corporate R&amp;D since that time by giving R&amp;D tax credits.  So are you just ignoring facts, or what?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We do n't do commercial R&amp;D because we ca n't afford it .
All our money is going to Federal programs .
Hey , stupid , corporate taxes have gone down since the 1980 's .
But yet , the number of research labs run by corporations has gone down precipitously in that time .
Why ? I 'll give you a hint - it has nothing to do with the amount of government expenditures .
It has a lot to do with the fact that corporations do n't see immediate profit in research and have closed down their labs .
And , in fact , the government has actually subsidized corporate R&amp;D since that time by giving R&amp;D tax credits .
So are you just ignoring facts , or what ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We don't do commercial R&amp;D because we can't afford it.
All our money is going to Federal programs.
Hey, stupid, corporate taxes have gone down since the 1980's.
But yet, the number of research labs run by corporations has gone down precipitously in that time.
Why? I'll give you a hint - it has nothing to do with the amount of government expenditures.
It has a lot to do with the fact that corporations don't see immediate profit in research and have closed down their labs.
And, in fact, the government has actually subsidized corporate R&amp;D since that time by giving R&amp;D tax credits.
So are you just ignoring facts, or what?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30623366</id>
	<title>Re:Actually this has happened for a while now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262454780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really? You think the problem with the US is that it provides TOO MUCH of a social safety net? You realise that one reason why most foreign countries do not require companies to purchase health insurance is because most foreign countries have proper national healthcare schemes ranging from single-payer to full nationalisation?</p><p>The only places that don't tend to be collapsed states or semi-developed countries aiming for the real lowest cost, lowest value unskilled or semi-skilled labour. There is no way that this work will even be sufficient to provide a middle-class income any more. It just doesn't provide enough value and the luxuries expected for a middle-class lifestyle in the US are now too much.</p><p>If anything, America has benefited from massive outsourcing by the rest of the world of capital raising and corporate HQ admin. One reason why many "American" companies have lots of operations overseas is because they serve lots of customers overseas - for many American companies the US market may not be the biggest part of their operations any more and won't be one with the highest growth potential.</p><p>The US market clearly works well at providing one thing though - it provides plenty of scapegoats, talking points and political finger-pointing to allow people to avoid facing the changing global economic environment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
You think the problem with the US is that it provides TOO MUCH of a social safety net ?
You realise that one reason why most foreign countries do not require companies to purchase health insurance is because most foreign countries have proper national healthcare schemes ranging from single-payer to full nationalisation ? The only places that do n't tend to be collapsed states or semi-developed countries aiming for the real lowest cost , lowest value unskilled or semi-skilled labour .
There is no way that this work will even be sufficient to provide a middle-class income any more .
It just does n't provide enough value and the luxuries expected for a middle-class lifestyle in the US are now too much.If anything , America has benefited from massive outsourcing by the rest of the world of capital raising and corporate HQ admin .
One reason why many " American " companies have lots of operations overseas is because they serve lots of customers overseas - for many American companies the US market may not be the biggest part of their operations any more and wo n't be one with the highest growth potential.The US market clearly works well at providing one thing though - it provides plenty of scapegoats , talking points and political finger-pointing to allow people to avoid facing the changing global economic environment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
You think the problem with the US is that it provides TOO MUCH of a social safety net?
You realise that one reason why most foreign countries do not require companies to purchase health insurance is because most foreign countries have proper national healthcare schemes ranging from single-payer to full nationalisation?The only places that don't tend to be collapsed states or semi-developed countries aiming for the real lowest cost, lowest value unskilled or semi-skilled labour.
There is no way that this work will even be sufficient to provide a middle-class income any more.
It just doesn't provide enough value and the luxuries expected for a middle-class lifestyle in the US are now too much.If anything, America has benefited from massive outsourcing by the rest of the world of capital raising and corporate HQ admin.
One reason why many "American" companies have lots of operations overseas is because they serve lots of customers overseas - for many American companies the US market may not be the biggest part of their operations any more and won't be one with the highest growth potential.The US market clearly works well at providing one thing though - it provides plenty of scapegoats, talking points and political finger-pointing to allow people to avoid facing the changing global economic environment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30625450</id>
	<title>Re:Short term thinking maybe?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262422980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You hit the nail on the head.  Several years ago, when I was talking to a high school counselor who was taking part time classes at the university I was going to, she told me that she warned students away from the hard sciences and to "make your urge to tinker a hobby, and have your work be something you make money at."</p><p>Instead, she steered students with a mathematical bent towards being a CPA with quotes like, "Engineering is something Chinese do and Americans have failed at.  That is why we have no domestic TV brands.  Businesses cannot offshore accounts payable and payroll."  Would-be programmers were recommended to pre-law with the adage "there is no such thing as an unemployed lawyer", would-be engineers to business marketing, "Engineers might design something nice, but marketing people earn enough income so they design something nice on their own time in their 10,000 square foot house, and not their 550 square foot efficiency."</p><p>The US media also tends to push people away from "nerdy" jobs such as the hard sciences or engineering.  It is far cooler to be a sales/marketing person that rakes in the sales figures for the next quarter than the engineer who makes a new product design that will start bringing in revenue after 2-3 years of research.  It is beaten into peoples' heads on TV and theaters that it is better to be an attorney that can drop a letter of demand and get deities to comply with the request than go to a tier 1 university, be forced out because T1 colleges are essentially all foreign students who actually have a math background, end up getting a degree at a second tier college, only to find out that there are -no- engineering jobs out there.</p><p>Another media portrayal:  The CS student.  They are either a genius hacker, or the company prison bitch working for minimum wage and having to fight to keep their job against offshore workers who are viewed as doing twice the work for pennies per hour.</p><p>US companies do not innovate for revolutionary products anymore.  Instead, their in-house is trying add a feature or two to last year's product and sell that.  If they want something new, they buy a startup somewhere.  Apple did this with Casady &amp; Greene for iTunes.  Microsoft has done this with Spyglass.</p><p>So if you want to be at a company who actually will do revolutionary stuff, you either have to work at an Asian firm who is focused on the next 5 years and not the next quarter, or you have to get people and do a startup, and pray that the VC guys you go to don't steal the idea and drop it off at an offshore firm.  (Don't think a NDA will protect you.  You need money to deal with the courts and the lawyers to enforce said NDA.  It is similar to having the right of way, but being broadsided by an 18 wheeler.)</p><p>Only way to fix this?  Won't come from the private sector.  They are fat, dumb, and happy because if they make it, they make it.  If they fail, the government bails them out and they keep their bonus checks.</p><p>It has to come from the US government and regulations.  China has this in place already where Chinese firms have to own a 51\% stake in anything in their borders.  We don't need to go that far, but the economy will NOT change due to the private sector, it will have to come from laws and government.</p><p>Of course some will say that this isn't the government's place.  In fact, the US constitution explicitly states that this is where the Federal government has control; international trade.  And they *have* to do something.  2010 is an election year, and the voters are going to remember who is doing something and who in Congress is just sitting on their hands, saying "no", and trying to table any proposal just for partisan reasons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You hit the nail on the head .
Several years ago , when I was talking to a high school counselor who was taking part time classes at the university I was going to , she told me that she warned students away from the hard sciences and to " make your urge to tinker a hobby , and have your work be something you make money at .
" Instead , she steered students with a mathematical bent towards being a CPA with quotes like , " Engineering is something Chinese do and Americans have failed at .
That is why we have no domestic TV brands .
Businesses can not offshore accounts payable and payroll .
" Would-be programmers were recommended to pre-law with the adage " there is no such thing as an unemployed lawyer " , would-be engineers to business marketing , " Engineers might design something nice , but marketing people earn enough income so they design something nice on their own time in their 10,000 square foot house , and not their 550 square foot efficiency .
" The US media also tends to push people away from " nerdy " jobs such as the hard sciences or engineering .
It is far cooler to be a sales/marketing person that rakes in the sales figures for the next quarter than the engineer who makes a new product design that will start bringing in revenue after 2-3 years of research .
It is beaten into peoples ' heads on TV and theaters that it is better to be an attorney that can drop a letter of demand and get deities to comply with the request than go to a tier 1 university , be forced out because T1 colleges are essentially all foreign students who actually have a math background , end up getting a degree at a second tier college , only to find out that there are -no- engineering jobs out there.Another media portrayal : The CS student .
They are either a genius hacker , or the company prison bitch working for minimum wage and having to fight to keep their job against offshore workers who are viewed as doing twice the work for pennies per hour.US companies do not innovate for revolutionary products anymore .
Instead , their in-house is trying add a feature or two to last year 's product and sell that .
If they want something new , they buy a startup somewhere .
Apple did this with Casady &amp; Greene for iTunes .
Microsoft has done this with Spyglass.So if you want to be at a company who actually will do revolutionary stuff , you either have to work at an Asian firm who is focused on the next 5 years and not the next quarter , or you have to get people and do a startup , and pray that the VC guys you go to do n't steal the idea and drop it off at an offshore firm .
( Do n't think a NDA will protect you .
You need money to deal with the courts and the lawyers to enforce said NDA .
It is similar to having the right of way , but being broadsided by an 18 wheeler .
) Only way to fix this ?
Wo n't come from the private sector .
They are fat , dumb , and happy because if they make it , they make it .
If they fail , the government bails them out and they keep their bonus checks.It has to come from the US government and regulations .
China has this in place already where Chinese firms have to own a 51 \ % stake in anything in their borders .
We do n't need to go that far , but the economy will NOT change due to the private sector , it will have to come from laws and government.Of course some will say that this is n't the government 's place .
In fact , the US constitution explicitly states that this is where the Federal government has control ; international trade .
And they * have * to do something .
2010 is an election year , and the voters are going to remember who is doing something and who in Congress is just sitting on their hands , saying " no " , and trying to table any proposal just for partisan reasons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You hit the nail on the head.
Several years ago, when I was talking to a high school counselor who was taking part time classes at the university I was going to, she told me that she warned students away from the hard sciences and to "make your urge to tinker a hobby, and have your work be something you make money at.
"Instead, she steered students with a mathematical bent towards being a CPA with quotes like, "Engineering is something Chinese do and Americans have failed at.
That is why we have no domestic TV brands.
Businesses cannot offshore accounts payable and payroll.
"  Would-be programmers were recommended to pre-law with the adage "there is no such thing as an unemployed lawyer", would-be engineers to business marketing, "Engineers might design something nice, but marketing people earn enough income so they design something nice on their own time in their 10,000 square foot house, and not their 550 square foot efficiency.
"The US media also tends to push people away from "nerdy" jobs such as the hard sciences or engineering.
It is far cooler to be a sales/marketing person that rakes in the sales figures for the next quarter than the engineer who makes a new product design that will start bringing in revenue after 2-3 years of research.
It is beaten into peoples' heads on TV and theaters that it is better to be an attorney that can drop a letter of demand and get deities to comply with the request than go to a tier 1 university, be forced out because T1 colleges are essentially all foreign students who actually have a math background, end up getting a degree at a second tier college, only to find out that there are -no- engineering jobs out there.Another media portrayal:  The CS student.
They are either a genius hacker, or the company prison bitch working for minimum wage and having to fight to keep their job against offshore workers who are viewed as doing twice the work for pennies per hour.US companies do not innovate for revolutionary products anymore.
Instead, their in-house is trying add a feature or two to last year's product and sell that.
If they want something new, they buy a startup somewhere.
Apple did this with Casady &amp; Greene for iTunes.
Microsoft has done this with Spyglass.So if you want to be at a company who actually will do revolutionary stuff, you either have to work at an Asian firm who is focused on the next 5 years and not the next quarter, or you have to get people and do a startup, and pray that the VC guys you go to don't steal the idea and drop it off at an offshore firm.
(Don't think a NDA will protect you.
You need money to deal with the courts and the lawyers to enforce said NDA.
It is similar to having the right of way, but being broadsided by an 18 wheeler.
)Only way to fix this?
Won't come from the private sector.
They are fat, dumb, and happy because if they make it, they make it.
If they fail, the government bails them out and they keep their bonus checks.It has to come from the US government and regulations.
China has this in place already where Chinese firms have to own a 51\% stake in anything in their borders.
We don't need to go that far, but the economy will NOT change due to the private sector, it will have to come from laws and government.Of course some will say that this isn't the government's place.
In fact, the US constitution explicitly states that this is where the Federal government has control; international trade.
And they *have* to do something.
2010 is an election year, and the voters are going to remember who is doing something and who in Congress is just sitting on their hands, saying "no", and trying to table any proposal just for partisan reasons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30623142</id>
	<title>Re:I have seen the lecture you are referring too.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262453460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; I choose to hold humanity at a higher standard than the offspring of a dumb animal.</p><p>That's why I think it is more accurate to call some people instead of Christians "self-righteous asses". They may have gone up in intelligence (or maybe just political correctness) enough to not use the term "dumb nigger" (or whatever was the lowest class in their society) at the end but haven't gotten beyond that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; I choose to hold humanity at a higher standard than the offspring of a dumb animal.That 's why I think it is more accurate to call some people instead of Christians " self-righteous asses " .
They may have gone up in intelligence ( or maybe just political correctness ) enough to not use the term " dumb nigger " ( or whatever was the lowest class in their society ) at the end but have n't gotten beyond that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; I choose to hold humanity at a higher standard than the offspring of a dumb animal.That's why I think it is more accurate to call some people instead of Christians "self-righteous asses".
They may have gone up in intelligence (or maybe just political correctness) enough to not use the term "dumb nigger" (or whatever was the lowest class in their society) at the end but haven't gotten beyond that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30623438</id>
	<title>We Need Geek Culture</title>
	<author>ideonexus</author>
	<datestamp>1262455140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
The problem with anecdotal evidence, is that people arguing the exact opposite point <a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2U5YTJiMzhjNDNhZTcwZGYyZjcyMzQyZWNmNjJjN2E=" title="nationalreview.com" rel="nofollow">can pull out a dozen examples too</a> [nationalreview.com]. In this article John Derbyshire pulls out a dozen examples of why Obama is trying to kill science in the United States. It's not convincing to anyone who knows about <a href="http://www.nationallabday.org/about" title="nationallabday.org" rel="nofollow">National Lab Day</a> [nationallabday.org], <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education/educate-innovate" title="whitehouse.gov" rel="nofollow">Educate to Innovate</a> [whitehouse.gov] STEM initiative, <a href="http://www.acm.org/press-room/news-releases/cs-education-week" title="acm.org" rel="nofollow">Computer Science Week</a> [acm.org], <a href="http://www.data.gov/" title="data.gov" rel="nofollow">data.gov</a> [data.gov], and the <a href="http://blog.ostp.gov/" title="ostp.gov" rel="nofollow">Policy Forum on Public Access to Federally Funded Research</a> [ostp.gov]... but this is all anecdotal too, a better resource would be an <a href="http://www.scienceworksforus.org/" title="scienceworksforus.org" rel="nofollow">overview of all the projects being funded by the stimulus package</a> [scienceworksforus.org] or <a href="http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/the-energy-quest-begins/" title="nytimes.com" rel="nofollow">trends in government funding of scientific research</a> [nytimes.com].
</p><p>
However, I do completely agree that Tyson is being unfair to the American government. In fact, this is the same guy who previously argued <a href="http://fora.tv/2009/02/04/Neil\_deGrasse\_Tyson\_Pluto\_Files#Neil\_deGrasse\_Tyson\_Bush\_Innocent\_in\_War\_on\_Science" title="fora.tv" rel="nofollow">Republicans were doing a great job of funding American science</a> [fora.tv]. The real issue here, and the one we are dealing with most in computer science, is American Culture's antipathy and outright contempt for science and academia. Kids aren't going into Computer Science, Physics, Chemistry, etc, because they are afraid of being associated with "geeks." The kids all want to be gangsters, models, and sports stars... not realizing how unrealistic those dreams are and that only a miniscule percentage of people succeed in those arenas.
</p><p>
We need a culture change, we need to be proud geeks and make others envy us. It'll help us out in the long run.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with anecdotal evidence , is that people arguing the exact opposite point can pull out a dozen examples too [ nationalreview.com ] .
In this article John Derbyshire pulls out a dozen examples of why Obama is trying to kill science in the United States .
It 's not convincing to anyone who knows about National Lab Day [ nationallabday.org ] , Educate to Innovate [ whitehouse.gov ] STEM initiative , Computer Science Week [ acm.org ] , data.gov [ data.gov ] , and the Policy Forum on Public Access to Federally Funded Research [ ostp.gov ] ... but this is all anecdotal too , a better resource would be an overview of all the projects being funded by the stimulus package [ scienceworksforus.org ] or trends in government funding of scientific research [ nytimes.com ] .
However , I do completely agree that Tyson is being unfair to the American government .
In fact , this is the same guy who previously argued Republicans were doing a great job of funding American science [ fora.tv ] .
The real issue here , and the one we are dealing with most in computer science , is American Culture 's antipathy and outright contempt for science and academia .
Kids are n't going into Computer Science , Physics , Chemistry , etc , because they are afraid of being associated with " geeks .
" The kids all want to be gangsters , models , and sports stars... not realizing how unrealistic those dreams are and that only a miniscule percentage of people succeed in those arenas .
We need a culture change , we need to be proud geeks and make others envy us .
It 'll help us out in the long run .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The problem with anecdotal evidence, is that people arguing the exact opposite point can pull out a dozen examples too [nationalreview.com].
In this article John Derbyshire pulls out a dozen examples of why Obama is trying to kill science in the United States.
It's not convincing to anyone who knows about National Lab Day [nationallabday.org], Educate to Innovate [whitehouse.gov] STEM initiative, Computer Science Week [acm.org], data.gov [data.gov], and the Policy Forum on Public Access to Federally Funded Research [ostp.gov]... but this is all anecdotal too, a better resource would be an overview of all the projects being funded by the stimulus package [scienceworksforus.org] or trends in government funding of scientific research [nytimes.com].
However, I do completely agree that Tyson is being unfair to the American government.
In fact, this is the same guy who previously argued Republicans were doing a great job of funding American science [fora.tv].
The real issue here, and the one we are dealing with most in computer science, is American Culture's antipathy and outright contempt for science and academia.
Kids aren't going into Computer Science, Physics, Chemistry, etc, because they are afraid of being associated with "geeks.
" The kids all want to be gangsters, models, and sports stars... not realizing how unrealistic those dreams are and that only a miniscule percentage of people succeed in those arenas.
We need a culture change, we need to be proud geeks and make others envy us.
It'll help us out in the long run.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621992</id>
	<title>I have seen the lecture you are referring too.</title>
	<author>Zombie Ryushu</author>
	<datestamp>1262445300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He made a very good point.</p><p>Tyson made a very good point. In that lecture, he talked about the Islamic Empires of the 12th and 13th centuries that were building while we were in the Christian Dark Ages. Do you know what happened? A bunch of Imams got together and basically stated that Math and Science were of the devil. After that, it was only a matter of time. The result is the Middle East we see today.</p><p>He also stated a statistic that since Bush took office in 2001, during the 8 years of Bush, the amount of "hard science" Papers in Chemistry, Biology and Physics has dropped to 1/10th what it was in the 90s.</p><p>(He had exact numbers, and I saw this last November.)</p><p>The point is, Reactionary Christianity is causing the collapse of our civilization just the same way that Reactionary Islam caused the middle east to become what it is today.</p><p>Christianity. Its the Problem.</p><p>When you have 60\% of your population denying Evolution, a scientific fact, your civilization is circling the drain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He made a very good point.Tyson made a very good point .
In that lecture , he talked about the Islamic Empires of the 12th and 13th centuries that were building while we were in the Christian Dark Ages .
Do you know what happened ?
A bunch of Imams got together and basically stated that Math and Science were of the devil .
After that , it was only a matter of time .
The result is the Middle East we see today.He also stated a statistic that since Bush took office in 2001 , during the 8 years of Bush , the amount of " hard science " Papers in Chemistry , Biology and Physics has dropped to 1/10th what it was in the 90s .
( He had exact numbers , and I saw this last November .
) The point is , Reactionary Christianity is causing the collapse of our civilization just the same way that Reactionary Islam caused the middle east to become what it is today.Christianity .
Its the Problem.When you have 60 \ % of your population denying Evolution , a scientific fact , your civilization is circling the drain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He made a very good point.Tyson made a very good point.
In that lecture, he talked about the Islamic Empires of the 12th and 13th centuries that were building while we were in the Christian Dark Ages.
Do you know what happened?
A bunch of Imams got together and basically stated that Math and Science were of the devil.
After that, it was only a matter of time.
The result is the Middle East we see today.He also stated a statistic that since Bush took office in 2001, during the 8 years of Bush, the amount of "hard science" Papers in Chemistry, Biology and Physics has dropped to 1/10th what it was in the 90s.
(He had exact numbers, and I saw this last November.
)The point is, Reactionary Christianity is causing the collapse of our civilization just the same way that Reactionary Islam caused the middle east to become what it is today.Christianity.
Its the Problem.When you have 60\% of your population denying Evolution, a scientific fact, your civilization is circling the drain.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30623016</id>
	<title>Re:Short term thinking maybe?</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1262452740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Personally, I think we should deemphasize the amount of attention paid to the stock market, and give it back to the billionaire's club. Invest your retirement money in something safe that gives reasonable returns....ror better yet, demand that they bring pensions back (the ultimate long term planning tool.)</p></div><p>You apparently have missed the slow train wrecks that are pension funds. There are two common problems with them. One, they're underfunded for the obligations they have. And two, that process is natural and will reoccur with any new pension fund. The shift (at least in the US) to things like 401K plans and IRAs was necessary because putting responsibility for retirement in the hands of the eventual retiree was necessary. Nobody else has that person's interest at stake.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I think we should deemphasize the amount of attention paid to the stock market , and give it back to the billionaire 's club .
Invest your retirement money in something safe that gives reasonable returns....ror better yet , demand that they bring pensions back ( the ultimate long term planning tool .
) You apparently have missed the slow train wrecks that are pension funds .
There are two common problems with them .
One , they 're underfunded for the obligations they have .
And two , that process is natural and will reoccur with any new pension fund .
The shift ( at least in the US ) to things like 401K plans and IRAs was necessary because putting responsibility for retirement in the hands of the eventual retiree was necessary .
Nobody else has that person 's interest at stake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I think we should deemphasize the amount of attention paid to the stock market, and give it back to the billionaire's club.
Invest your retirement money in something safe that gives reasonable returns....ror better yet, demand that they bring pensions back (the ultimate long term planning tool.
)You apparently have missed the slow train wrecks that are pension funds.
There are two common problems with them.
One, they're underfunded for the obligations they have.
And two, that process is natural and will reoccur with any new pension fund.
The shift (at least in the US) to things like 401K plans and IRAs was necessary because putting responsibility for retirement in the hands of the eventual retiree was necessary.
Nobody else has that person's interest at stake.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30628436</id>
	<title>Re:I have seen the lecture you are referring too.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262444400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I choose to hold humanity at a higher standard than the offspring of a dumb animal.</p></div><p>Now, now, your children aren't as bad as you think...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I choose to hold humanity at a higher standard than the offspring of a dumb animal.Now , now , your children are n't as bad as you think.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I choose to hold humanity at a higher standard than the offspring of a dumb animal.Now, now, your children aren't as bad as you think...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622896</id>
	<title>Re:not news</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1262452080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I didn't see it coming. They didn't mention it once on American Idol.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't see it coming .
They did n't mention it once on American Idol .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't see it coming.
They didn't mention it once on American Idol.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30625586</id>
	<title>Re:I expect so...</title>
	<author>Shimmer</author>
	<datestamp>1262423760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It's sad really, the most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same rabid supporters of the policies that are destroying it.</i></p><p>Great point. I think that may become my new quote.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's sad really , the most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same rabid supporters of the policies that are destroying it.Great point .
I think that may become my new quote .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's sad really, the most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same rabid supporters of the policies that are destroying it.Great point.
I think that may become my new quote.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621938</id>
	<title>Meh.. I disagree...</title>
	<author>joocemann</author>
	<datestamp>1262444760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The US is home to huge numbers of institutes, universities, and foundations that are directly responsible for TONS of science coming out.  Matter of fact, I have a subscription to Science Magazine and many of the articles are in part or wholly by the US.</p><p>We are a bit behind in stem cell research training and skills, relative to other countries, but CIRM is working to catch that up.</p><p><a href="http://www.cirm.ca.gov/node/278" title="ca.gov">http://www.cirm.ca.gov/node/278</a> [ca.gov]</p><p>---</p><p>I think the article is a bit shallow and assumptive, and does not wholly encompass (or ignores for sake of proving a point) the massive science we are responsible for producing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The US is home to huge numbers of institutes , universities , and foundations that are directly responsible for TONS of science coming out .
Matter of fact , I have a subscription to Science Magazine and many of the articles are in part or wholly by the US.We are a bit behind in stem cell research training and skills , relative to other countries , but CIRM is working to catch that up.http : //www.cirm.ca.gov/node/278 [ ca.gov ] ---I think the article is a bit shallow and assumptive , and does not wholly encompass ( or ignores for sake of proving a point ) the massive science we are responsible for producing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US is home to huge numbers of institutes, universities, and foundations that are directly responsible for TONS of science coming out.
Matter of fact, I have a subscription to Science Magazine and many of the articles are in part or wholly by the US.We are a bit behind in stem cell research training and skills, relative to other countries, but CIRM is working to catch that up.http://www.cirm.ca.gov/node/278 [ca.gov]---I think the article is a bit shallow and assumptive, and does not wholly encompass (or ignores for sake of proving a point) the massive science we are responsible for producing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621796</id>
	<title>"Science" is not just "Eureka"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262443260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can't just have PARC and places sitting in isolation, churning out whizz bang science.</p><p>Neither can you just build a PARC, and have that attract and create industry around it.</p><p>PARC and places like that need to co-exist with a hotbed industrial base, and then you get a positive feedback loop.</p><p>If you kill local industry and manufacture, then you also kill science.</p><p>If you kill science, then you also kill local industry and manufacture.</p><p>Back in the 1960's and before every school in the UK turned out kids who could read, write, and do math.</p><p>You cannot do ANY trade without these skills, not plumbing, not carpentry, not bricklaying, not to mention the slightly higher level trades like boilermakers etc.</p><p>Sadly, we threw it all away, in our pursuit of crap courses like equine aromatherapy and womyns studies, anything, just to get more people in university, just to get more people with degrees and diplomas and certificates.</p><p>Now we have a "service" economy that relies on someone else being able to do the basic math etc.</p><p>I am an engineer ( a proper one, eg mechanical and marine) and sadly I am the demographic that went through the trade at a time when an engineer was lower in status and pay than many blue collar jobs, which meant no-one wanted to do apprenticeships, which means I am one of the last of the "old school" of engineers.</p><p>The future isn't bright.</p><p>Sci-fi series Firefly had one thing right, learn a second language, and make it Chinese.</p><p>Even if we turned around and went balls out to fix the problem, money no expense, NOW, it would take a generation, or 20 years, to fix, which is too damn slow to work.</p><p>All that is left is importing the talent.</p><p>From what I know of the USA, there is a lot of importing engineering talent going on, lots of foreign nationals, green card holders and immigrants working in tech.</p><p>A friend of mine summed it up well years ago, when he said that in 2020 the USA will be the place to go to make cheap porn and exploit people who don't have any other options.</p><p>USA, the new Romania.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't just have PARC and places sitting in isolation , churning out whizz bang science.Neither can you just build a PARC , and have that attract and create industry around it.PARC and places like that need to co-exist with a hotbed industrial base , and then you get a positive feedback loop.If you kill local industry and manufacture , then you also kill science.If you kill science , then you also kill local industry and manufacture.Back in the 1960 's and before every school in the UK turned out kids who could read , write , and do math.You can not do ANY trade without these skills , not plumbing , not carpentry , not bricklaying , not to mention the slightly higher level trades like boilermakers etc.Sadly , we threw it all away , in our pursuit of crap courses like equine aromatherapy and womyns studies , anything , just to get more people in university , just to get more people with degrees and diplomas and certificates.Now we have a " service " economy that relies on someone else being able to do the basic math etc.I am an engineer ( a proper one , eg mechanical and marine ) and sadly I am the demographic that went through the trade at a time when an engineer was lower in status and pay than many blue collar jobs , which meant no-one wanted to do apprenticeships , which means I am one of the last of the " old school " of engineers.The future is n't bright.Sci-fi series Firefly had one thing right , learn a second language , and make it Chinese.Even if we turned around and went balls out to fix the problem , money no expense , NOW , it would take a generation , or 20 years , to fix , which is too damn slow to work.All that is left is importing the talent.From what I know of the USA , there is a lot of importing engineering talent going on , lots of foreign nationals , green card holders and immigrants working in tech.A friend of mine summed it up well years ago , when he said that in 2020 the USA will be the place to go to make cheap porn and exploit people who do n't have any other options.USA , the new Romania .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't just have PARC and places sitting in isolation, churning out whizz bang science.Neither can you just build a PARC, and have that attract and create industry around it.PARC and places like that need to co-exist with a hotbed industrial base, and then you get a positive feedback loop.If you kill local industry and manufacture, then you also kill science.If you kill science, then you also kill local industry and manufacture.Back in the 1960's and before every school in the UK turned out kids who could read, write, and do math.You cannot do ANY trade without these skills, not plumbing, not carpentry, not bricklaying, not to mention the slightly higher level trades like boilermakers etc.Sadly, we threw it all away, in our pursuit of crap courses like equine aromatherapy and womyns studies, anything, just to get more people in university, just to get more people with degrees and diplomas and certificates.Now we have a "service" economy that relies on someone else being able to do the basic math etc.I am an engineer ( a proper one, eg mechanical and marine) and sadly I am the demographic that went through the trade at a time when an engineer was lower in status and pay than many blue collar jobs, which meant no-one wanted to do apprenticeships, which means I am one of the last of the "old school" of engineers.The future isn't bright.Sci-fi series Firefly had one thing right, learn a second language, and make it Chinese.Even if we turned around and went balls out to fix the problem, money no expense, NOW, it would take a generation, or 20 years, to fix, which is too damn slow to work.All that is left is importing the talent.From what I know of the USA, there is a lot of importing engineering talent going on, lots of foreign nationals, green card holders and immigrants working in tech.A friend of mine summed it up well years ago, when he said that in 2020 the USA will be the place to go to make cheap porn and exploit people who don't have any other options.USA, the new Romania.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622206</id>
	<title>Re:I have seen the lecture you are referring too.</title>
	<author>sycodon</author>
	<datestamp>1262447340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since December, 2008, when Zombie Ryushu started posting, the economy has tanked.</p><p>The point is that Zombie Ryushu's posts are causing the collapse of our economy.</p><p>Zombie Ryushu. He's (she?) is the problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since December , 2008 , when Zombie Ryushu started posting , the economy has tanked.The point is that Zombie Ryushu 's posts are causing the collapse of our economy.Zombie Ryushu .
He 's ( she ?
) is the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since December, 2008, when Zombie Ryushu started posting, the economy has tanked.The point is that Zombie Ryushu's posts are causing the collapse of our economy.Zombie Ryushu.
He's (she?
) is the problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30623194</id>
	<title>UAVs on US soil?</title>
	<author>flajann</author>
	<datestamp>1262453760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Surely you jest. I'm against the use of UAVs, period. You seriously want some automated plane firing missiles at suspected "terrorists" in America? Or anywhere, for that matter? Where innocent people will be killed? <p>

Let's hope UAVs remain at a standstill in this country. We've got enough problems with Homeland Insecurity going nuts with every "boo" the so-called "terrorists" do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Surely you jest .
I 'm against the use of UAVs , period .
You seriously want some automated plane firing missiles at suspected " terrorists " in America ?
Or anywhere , for that matter ?
Where innocent people will be killed ?
Let 's hope UAVs remain at a standstill in this country .
We 've got enough problems with Homeland Insecurity going nuts with every " boo " the so-called " terrorists " do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surely you jest.
I'm against the use of UAVs, period.
You seriously want some automated plane firing missiles at suspected "terrorists" in America?
Or anywhere, for that matter?
Where innocent people will be killed?
Let's hope UAVs remain at a standstill in this country.
We've got enough problems with Homeland Insecurity going nuts with every "boo" the so-called "terrorists" do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621714</id>
	<title>I expect so...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262442420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The USA has a population of around 300,000,000, or around 5\% of the world population.  It should expect to be following in some areas.  In the twentieth century, a combination of factors (less damage from WWII than other developed nations, higher ratio of middle class to subsistence-level citizens, greater economies of scale that most of Europe) let the USA lead in technology.  Even then, a number of key developments came from outside the USA, for example the first theoretical models in computing, the first stored program computer, the most successful commercial CPU architecture and the TFT display all came from the UK, the first (and, so far, only) supersonic passenger aircraft was a joint venture between the UK and France.  </p><p>
With 5\% of the world population, you simply can't expect to be the world leader at everything.  Through most of the twentieth century, the USA operated quite a successful brain drain, skimming off a lot of the best and brightest in the rest of the world by offering them bigger salaries and, more importantly, a lot more resources to continue their work.  Now it's quite difficult for someone with a PhD to get a visa to work in the USA (unless they're just transferring within the same multinational company) and the desire to work in America is significantly lowered by the insane anti-terror legislation, not to mention the crippling IP laws which make the USA a much less attractive place to do research unless you have a massive company backing you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The USA has a population of around 300,000,000 , or around 5 \ % of the world population .
It should expect to be following in some areas .
In the twentieth century , a combination of factors ( less damage from WWII than other developed nations , higher ratio of middle class to subsistence-level citizens , greater economies of scale that most of Europe ) let the USA lead in technology .
Even then , a number of key developments came from outside the USA , for example the first theoretical models in computing , the first stored program computer , the most successful commercial CPU architecture and the TFT display all came from the UK , the first ( and , so far , only ) supersonic passenger aircraft was a joint venture between the UK and France .
With 5 \ % of the world population , you simply ca n't expect to be the world leader at everything .
Through most of the twentieth century , the USA operated quite a successful brain drain , skimming off a lot of the best and brightest in the rest of the world by offering them bigger salaries and , more importantly , a lot more resources to continue their work .
Now it 's quite difficult for someone with a PhD to get a visa to work in the USA ( unless they 're just transferring within the same multinational company ) and the desire to work in America is significantly lowered by the insane anti-terror legislation , not to mention the crippling IP laws which make the USA a much less attractive place to do research unless you have a massive company backing you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The USA has a population of around 300,000,000, or around 5\% of the world population.
It should expect to be following in some areas.
In the twentieth century, a combination of factors (less damage from WWII than other developed nations, higher ratio of middle class to subsistence-level citizens, greater economies of scale that most of Europe) let the USA lead in technology.
Even then, a number of key developments came from outside the USA, for example the first theoretical models in computing, the first stored program computer, the most successful commercial CPU architecture and the TFT display all came from the UK, the first (and, so far, only) supersonic passenger aircraft was a joint venture between the UK and France.
With 5\% of the world population, you simply can't expect to be the world leader at everything.
Through most of the twentieth century, the USA operated quite a successful brain drain, skimming off a lot of the best and brightest in the rest of the world by offering them bigger salaries and, more importantly, a lot more resources to continue their work.
Now it's quite difficult for someone with a PhD to get a visa to work in the USA (unless they're just transferring within the same multinational company) and the desire to work in America is significantly lowered by the insane anti-terror legislation, not to mention the crippling IP laws which make the USA a much less attractive place to do research unless you have a massive company backing you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30625820</id>
	<title>Take a look at this video...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262425200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2Al5BnGC5c</p><p>It's only one small example of the US tech businesses allowing the lead to slip through their fingers, but it's pretty representative of the malaise.</p><p>Up until the last few years, American manufacturers of telescope mounts for amateur astronomers were acknowledged as the leaders in the field, with products from companies such as Astro-Physics and Software Bisque being touted as the last word in astro-mount tech, and highly sought-after.</p><p>The trouble is those companies, and most American amateur astronomers with them, are <em>still</em> saying that, even though it hasn't been true for some time.</p><p>Astrosystemes (Austria), Astelco (Germany?), and other European manufacturers have forged ahead with innovative and advanced technology, while Americans sit around congratulating themselves about being Number One, while relying on outdated last-century designs.</p><p>The US eerily resembles the UK in this regard: the Brits have a reputation for occasionally developing some at-the-time advanced technology ahead of everybody else, then sitting back and congratulating themselves for the next 50 years, while the world races by and leaves them behind.</p><p>It's almost as if China owns us, economically, and Europe owns us, technologically. What do we have left?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = S2Al5BnGC5cIt 's only one small example of the US tech businesses allowing the lead to slip through their fingers , but it 's pretty representative of the malaise.Up until the last few years , American manufacturers of telescope mounts for amateur astronomers were acknowledged as the leaders in the field , with products from companies such as Astro-Physics and Software Bisque being touted as the last word in astro-mount tech , and highly sought-after.The trouble is those companies , and most American amateur astronomers with them , are still saying that , even though it has n't been true for some time.Astrosystemes ( Austria ) , Astelco ( Germany ?
) , and other European manufacturers have forged ahead with innovative and advanced technology , while Americans sit around congratulating themselves about being Number One , while relying on outdated last-century designs.The US eerily resembles the UK in this regard : the Brits have a reputation for occasionally developing some at-the-time advanced technology ahead of everybody else , then sitting back and congratulating themselves for the next 50 years , while the world races by and leaves them behind.It 's almost as if China owns us , economically , and Europe owns us , technologically .
What do we have left ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2Al5BnGC5cIt's only one small example of the US tech businesses allowing the lead to slip through their fingers, but it's pretty representative of the malaise.Up until the last few years, American manufacturers of telescope mounts for amateur astronomers were acknowledged as the leaders in the field, with products from companies such as Astro-Physics and Software Bisque being touted as the last word in astro-mount tech, and highly sought-after.The trouble is those companies, and most American amateur astronomers with them, are still saying that, even though it hasn't been true for some time.Astrosystemes (Austria), Astelco (Germany?
), and other European manufacturers have forged ahead with innovative and advanced technology, while Americans sit around congratulating themselves about being Number One, while relying on outdated last-century designs.The US eerily resembles the UK in this regard: the Brits have a reputation for occasionally developing some at-the-time advanced technology ahead of everybody else, then sitting back and congratulating themselves for the next 50 years, while the world races by and leaves them behind.It's almost as if China owns us, economically, and Europe owns us, technologically.
What do we have left?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621700</id>
	<title>Still a driving seat</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262442240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But in which direction?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But in which direction ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But in which direction?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621696</id>
	<title>not news</title>
	<author>mmjcon147</author>
	<datestamp>1262442240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>everyone saw this coming</htmltext>
<tokenext>everyone saw this coming</tokentext>
<sentencetext>everyone saw this coming</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622378</id>
	<title>Decline</title>
	<author>TopSpin</author>
	<datestamp>1262448720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If only the US had <a href="http://wise.ssl.berkeley.edu/mission.html" title="berkeley.edu">launched some space observatories</a> [berkeley.edu]<br>If only the US had bothered to <a href="http://hubble.nasa.gov/missions/sm4.php" title="nasa.gov">maintain some of its science assets</a> [nasa.gov]<br>If only the US had conducted any <a href="http://lcross.arc.nasa.gov/" title="nasa.gov">exploration of our solar system</a> [nasa.gov]<br>If only the US had commissioned any meaningful <a href="https://lasers.llnl.gov/" title="llnl.gov">physics experiments</a> [llnl.gov]<br>If only the US had any anthropologists <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/10/091001-oldest-human-skeleton-ardi-missing-link-chimps-ardipithecus-ramidus.html" title="nationalgeographic.com">discovering stuff</a> [nationalgeographic.com]<br>If only the US had any geneticists <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=restoring-cells-potential-is-method-09-12-31" title="scientificamerican.com">discovering stuff</a> [scientificamerican.com]<br>If only the US had bothered to conduct any <a href="http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/09/superheavy-elements-are-rad/" title="wired.com">nuclear physics</a> [wired.com] experiments<br>If only the US had any <a href="http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/12/discoveries-gallery/4/" title="wired.com">medical science to speak of</a> [wired.com]<br>If only the US had any <a href="http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/07/jellyfish/" title="wired.com">practicing bioengineers</a> [wired.com]<br>If only the US had funded any studies into the <a href="http://ksjtracker.mit.edu/2009/11/11/lots-of-ink-that-plasticizer-bisphenol-a-and-sex-problems-in-animals-now-its-the-suspect-in-serious-reproductive-disfunction-in-men-in-china/" title="mit.edu">harmful effects of BPA</a> [mit.edu]</p><p>...then maybe then SlashSnot editors would avoid indulging their myopic views of the US science.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If only the US had launched some space observatories [ berkeley.edu ] If only the US had bothered to maintain some of its science assets [ nasa.gov ] If only the US had conducted any exploration of our solar system [ nasa.gov ] If only the US had commissioned any meaningful physics experiments [ llnl.gov ] If only the US had any anthropologists discovering stuff [ nationalgeographic.com ] If only the US had any geneticists discovering stuff [ scientificamerican.com ] If only the US had bothered to conduct any nuclear physics [ wired.com ] experimentsIf only the US had any medical science to speak of [ wired.com ] If only the US had any practicing bioengineers [ wired.com ] If only the US had funded any studies into the harmful effects of BPA [ mit.edu ] ...then maybe then SlashSnot editors would avoid indulging their myopic views of the US science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If only the US had launched some space observatories [berkeley.edu]If only the US had bothered to maintain some of its science assets [nasa.gov]If only the US had conducted any exploration of our solar system [nasa.gov]If only the US had commissioned any meaningful physics experiments [llnl.gov]If only the US had any anthropologists discovering stuff [nationalgeographic.com]If only the US had any geneticists discovering stuff [scientificamerican.com]If only the US had bothered to conduct any nuclear physics [wired.com] experimentsIf only the US had any medical science to speak of [wired.com]If only the US had any practicing bioengineers [wired.com]If only the US had funded any studies into the harmful effects of BPA [mit.edu]...then maybe then SlashSnot editors would avoid indulging their myopic views of the US science.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30625052</id>
	<title>Re:Decline</title>
	<author>martintxo</author>
	<datestamp>1262464020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just have to point out that your example for the nuclear physics experiment of the discovery of element 114 was actually first found by a lab in Russia. The american lab LBNL just confirmed it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just have to point out that your example for the nuclear physics experiment of the discovery of element 114 was actually first found by a lab in Russia .
The american lab LBNL just confirmed it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just have to point out that your example for the nuclear physics experiment of the discovery of element 114 was actually first found by a lab in Russia.
The american lab LBNL just confirmed it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30623502</id>
	<title>Re:Internally Mirrored Glasses</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1262455380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The part I like best about your line of reasoning is that it applies to your views on Tyson.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The part I like best about your line of reasoning is that it applies to your views on Tyson .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The part I like best about your line of reasoning is that it applies to your views on Tyson.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622050</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30624422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30626854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30624036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30625752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30629230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30623900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30629114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622768
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30625760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30625908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30623210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30623626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30636982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30623930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30624026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30623142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30623490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30623900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30628782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30624576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30623386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30623194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30624084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30623900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30629456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30628294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30625586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30626488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30630000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30628066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30623956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30630226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30632012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30623794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30630252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30623752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30625320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30624302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30627292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30624136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30623366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30626716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30630070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30623194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30625210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30624380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30625820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30627556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30628692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30625450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30623438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30628092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30623016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30626278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30627972
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30624754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30636154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30637718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30623970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30630262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30623458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30623502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30633864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30625052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30625336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30624010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30628436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30624210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30639092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30624514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30623082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0326226_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30652980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_0326226.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30625908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30633864
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_0326226.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30623752
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30625450
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30626854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30628692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30623016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30630262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622202
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30626716
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30630070
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30624754
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30636154
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30627972
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30626278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30625760
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_0326226.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621992
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622448
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30637718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30623900
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30629114
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30629456
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30628782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622260
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30624380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30625320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30626488
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622768
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622730
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30630252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30623386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622436
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30623142
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30624210
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30630226
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30628436
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_0326226.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621836
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30623082
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30625820
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30625586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621842
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622122
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622394
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30628294
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_0326226.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30623490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622980
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_0326226.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621886
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_0326226.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30624514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30623794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30623626
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30623458
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_0326226.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30627556
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_0326226.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621868
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30624422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30624576
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_0326226.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621998
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_0326226.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30623956
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_0326226.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30630000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30652980
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622680
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_0326226.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622896
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622892
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30624136
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30628066
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30623194
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30624084
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30625210
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30639092
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30624302
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30625336
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30636982
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30624026
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30628092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622370
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30625752
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30629230
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30623970
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_0326226.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622950
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_0326226.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30624010
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_0326226.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30621942
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_0326226.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30623210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30624036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30623930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30632012
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_0326226.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30623438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30625052
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_0326226.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30623366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622782
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_0326226.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30622050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30627292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0326226.30623502
</commentlist>
</conversation>
