<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_06_0027229</id>
	<title>The LHC, Black Holes, and the Law</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1262796540000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>KentuckyFC writes <i>"Now that the physicists have had their say over the safety of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large\_Hadron\_Collider">Large Hadron Collider</a>, a law professor has produced a comprehensive legal study addressing the legal issue that might arise were a court to deal with a request to halt a multi-billion-dollar particle-physics experiment (<a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.5480">abstract</a>). The <a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24611/">legal issues make for startling reading</a>. The analysis discusses the problem with expert witnesses, which is that any particle physicists would be afraid for their livelihoods and anybody else afraid for their lives. How can such evidence be relied upon? It examines the well established legal argument that death is not a redressable injury under American tort law, which could imply that the value in any cost-benefit analysis of the future of the Earth after it had been destroyed is zero (there would be nobody to compensate). It asks whether state-of-the-art theoretical physics is really able to say that the LHC is safe given that a scientific theory that seems unassailable in one era may seem naive in the next. But most worrying of all, it points out that the safety analyses so far have all been done by CERN itself. The question left open by the author is what verdict a court might reach."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>KentuckyFC writes " Now that the physicists have had their say over the safety of the Large Hadron Collider , a law professor has produced a comprehensive legal study addressing the legal issue that might arise were a court to deal with a request to halt a multi-billion-dollar particle-physics experiment ( abstract ) .
The legal issues make for startling reading .
The analysis discusses the problem with expert witnesses , which is that any particle physicists would be afraid for their livelihoods and anybody else afraid for their lives .
How can such evidence be relied upon ?
It examines the well established legal argument that death is not a redressable injury under American tort law , which could imply that the value in any cost-benefit analysis of the future of the Earth after it had been destroyed is zero ( there would be nobody to compensate ) .
It asks whether state-of-the-art theoretical physics is really able to say that the LHC is safe given that a scientific theory that seems unassailable in one era may seem naive in the next .
But most worrying of all , it points out that the safety analyses so far have all been done by CERN itself .
The question left open by the author is what verdict a court might reach .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>KentuckyFC writes "Now that the physicists have had their say over the safety of the Large Hadron Collider, a law professor has produced a comprehensive legal study addressing the legal issue that might arise were a court to deal with a request to halt a multi-billion-dollar particle-physics experiment (abstract).
The legal issues make for startling reading.
The analysis discusses the problem with expert witnesses, which is that any particle physicists would be afraid for their livelihoods and anybody else afraid for their lives.
How can such evidence be relied upon?
It examines the well established legal argument that death is not a redressable injury under American tort law, which could imply that the value in any cost-benefit analysis of the future of the Earth after it had been destroyed is zero (there would be nobody to compensate).
It asks whether state-of-the-art theoretical physics is really able to say that the LHC is safe given that a scientific theory that seems unassailable in one era may seem naive in the next.
But most worrying of all, it points out that the safety analyses so far have all been done by CERN itself.
The question left open by the author is what verdict a court might reach.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666016</id>
	<title>Re:We'll save the justice system first....</title>
	<author>Sulphur</author>
	<datestamp>1262717100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Either way, it will be traveling fast.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Either way , it will be traveling fast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Either way, it will be traveling fast.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30676044</id>
	<title>Re:STFU</title>
	<author>aminorex</author>
	<datestamp>1262777640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's just dumb.  Cosmic rays are not the result of LHC collisions, and their structure and function has nothing to do with the products of LHC collisions.  To infer from the safety of milk of magnesia that it is also safe to drink an equivalent decoction of arsenic salts is extreme folly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's just dumb .
Cosmic rays are not the result of LHC collisions , and their structure and function has nothing to do with the products of LHC collisions .
To infer from the safety of milk of magnesia that it is also safe to drink an equivalent decoction of arsenic salts is extreme folly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's just dumb.
Cosmic rays are not the result of LHC collisions, and their structure and function has nothing to do with the products of LHC collisions.
To infer from the safety of milk of magnesia that it is also safe to drink an equivalent decoction of arsenic salts is extreme folly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666334</id>
	<title>The legal system is not logical or scientific</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262719920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Myself I'm fearful Neros creepy red matter transport spaceship was ruined so he is now personally overseeing the development of the LHC to destroy the earth from a location other than San Francisco Bay.</p><p>Its pretty sad there are still crackpots out there lacking basic knowledge of the relationship between matter/energy and gravity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Myself I 'm fearful Neros creepy red matter transport spaceship was ruined so he is now personally overseeing the development of the LHC to destroy the earth from a location other than San Francisco Bay.Its pretty sad there are still crackpots out there lacking basic knowledge of the relationship between matter/energy and gravity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Myself I'm fearful Neros creepy red matter transport spaceship was ruined so he is now personally overseeing the development of the LHC to destroy the earth from a location other than San Francisco Bay.Its pretty sad there are still crackpots out there lacking basic knowledge of the relationship between matter/energy and gravity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30680500</id>
	<title>Re:US LAW ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262862960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Me too. It's a continent called Austria.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Me too .
It 's a continent called Austria .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Me too.
It's a continent called Austria.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665986</id>
	<title>No</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262716740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is the LHC dangerous.  Quite possibly.  Will it destroy the world?  Ask British physicist Brian Cox: "Anyone who thinks the LHC will destroy the world is a twat."</p><p>I think that sums it up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is the LHC dangerous .
Quite possibly .
Will it destroy the world ?
Ask British physicist Brian Cox : " Anyone who thinks the LHC will destroy the world is a twat .
" I think that sums it up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is the LHC dangerous.
Quite possibly.
Will it destroy the world?
Ask British physicist Brian Cox: "Anyone who thinks the LHC will destroy the world is a twat.
"I think that sums it up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666714</id>
	<title>Re:STFU</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262811120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The LHC will not destroy the world.</p></div><p>If it doesn't, something else will. Soon.<br>We have not heard from any other form of intelligent life after all the years looking for it.<br>That can only mean intelligence brings self-destruction.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The LHC will not destroy the world.If it does n't , something else will .
Soon.We have not heard from any other form of intelligent life after all the years looking for it.That can only mean intelligence brings self-destruction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The LHC will not destroy the world.If it doesn't, something else will.
Soon.We have not heard from any other form of intelligent life after all the years looking for it.That can only mean intelligence brings self-destruction.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30668352</id>
	<title>Re:US LAW ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262786460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm guessing you're from one of those humorless eastern Europe countries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm guessing you 're from one of those humorless eastern Europe countries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm guessing you're from one of those humorless eastern Europe countries.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665736</id>
	<title>markyg</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262714280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You need a considerable amount of mass to create a black hole. Instead what CERN are trying to do is find the graviton, which is simply a super small particle. It will last for a fraction of a nano second, since it won't be stable enough to consume the earth.<br>All of these lawyer types first have to understand quantum mechanics, general relativity and on top of that M-theory before they can truly wage in on the debate.</p><p>What are the chances these guys just want to get their names in the paper?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You need a considerable amount of mass to create a black hole .
Instead what CERN are trying to do is find the graviton , which is simply a super small particle .
It will last for a fraction of a nano second , since it wo n't be stable enough to consume the earth.All of these lawyer types first have to understand quantum mechanics , general relativity and on top of that M-theory before they can truly wage in on the debate.What are the chances these guys just want to get their names in the paper ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You need a considerable amount of mass to create a black hole.
Instead what CERN are trying to do is find the graviton, which is simply a super small particle.
It will last for a fraction of a nano second, since it won't be stable enough to consume the earth.All of these lawyer types first have to understand quantum mechanics, general relativity and on top of that M-theory before they can truly wage in on the debate.What are the chances these guys just want to get their names in the paper?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666184</id>
	<title>Re:In a way I blame certain scientists</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1262718480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Hey that reminds me, electrons and quarks don't have a size, they're singularities.</p></div><p>I thought strings have replaced the point singularities. Granted were talking the Planck distance here, but still not a dimensionless point.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey that reminds me , electrons and quarks do n't have a size , they 're singularities.I thought strings have replaced the point singularities .
Granted were talking the Planck distance here , but still not a dimensionless point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey that reminds me, electrons and quarks don't have a size, they're singularities.I thought strings have replaced the point singularities.
Granted were talking the Planck distance here, but still not a dimensionless point.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30667678</id>
	<title>Answers to the panic theory</title>
	<author>AlecC</author>
	<datestamp>1262779860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wrong. You just need a sufficient mass within a small enough volume; the graviton is something else again, about which the LHC says nothing. The theory causing panic is that the energy in a collision in the LHC is large enough that, if it were compressed into a volume the size of a single Planck length (believed to be the smallest possible length), it would form a black hole. This can be checked by simple arithmetic. This assumes, of course, that it can actually achieve (by unspecified means) the Planck length (10^-35 m, 10^20 times smaller than the proton), which is many orders of magnitude smaller than the smallest thing we know. Of course, according to current theory, such a tiny black hole will, as you say, evaporate within a time too small to measure. But, say the worriers, suppose the theory is wrong? Three answers to that:</p><p>Firstly, the theory that says that the femto-black-hole will evaporate is from the same body of physics as the theory that says it can be created in the first place, You cannot pick and choose: if you throw out one half, you cannot call upon the other. So where is the theory that says the black holes will be created?</p><p>Secondly, the chance that the particle is created at rest with respect to the Earth is negligible. With the huge amounts of energy pumped into this tiny mass, a minutely small residual energy will give this black hole a residual velocity far in excess of the Earth's escape velocity, so it will instantly whizz off into space at some significant fraction of C.</p><p>Thirdly, even if it does stay in the earth's proximity (and if the the direction of whizz is through the Earth in the previous paragraph), it is so tiny that its chance of interacting with any other atoms is truly negligible. People have done the calculations, and the rate of accretion is so slow that it will not become a problem within the expected lifetime of the Earth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wrong .
You just need a sufficient mass within a small enough volume ; the graviton is something else again , about which the LHC says nothing .
The theory causing panic is that the energy in a collision in the LHC is large enough that , if it were compressed into a volume the size of a single Planck length ( believed to be the smallest possible length ) , it would form a black hole .
This can be checked by simple arithmetic .
This assumes , of course , that it can actually achieve ( by unspecified means ) the Planck length ( 10 ^ -35 m , 10 ^ 20 times smaller than the proton ) , which is many orders of magnitude smaller than the smallest thing we know .
Of course , according to current theory , such a tiny black hole will , as you say , evaporate within a time too small to measure .
But , say the worriers , suppose the theory is wrong ?
Three answers to that : Firstly , the theory that says that the femto-black-hole will evaporate is from the same body of physics as the theory that says it can be created in the first place , You can not pick and choose : if you throw out one half , you can not call upon the other .
So where is the theory that says the black holes will be created ? Secondly , the chance that the particle is created at rest with respect to the Earth is negligible .
With the huge amounts of energy pumped into this tiny mass , a minutely small residual energy will give this black hole a residual velocity far in excess of the Earth 's escape velocity , so it will instantly whizz off into space at some significant fraction of C.Thirdly , even if it does stay in the earth 's proximity ( and if the the direction of whizz is through the Earth in the previous paragraph ) , it is so tiny that its chance of interacting with any other atoms is truly negligible .
People have done the calculations , and the rate of accretion is so slow that it will not become a problem within the expected lifetime of the Earth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wrong.
You just need a sufficient mass within a small enough volume; the graviton is something else again, about which the LHC says nothing.
The theory causing panic is that the energy in a collision in the LHC is large enough that, if it were compressed into a volume the size of a single Planck length (believed to be the smallest possible length), it would form a black hole.
This can be checked by simple arithmetic.
This assumes, of course, that it can actually achieve (by unspecified means) the Planck length (10^-35 m, 10^20 times smaller than the proton), which is many orders of magnitude smaller than the smallest thing we know.
Of course, according to current theory, such a tiny black hole will, as you say, evaporate within a time too small to measure.
But, say the worriers, suppose the theory is wrong?
Three answers to that:Firstly, the theory that says that the femto-black-hole will evaporate is from the same body of physics as the theory that says it can be created in the first place, You cannot pick and choose: if you throw out one half, you cannot call upon the other.
So where is the theory that says the black holes will be created?Secondly, the chance that the particle is created at rest with respect to the Earth is negligible.
With the huge amounts of energy pumped into this tiny mass, a minutely small residual energy will give this black hole a residual velocity far in excess of the Earth's escape velocity, so it will instantly whizz off into space at some significant fraction of C.Thirdly, even if it does stay in the earth's proximity (and if the the direction of whizz is through the Earth in the previous paragraph), it is so tiny that its chance of interacting with any other atoms is truly negligible.
People have done the calculations, and the rate of accretion is so slow that it will not become a problem within the expected lifetime of the Earth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665880</id>
	<title>I believe CERN should just respond back to such</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262715600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>lawyer dribble with an American generals famous quote, "I am not an atomic playboy."
End of story.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>lawyer dribble with an American generals famous quote , " I am not an atomic playboy .
" End of story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lawyer dribble with an American generals famous quote, "I am not an atomic playboy.
"
End of story.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30669566</id>
	<title>Humor?</title>
	<author>Torodung</author>
	<datestamp>1262793600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where's the big "foot" icon? Why isn't this link marked as "humor?" Stupid CERN, Be. More. funny!</p><p>--<br>Toro</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where 's the big " foot " icon ?
Why is n't this link marked as " humor ?
" Stupid CERN , Be .
More. funny ! --Toro</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where's the big "foot" icon?
Why isn't this link marked as "humor?
" Stupid CERN, Be.
More. funny!--Toro</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665746</id>
	<title>STFU</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262714340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The LHC will not destroy the world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The LHC will not destroy the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The LHC will not destroy the world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666536</id>
	<title>Gov force limits liability and cost-effectiveness</title>
	<author>AlexLibman</author>
	<datestamp>1262808660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not saying that LHC is dangerous, but it would definitely take a government to cause any serious damage to this planet.  In a free society, doing anything potentially dangerous would result in you being flooded with demands for transparency and lawsuits from your neighbors (possibly millions of them) and their representatives, making many of the more insane scientific ventures downright impossible here on earth.  That's what outer space is for!  Most mining and manufacturing would eventually take place there anyway, and dangerous experiments should as well.  And once you beat gravity getting offa this rock, getting to the other side of the solar system is no trouble at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not saying that LHC is dangerous , but it would definitely take a government to cause any serious damage to this planet .
In a free society , doing anything potentially dangerous would result in you being flooded with demands for transparency and lawsuits from your neighbors ( possibly millions of them ) and their representatives , making many of the more insane scientific ventures downright impossible here on earth .
That 's what outer space is for !
Most mining and manufacturing would eventually take place there anyway , and dangerous experiments should as well .
And once you beat gravity getting offa this rock , getting to the other side of the solar system is no trouble at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not saying that LHC is dangerous, but it would definitely take a government to cause any serious damage to this planet.
In a free society, doing anything potentially dangerous would result in you being flooded with demands for transparency and lawsuits from your neighbors (possibly millions of them) and their representatives, making many of the more insane scientific ventures downright impossible here on earth.
That's what outer space is for!
Most mining and manufacturing would eventually take place there anyway, and dangerous experiments should as well.
And once you beat gravity getting offa this rock, getting to the other side of the solar system is no trouble at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30671738</id>
	<title>Re:MAke a law about nuclear weapons.</title>
	<author>delt0r</author>
	<datestamp>1262802000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thats like asking every NRA member to never own a gun. Its not going to happen. And to be frank, I don't trust the US with nukes anymore that some middle eastern country either. Also the fact is it was hard to make a nuke in the 50s. Its pretty easy these days. Most nations that really want them, probably have them.
<br> <br>
Oh and all out nuclear war, would be a massive change to life as we know it... but it will be a long way from wiping out humanity....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thats like asking every NRA member to never own a gun .
Its not going to happen .
And to be frank , I do n't trust the US with nukes anymore that some middle eastern country either .
Also the fact is it was hard to make a nuke in the 50s .
Its pretty easy these days .
Most nations that really want them , probably have them .
Oh and all out nuclear war , would be a massive change to life as we know it... but it will be a long way from wiping out humanity... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thats like asking every NRA member to never own a gun.
Its not going to happen.
And to be frank, I don't trust the US with nukes anymore that some middle eastern country either.
Also the fact is it was hard to make a nuke in the 50s.
Its pretty easy these days.
Most nations that really want them, probably have them.
Oh and all out nuclear war, would be a massive change to life as we know it... but it will be a long way from wiping out humanity....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30668004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30669326</id>
	<title>Re:We'll save the justice system first....</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1262792460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's build the lifeboat now.  We can put in lawyers, telephone sanitizers, and other useful people to colonize our new planet.  We'll tell them we are following it shortly with the rest of the population.</p><p>I think "Ark" would be a better name.  Let's call it the "B Ark".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's build the lifeboat now .
We can put in lawyers , telephone sanitizers , and other useful people to colonize our new planet .
We 'll tell them we are following it shortly with the rest of the population.I think " Ark " would be a better name .
Let 's call it the " B Ark " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's build the lifeboat now.
We can put in lawyers, telephone sanitizers, and other useful people to colonize our new planet.
We'll tell them we are following it shortly with the rest of the population.I think "Ark" would be a better name.
Let's call it the "B Ark".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666260</id>
	<title>Anthropomorphic Prinicple suggests that ...</title>
	<author>p-cubed</author>
	<datestamp>1262719140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>the absence of detectable advanced civilizations may result
from the inevitable destruction by black holes of such civilizations
once they acquire the capacity to build an LHC-like device. Hence,
the LHC will destroy the earth.</htmltext>
<tokenext>the absence of detectable advanced civilizations may result from the inevitable destruction by black holes of such civilizations once they acquire the capacity to build an LHC-like device .
Hence , the LHC will destroy the earth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the absence of detectable advanced civilizations may result
from the inevitable destruction by black holes of such civilizations
once they acquire the capacity to build an LHC-like device.
Hence,
the LHC will destroy the earth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30667756</id>
	<title>Re:We'll save the justice system first....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262780640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am totally offended that you think of people first (yes lawyers and juddges are people). FFS, we talking destruction of property here. Our first duty is to save property, people are totally irrelevant and disposable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am totally offended that you think of people first ( yes lawyers and juddges are people ) .
FFS , we talking destruction of property here .
Our first duty is to save property , people are totally irrelevant and disposable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am totally offended that you think of people first (yes lawyers and juddges are people).
FFS, we talking destruction of property here.
Our first duty is to save property, people are totally irrelevant and disposable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665912</id>
	<title>Interesting and sobering.</title>
	<author>ColdWetDog</author>
	<datestamp>1262716080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the take home lesson is thus:  Scientists need to rise above the rabble and babble of human peccadilloes and attempt to be more humble, less confrontational ("Anyone who thinks the LHC is dangerous is a twat") and more rational.  The LHC is a good object lesson in this regard.  Climate change is another.  As a species we <i>are</i> to the point where we can significantly damage the earth and there is no class of human being that is even remotely capable of dealing with these issues.  Science, as a body, needs to have it's practitioners step back and avoid the logical fallacies allowed politicians, lawyers, TV pundits and other wingnuts.<br> <br>
Of course, 'Science' isn't going to be able to do this very well because it's composed of irrational, emotional, childish, stressed and fallible humans.  But we need to try as best we can.  Either that or beam down Mr. Spock.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the take home lesson is thus : Scientists need to rise above the rabble and babble of human peccadilloes and attempt to be more humble , less confrontational ( " Anyone who thinks the LHC is dangerous is a twat " ) and more rational .
The LHC is a good object lesson in this regard .
Climate change is another .
As a species we are to the point where we can significantly damage the earth and there is no class of human being that is even remotely capable of dealing with these issues .
Science , as a body , needs to have it 's practitioners step back and avoid the logical fallacies allowed politicians , lawyers , TV pundits and other wingnuts .
Of course , 'Science ' is n't going to be able to do this very well because it 's composed of irrational , emotional , childish , stressed and fallible humans .
But we need to try as best we can .
Either that or beam down Mr. Spock .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the take home lesson is thus:  Scientists need to rise above the rabble and babble of human peccadilloes and attempt to be more humble, less confrontational ("Anyone who thinks the LHC is dangerous is a twat") and more rational.
The LHC is a good object lesson in this regard.
Climate change is another.
As a species we are to the point where we can significantly damage the earth and there is no class of human being that is even remotely capable of dealing with these issues.
Science, as a body, needs to have it's practitioners step back and avoid the logical fallacies allowed politicians, lawyers, TV pundits and other wingnuts.
Of course, 'Science' isn't going to be able to do this very well because it's composed of irrational, emotional, childish, stressed and fallible humans.
But we need to try as best we can.
Either that or beam down Mr. Spock.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30670082</id>
	<title>Is this it?</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1262795760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is this what I think this is about, without RTFA, I tend to think that anyone playing around with creating black holes (however small)<br>is messing around with stuff they should not, especially if for some reason they open that rift, and can't close it again....I do not know if a small hole turns into a big one eventually...but too me, I would tend to think EVERYBODY on the planet would have to say no to a scientist in his backyard producing small black holes, so why should these guys be any different?</p><p>It is not because it is for the US government that it is any safer or less dangerous.<br>And once we start playing with black holes, do we stop any other country from being allowed, as like the nuclear arms race, we could have terrorists with small black hole making machines deposit them all over cities in the US, and start like 100 of them all at once....<br>Just saying...we should not allow this to happen, for ANYONE asking to try this....being that it could affect the hole planet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this what I think this is about , without RTFA , I tend to think that anyone playing around with creating black holes ( however small ) is messing around with stuff they should not , especially if for some reason they open that rift , and ca n't close it again....I do not know if a small hole turns into a big one eventually...but too me , I would tend to think EVERYBODY on the planet would have to say no to a scientist in his backyard producing small black holes , so why should these guys be any different ? It is not because it is for the US government that it is any safer or less dangerous.And once we start playing with black holes , do we stop any other country from being allowed , as like the nuclear arms race , we could have terrorists with small black hole making machines deposit them all over cities in the US , and start like 100 of them all at once....Just saying...we should not allow this to happen , for ANYONE asking to try this....being that it could affect the hole planet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this what I think this is about, without RTFA, I tend to think that anyone playing around with creating black holes (however small)is messing around with stuff they should not, especially if for some reason they open that rift, and can't close it again....I do not know if a small hole turns into a big one eventually...but too me, I would tend to think EVERYBODY on the planet would have to say no to a scientist in his backyard producing small black holes, so why should these guys be any different?It is not because it is for the US government that it is any safer or less dangerous.And once we start playing with black holes, do we stop any other country from being allowed, as like the nuclear arms race, we could have terrorists with small black hole making machines deposit them all over cities in the US, and start like 100 of them all at once....Just saying...we should not allow this to happen, for ANYONE asking to try this....being that it could affect the hole planet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30671972</id>
	<title>dummies always fret over new tech</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262802900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>before electricity was commonplace, there was a concern that the generators being built around the world would cancel out or otherwise screw up the planet's magnetic field.  The electric companies calmed the critics by having generators built with opposite rotational directions.  So for every clockwise generator, there would be a counterclockwise spinning generator.. Yeah pretty dumb, but it calmed the scaredy cats.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>before electricity was commonplace , there was a concern that the generators being built around the world would cancel out or otherwise screw up the planet 's magnetic field .
The electric companies calmed the critics by having generators built with opposite rotational directions .
So for every clockwise generator , there would be a counterclockwise spinning generator.. Yeah pretty dumb , but it calmed the scaredy cats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>before electricity was commonplace, there was a concern that the generators being built around the world would cancel out or otherwise screw up the planet's magnetic field.
The electric companies calmed the critics by having generators built with opposite rotational directions.
So for every clockwise generator, there would be a counterclockwise spinning generator.. Yeah pretty dumb, but it calmed the scaredy cats.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30674054</id>
	<title>Re:Are you kidding?</title>
	<author>psithurism</author>
	<datestamp>1262768640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Uh, I know cockroaches are known to survive radiation well, but have we tested them in blackholes? Why aren't we launching cockroaches into blackholes? Science must be done!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , I know cockroaches are known to survive radiation well , but have we tested them in blackholes ?
Why are n't we launching cockroaches into blackholes ?
Science must be done !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, I know cockroaches are known to survive radiation well, but have we tested them in blackholes?
Why aren't we launching cockroaches into blackholes?
Science must be done!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666042</id>
	<title>False premise</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262717220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The lawyer is basing his findings on a false premise: "any particle physicists would be afraid for their livelihoods".  This is not the case.  There are a lot of particle physicists that are not working for CERN and whose research does no depend on CERN nor the LHC.<br><br>Also the bit about "anybody else afraid for their lives".  I am not afraid for my life.<br><br>I am neither a particle physicist nor afraid for my life, there is no problem.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The lawyer is basing his findings on a false premise : " any particle physicists would be afraid for their livelihoods " .
This is not the case .
There are a lot of particle physicists that are not working for CERN and whose research does no depend on CERN nor the LHC.Also the bit about " anybody else afraid for their lives " .
I am not afraid for my life.I am neither a particle physicist nor afraid for my life , there is no problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The lawyer is basing his findings on a false premise: "any particle physicists would be afraid for their livelihoods".
This is not the case.
There are a lot of particle physicists that are not working for CERN and whose research does no depend on CERN nor the LHC.Also the bit about "anybody else afraid for their lives".
I am not afraid for my life.I am neither a particle physicist nor afraid for my life, there is no problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30667262</id>
	<title>Re:We'll save the justice system first....</title>
	<author>rve</author>
	<datestamp>1262775240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Of course, this is relevant because in the event of an LHC-created black hole destroying the planet, we will of course launch into space a "lifeboat" containing a judge, defense and plaintiff lawyers, Rusty the Bailiff to keep everyone in line, and one token normal person to be the plaintiff. Justice will be served no matter what the damage to the planet is.</p></div><p>Don't forget the scientist. There's no case if the suspect is dead.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , this is relevant because in the event of an LHC-created black hole destroying the planet , we will of course launch into space a " lifeboat " containing a judge , defense and plaintiff lawyers , Rusty the Bailiff to keep everyone in line , and one token normal person to be the plaintiff .
Justice will be served no matter what the damage to the planet is.Do n't forget the scientist .
There 's no case if the suspect is dead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, this is relevant because in the event of an LHC-created black hole destroying the planet, we will of course launch into space a "lifeboat" containing a judge, defense and plaintiff lawyers, Rusty the Bailiff to keep everyone in line, and one token normal person to be the plaintiff.
Justice will be served no matter what the damage to the planet is.Don't forget the scientist.
There's no case if the suspect is dead.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666066</id>
	<title>extremely fascinating</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262717340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this is a wonderful approach!<br>it shows the difference between law and progress: law is meant to make society work. it does not have a need to be "right". there is no right. human progress is made by making mistakes and taking risks. law is there to make order and society. we are at a point now where progress means making mistakes that have the potential to take out all of the society that law is meant to enable. the questions are very profound and i will not attempt to answer them, but this is a great way to access them. the same applies to many other topics like nuclear weapons, nano tech, genetics etc, but i have never before seen them put forward so accessible. thank you!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this is a wonderful approach ! it shows the difference between law and progress : law is meant to make society work .
it does not have a need to be " right " .
there is no right .
human progress is made by making mistakes and taking risks .
law is there to make order and society .
we are at a point now where progress means making mistakes that have the potential to take out all of the society that law is meant to enable .
the questions are very profound and i will not attempt to answer them , but this is a great way to access them .
the same applies to many other topics like nuclear weapons , nano tech , genetics etc , but i have never before seen them put forward so accessible .
thank you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this is a wonderful approach!it shows the difference between law and progress: law is meant to make society work.
it does not have a need to be "right".
there is no right.
human progress is made by making mistakes and taking risks.
law is there to make order and society.
we are at a point now where progress means making mistakes that have the potential to take out all of the society that law is meant to enable.
the questions are very profound and i will not attempt to answer them, but this is a great way to access them.
the same applies to many other topics like nuclear weapons, nano tech, genetics etc, but i have never before seen them put forward so accessible.
thank you!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666464</id>
	<title>Re:US LAW ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262721420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...its in the France-Switzerland border...</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Whoa there bucko. Sweden is next to France?!</p></div></div><p>I bet I can guess what country <i>you're</i> from.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...its in the France-Switzerland border...Whoa there bucko .
Sweden is next to France ?
! I bet I can guess what country you 're from .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...its in the France-Switzerland border...Whoa there bucko.
Sweden is next to France?
!I bet I can guess what country you're from.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666540</id>
	<title>Re:oh well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262808780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>....find the true answer to life...<br>for those of us who believe Jesus Christ is who he said he is, God come to earth, there is nothing to worry about.</p><p>John 11:25  Jesus said to her, I am the Resurrection and the Life! He who believes in Me, though he die, yet he shall live.<br>John 11:26  And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?</p><p>His followers asked him specifically when he would return and end the world. Here is a short excerpt from his answer:</p><p>Matt 24:3  And as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? And what shall be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the world?<br>Matt 24:4  And Jesus answered and said to them, Take heed that no man deceive you.<br>Matt 24:5  For many will come in My name, saying, I am Christ, and will deceive many.<br>Matt 24:6  And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled, for all these things must occur; but the end is not yet.<br>Matt 24:7  For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines and pestilences and earthquakes in different places.<br>Matt 24:8  All these are the beginning of sorrows.</p><p>Nowhere does he say anything about a black hole swallowing up the earth. Christians believe that it will happen exactly as Jesus Christ predicted.</p><p>This is not our earth. Mankind is not in charge of it. Jesus Christ is. We did not make the earth and we are not going to destroy it either. Jesus will return, be in charge and help mankind make our planet into the paradise it once was. To me that is a better future to think about than getting swallowed up by a black hole.</p><p>Besides that, nobody has ever directly observed a black hole. They are only inferred by the motion of stars and other objects.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>....find the true answer to life...for those of us who believe Jesus Christ is who he said he is , God come to earth , there is nothing to worry about.John 11 : 25 Jesus said to her , I am the Resurrection and the Life !
He who believes in Me , though he die , yet he shall live.John 11 : 26 And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die .
Do you believe this ? His followers asked him specifically when he would return and end the world .
Here is a short excerpt from his answer : Matt 24 : 3 And as He sat on the Mount of Olives , the disciples came to Him privately , saying , Tell us , when shall these things be ?
And what shall be the sign of Your coming , and of the end of the world ? Matt 24 : 4 And Jesus answered and said to them , Take heed that no man deceive you.Matt 24 : 5 For many will come in My name , saying , I am Christ , and will deceive many.Matt 24 : 6 And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars .
See that you are not troubled , for all these things must occur ; but the end is not yet.Matt 24 : 7 For nation will rise against nation , and kingdom against kingdom .
And there will be famines and pestilences and earthquakes in different places.Matt 24 : 8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.Nowhere does he say anything about a black hole swallowing up the earth .
Christians believe that it will happen exactly as Jesus Christ predicted.This is not our earth .
Mankind is not in charge of it .
Jesus Christ is .
We did not make the earth and we are not going to destroy it either .
Jesus will return , be in charge and help mankind make our planet into the paradise it once was .
To me that is a better future to think about than getting swallowed up by a black hole.Besides that , nobody has ever directly observed a black hole .
They are only inferred by the motion of stars and other objects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>....find the true answer to life...for those of us who believe Jesus Christ is who he said he is, God come to earth, there is nothing to worry about.John 11:25  Jesus said to her, I am the Resurrection and the Life!
He who believes in Me, though he die, yet he shall live.John 11:26  And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die.
Do you believe this?His followers asked him specifically when he would return and end the world.
Here is a short excerpt from his answer:Matt 24:3  And as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be?
And what shall be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the world?Matt 24:4  And Jesus answered and said to them, Take heed that no man deceive you.Matt 24:5  For many will come in My name, saying, I am Christ, and will deceive many.Matt 24:6  And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars.
See that you are not troubled, for all these things must occur; but the end is not yet.Matt 24:7  For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom.
And there will be famines and pestilences and earthquakes in different places.Matt 24:8  All these are the beginning of sorrows.Nowhere does he say anything about a black hole swallowing up the earth.
Christians believe that it will happen exactly as Jesus Christ predicted.This is not our earth.
Mankind is not in charge of it.
Jesus Christ is.
We did not make the earth and we are not going to destroy it either.
Jesus will return, be in charge and help mankind make our planet into the paradise it once was.
To me that is a better future to think about than getting swallowed up by a black hole.Besides that, nobody has ever directly observed a black hole.
They are only inferred by the motion of stars and other objects.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665718</id>
	<title>oh well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262714040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>What's the point of living but to try to understand our universe and find the true answer to life,universe, and everything. Everything else is just fluff.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's the point of living but to try to understand our universe and find the true answer to life,universe , and everything .
Everything else is just fluff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's the point of living but to try to understand our universe and find the true answer to life,universe, and everything.
Everything else is just fluff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30674234</id>
	<title>Re:US LAW ?</title>
	<author>psithurism</author>
	<datestamp>1262769240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or the US could just call up France and Switzerland and be all: "Hey we are pretty certain the LHC is going to destroy the planet; would you mind not running it till you can fix that?" I don't think any country aside from maybe North Korea would keep running the LHC at that point.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or the US could just call up France and Switzerland and be all : " Hey we are pretty certain the LHC is going to destroy the planet ; would you mind not running it till you can fix that ?
" I do n't think any country aside from maybe North Korea would keep running the LHC at that point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or the US could just call up France and Switzerland and be all: "Hey we are pretty certain the LHC is going to destroy the planet; would you mind not running it till you can fix that?
" I don't think any country aside from maybe North Korea would keep running the LHC at that point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30668496</id>
	<title>Re:We'll save the justice system first....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262787660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Call out the dancing lobsters!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Call out the dancing lobsters !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Call out the dancing lobsters!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665704</id>
	<title>We'll save the justice system first....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262713740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course, this is relevant because in the event of an LHC-created black hole destroying the planet, we will of course launch into space a "lifeboat" containing a judge, defense and plaintiff lawyers, Rusty the Bailiff to keep everyone in line, and one token normal person to be the plaintiff. Justice will be served no matter what the damage to the planet is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , this is relevant because in the event of an LHC-created black hole destroying the planet , we will of course launch into space a " lifeboat " containing a judge , defense and plaintiff lawyers , Rusty the Bailiff to keep everyone in line , and one token normal person to be the plaintiff .
Justice will be served no matter what the damage to the planet is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, this is relevant because in the event of an LHC-created black hole destroying the planet, we will of course launch into space a "lifeboat" containing a judge, defense and plaintiff lawyers, Rusty the Bailiff to keep everyone in line, and one token normal person to be the plaintiff.
Justice will be served no matter what the damage to the planet is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666166</id>
	<title>Re:markyg</title>
	<author>Gerzel</author>
	<datestamp>1262718300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are underestimating the waging power of lawyers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are underestimating the waging power of lawyers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are underestimating the waging power of lawyers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30713080</id>
	<title>Re:STFU</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263066960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay, I'm a total layperson, but. My understanding was that the atomic bomb was given this same sort of apocolyptic consideration on the event that the given chain reactions might not halt of their own accord. The general acceptance is that won't happen, however we have radioactive isotopes throughout our atmosphere that we did not have before. Are we certain that these isotopes aren't going to slowly rip apart the fabric of our existence? Basically, what if the chain reaction is simply storing energy for some point in the future, an energetic capacity our atmosphere did not have before? Even if I'm wrong, has anyone done any analysis of the effect of these isotopes?</p><p>Science and Business are almost always the culprits when there's an environmentally destructive behavior going on, it's called industry. Anyways, explain to me, that the benefits of nuclear technology are a worthy trade for being saturated in nuclear isotopes, and you'll have your argument. What is the cost/benefit? Has the risk analysis actually been cosidered at all? Given humanity's past endevours I would say that it's not likely.</p><p>I don't want this to turn political as a liberal vs conservative viewpoint, so lets just say that either direction too much analysis hits diminishing returns and too little analysis does contribute to pollution (without hitting specific talking points like global warming).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , I 'm a total layperson , but .
My understanding was that the atomic bomb was given this same sort of apocolyptic consideration on the event that the given chain reactions might not halt of their own accord .
The general acceptance is that wo n't happen , however we have radioactive isotopes throughout our atmosphere that we did not have before .
Are we certain that these isotopes are n't going to slowly rip apart the fabric of our existence ?
Basically , what if the chain reaction is simply storing energy for some point in the future , an energetic capacity our atmosphere did not have before ?
Even if I 'm wrong , has anyone done any analysis of the effect of these isotopes ? Science and Business are almost always the culprits when there 's an environmentally destructive behavior going on , it 's called industry .
Anyways , explain to me , that the benefits of nuclear technology are a worthy trade for being saturated in nuclear isotopes , and you 'll have your argument .
What is the cost/benefit ?
Has the risk analysis actually been cosidered at all ?
Given humanity 's past endevours I would say that it 's not likely.I do n't want this to turn political as a liberal vs conservative viewpoint , so lets just say that either direction too much analysis hits diminishing returns and too little analysis does contribute to pollution ( without hitting specific talking points like global warming ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, I'm a total layperson, but.
My understanding was that the atomic bomb was given this same sort of apocolyptic consideration on the event that the given chain reactions might not halt of their own accord.
The general acceptance is that won't happen, however we have radioactive isotopes throughout our atmosphere that we did not have before.
Are we certain that these isotopes aren't going to slowly rip apart the fabric of our existence?
Basically, what if the chain reaction is simply storing energy for some point in the future, an energetic capacity our atmosphere did not have before?
Even if I'm wrong, has anyone done any analysis of the effect of these isotopes?Science and Business are almost always the culprits when there's an environmentally destructive behavior going on, it's called industry.
Anyways, explain to me, that the benefits of nuclear technology are a worthy trade for being saturated in nuclear isotopes, and you'll have your argument.
What is the cost/benefit?
Has the risk analysis actually been cosidered at all?
Given humanity's past endevours I would say that it's not likely.I don't want this to turn political as a liberal vs conservative viewpoint, so lets just say that either direction too much analysis hits diminishing returns and too little analysis does contribute to pollution (without hitting specific talking points like global warming).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30670020</id>
	<title>Re:STFU</title>
	<author>Str1der</author>
	<datestamp>1262795580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>These collisions have likely occurred on earth for a long time but never anywhere near the density which they will in the LHC. The natural collisions are spread out over a much larger area and much longer time. Also with natural collisions only one particle is moving at high velocity which might cause any harmful particle or black hole to move through the earth very quickly. In the LHC two particles of about the same velocity collide. This could cause any potentially harmful particles to linger by some or all of the momentum being canceled by the collision. The natural bombardment of cosmic rays into the Earth cannot prove the safety of so many of these collisions in the same place at nearly the</htmltext>
<tokenext>These collisions have likely occurred on earth for a long time but never anywhere near the density which they will in the LHC .
The natural collisions are spread out over a much larger area and much longer time .
Also with natural collisions only one particle is moving at high velocity which might cause any harmful particle or black hole to move through the earth very quickly .
In the LHC two particles of about the same velocity collide .
This could cause any potentially harmful particles to linger by some or all of the momentum being canceled by the collision .
The natural bombardment of cosmic rays into the Earth can not prove the safety of so many of these collisions in the same place at nearly the</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These collisions have likely occurred on earth for a long time but never anywhere near the density which they will in the LHC.
The natural collisions are spread out over a much larger area and much longer time.
Also with natural collisions only one particle is moving at high velocity which might cause any harmful particle or black hole to move through the earth very quickly.
In the LHC two particles of about the same velocity collide.
This could cause any potentially harmful particles to linger by some or all of the momentum being canceled by the collision.
The natural bombardment of cosmic rays into the Earth cannot prove the safety of so many of these collisions in the same place at nearly the</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30668358</id>
	<title>Re:STFU</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262786520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The most convincing argument aginst the LHC doomsday sayers does not rely on any particular theory on particles. But rather on the observation that the erath is routinly hit with cosmic particles with energies up to 10^20 eV. the center of mass energy of such particles is way, way larger than the feeble 7 TeV than the LHC can bring to the table. If the LHC could produce a earth destroying mini black hole, the earth would already have been destroyed by a cosmic ray induced mini black hole in the earth's 4.5 billion years past.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The most convincing argument aginst the LHC doomsday sayers does not rely on any particular theory on particles .
But rather on the observation that the erath is routinly hit with cosmic particles with energies up to 10 ^ 20 eV .
the center of mass energy of such particles is way , way larger than the feeble 7 TeV than the LHC can bring to the table .
If the LHC could produce a earth destroying mini black hole , the earth would already have been destroyed by a cosmic ray induced mini black hole in the earth 's 4.5 billion years past .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The most convincing argument aginst the LHC doomsday sayers does not rely on any particular theory on particles.
But rather on the observation that the erath is routinly hit with cosmic particles with energies up to 10^20 eV.
the center of mass energy of such particles is way, way larger than the feeble 7 TeV than the LHC can bring to the table.
If the LHC could produce a earth destroying mini black hole, the earth would already have been destroyed by a cosmic ray induced mini black hole in the earth's 4.5 billion years past.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30672314</id>
	<title>Re:oh well</title>
	<author>yurtinus</author>
	<datestamp>1262804160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now to go completely off topic (and pretty please mod me as such)...
<br> <br>
I was discussing this matter with my sister last night. There's a definite trend I'm noticing in folks saying it's "all God's plan" or "trust in Jesus and all will be OK." Unfortunately, even good ole God and Jesus believed in free will (wasn't that what the great battle with Lucifer was over back in the day?)-- How do you reconcile blind faith and trust with free will?
<br> <br>
"It must be God's plan" is no excuse for inaction.
<br> <br>
You may now go back to talking about black holes or whatever...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now to go completely off topic ( and pretty please mod me as such ) .. . I was discussing this matter with my sister last night .
There 's a definite trend I 'm noticing in folks saying it 's " all God 's plan " or " trust in Jesus and all will be OK. " Unfortunately , even good ole God and Jesus believed in free will ( was n't that what the great battle with Lucifer was over back in the day ?
) -- How do you reconcile blind faith and trust with free will ?
" It must be God 's plan " is no excuse for inaction .
You may now go back to talking about black holes or whatever.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now to go completely off topic (and pretty please mod me as such)...
 
I was discussing this matter with my sister last night.
There's a definite trend I'm noticing in folks saying it's "all God's plan" or "trust in Jesus and all will be OK." Unfortunately, even good ole God and Jesus believed in free will (wasn't that what the great battle with Lucifer was over back in the day?
)-- How do you reconcile blind faith and trust with free will?
"It must be God's plan" is no excuse for inaction.
You may now go back to talking about black holes or whatever...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30672844</id>
	<title>Re:I'm going with the probabilities...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262806380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...If you want to whine about how much money is being used, fine, it's a bloody lot. (Though it's less than the cost of 10 stealth bombers.)...</p></div><p>Yes, but you can blow up even more stuff with the stealth bombers!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...If you want to whine about how much money is being used , fine , it 's a bloody lot .
( Though it 's less than the cost of 10 stealth bombers .
) ...Yes , but you can blow up even more stuff with the stealth bombers !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...If you want to whine about how much money is being used, fine, it's a bloody lot.
(Though it's less than the cost of 10 stealth bombers.
)...Yes, but you can blow up even more stuff with the stealth bombers!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30667224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666380</id>
	<title>The Lawyer Doesn't Know Dick</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262720460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reason why the LHC physicist are the only ones who've done a risk analysis is because they're the only ones for whom the trouble of formalizing the arguments that are well known in the community is worth it. There are two really simple lines of argument. The first, and best, is that events like what we will be producing in the LHC are not unprecedented. There are many more far more energetic collisions with the atmosphere every day. If such collisions were capable of destroying the planet, the planet never would have made it past the first few million years, let along a big target like Jupiter, the sun, or countless other stars.</p><p>The second argument, also, true, is that the gravity produced by a black hole isn't some magical all powerful destructive force. If I were to take the mass of the Earth and to suddenly compress it into a black hole the rest of the solar system wouldn't even notice. It isn't because the Earth is a tiny part of the solar system's mass, either, it's because the gravity outside of a few times the radius of the black hole is the same as though the mass inside weren't a black hole. So a black hole that the LHC might produce would be no more capable of eating the earth than a gold nucleus or a clump of a few thousand neutrons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason why the LHC physicist are the only ones who 've done a risk analysis is because they 're the only ones for whom the trouble of formalizing the arguments that are well known in the community is worth it .
There are two really simple lines of argument .
The first , and best , is that events like what we will be producing in the LHC are not unprecedented .
There are many more far more energetic collisions with the atmosphere every day .
If such collisions were capable of destroying the planet , the planet never would have made it past the first few million years , let along a big target like Jupiter , the sun , or countless other stars.The second argument , also , true , is that the gravity produced by a black hole is n't some magical all powerful destructive force .
If I were to take the mass of the Earth and to suddenly compress it into a black hole the rest of the solar system would n't even notice .
It is n't because the Earth is a tiny part of the solar system 's mass , either , it 's because the gravity outside of a few times the radius of the black hole is the same as though the mass inside were n't a black hole .
So a black hole that the LHC might produce would be no more capable of eating the earth than a gold nucleus or a clump of a few thousand neutrons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason why the LHC physicist are the only ones who've done a risk analysis is because they're the only ones for whom the trouble of formalizing the arguments that are well known in the community is worth it.
There are two really simple lines of argument.
The first, and best, is that events like what we will be producing in the LHC are not unprecedented.
There are many more far more energetic collisions with the atmosphere every day.
If such collisions were capable of destroying the planet, the planet never would have made it past the first few million years, let along a big target like Jupiter, the sun, or countless other stars.The second argument, also, true, is that the gravity produced by a black hole isn't some magical all powerful destructive force.
If I were to take the mass of the Earth and to suddenly compress it into a black hole the rest of the solar system wouldn't even notice.
It isn't because the Earth is a tiny part of the solar system's mass, either, it's because the gravity outside of a few times the radius of the black hole is the same as though the mass inside weren't a black hole.
So a black hole that the LHC might produce would be no more capable of eating the earth than a gold nucleus or a clump of a few thousand neutrons.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666118</id>
	<title>Re:We'll save the justice system first....</title>
	<author>Gerzel</author>
	<datestamp>1262717940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>depends on the distance from the black hole and the size of the hole itself.  Also it would have to be moving fast relative the the hole as all objects are moving fast relative to some other object.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>depends on the distance from the black hole and the size of the hole itself .
Also it would have to be moving fast relative the the hole as all objects are moving fast relative to some other object .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>depends on the distance from the black hole and the size of the hole itself.
Also it would have to be moving fast relative the the hole as all objects are moving fast relative to some other object.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30667508</id>
	<title>Re:oh well</title>
	<author>Nerdfest</author>
	<datestamp>1262777880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What about that "money, power, and women" thing?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What about that " money , power , and women " thing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about that "money, power, and women" thing?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30668524</id>
	<title>LHC and comment threads</title>
	<author>thewiz</author>
	<datestamp>1262787840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Considering how many threads are devolving into circular arguments, I'm wondering if we're creating black holes from all the energy being expended.</p><p>I'm pretty sure we have as time is becoming distorted the longer I spend reading the comments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering how many threads are devolving into circular arguments , I 'm wondering if we 're creating black holes from all the energy being expended.I 'm pretty sure we have as time is becoming distorted the longer I spend reading the comments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering how many threads are devolving into circular arguments, I'm wondering if we're creating black holes from all the energy being expended.I'm pretty sure we have as time is becoming distorted the longer I spend reading the comments.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666608</id>
	<title>Re:US LAW ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262809620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sweden != Switzerland</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sweden ! = Switzerland</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sweden != Switzerland</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30668548</id>
	<title>Re:STFU</title>
	<author>PMuse</author>
	<datestamp>1262787960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, LHC will destroy the world, and SOON.  It's vitally important that we get all the lawyers onto the first escape ark immediately.</p><p>Along with the hairdressers, PR consultants, and HR executives.  Let's keep the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Restaurant\_at\_the\_End\_of\_the\_Universe" title="wikipedia.org">telephone sanitizers</a> [wikipedia.org], though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , LHC will destroy the world , and SOON .
It 's vitally important that we get all the lawyers onto the first escape ark immediately.Along with the hairdressers , PR consultants , and HR executives .
Let 's keep the telephone sanitizers [ wikipedia.org ] , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, LHC will destroy the world, and SOON.
It's vitally important that we get all the lawyers onto the first escape ark immediately.Along with the hairdressers, PR consultants, and HR executives.
Let's keep the telephone sanitizers [wikipedia.org], though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30667224</id>
	<title>I'm going with the probabilities...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262774760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's see:<br>flying monkeys crawling out your rectum  &gt;  LHC destroying the world  &gt;   homosexual leprechaun giving you magical money tree that grows $100 bills for leaves and has cocaine filled nuts<br><br>Of course, it's kind of hard to prove any of those is absolutely impossible, but you sure can calculate them as having absurdly low odds.... (So low, that if you tried to count the zeros between the decimal point and the first non-zero digit you'd fall asleep long before you got to it. That's why scientists like using those funny looking math formulas most of the LHC haters can't understand.)<br><br>Sorry Slashdotters, but I'm getting sick of this paranoid ignorant jihad to crucify a rather expensive but potentially critical piece of research.<br>If you want to whine about how much money is being used, fine, it's a bloody lot. (Though it's less than the cost of 10 stealth bombers.)<br>If you want to whine about how 'pure research' isn't useful, fine. (When electricity was still in the 'pure research' stage and the question was raised as to what use was it, a famous scientist replied "what use is a baby"...)<br>If you want to spout conspiracy theories (yours or other peoples), please go back to your paranoid blogs and leave this stuff to people who actually passed grade school math and science classes without cheating. (Many slashdotters have actually passed college level classes on trig, calculus, and even physics.)<br><br>Now lawyers are jumping into the mess when they aren't asked to.<br>What are the lawyers going to do next, threaten to sue people for not preparing for the fantasized, err, 'predicted' 2012 world disaster?<br><br>At least these media spawned circuses keeps the reporters from investigating my secret genesplicing experiments to create parasitic miniaturized colon dwelling hybridized eagle-macaques.<br><br>Thanks, take a break, and laugh at the stupidity before you drown in it...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's see : flying monkeys crawling out your rectum &gt; LHC destroying the world &gt; homosexual leprechaun giving you magical money tree that grows $ 100 bills for leaves and has cocaine filled nutsOf course , it 's kind of hard to prove any of those is absolutely impossible , but you sure can calculate them as having absurdly low odds.... ( So low , that if you tried to count the zeros between the decimal point and the first non-zero digit you 'd fall asleep long before you got to it .
That 's why scientists like using those funny looking math formulas most of the LHC haters ca n't understand .
) Sorry Slashdotters , but I 'm getting sick of this paranoid ignorant jihad to crucify a rather expensive but potentially critical piece of research.If you want to whine about how much money is being used , fine , it 's a bloody lot .
( Though it 's less than the cost of 10 stealth bombers .
) If you want to whine about how 'pure research ' is n't useful , fine .
( When electricity was still in the 'pure research ' stage and the question was raised as to what use was it , a famous scientist replied " what use is a baby " ... ) If you want to spout conspiracy theories ( yours or other peoples ) , please go back to your paranoid blogs and leave this stuff to people who actually passed grade school math and science classes without cheating .
( Many slashdotters have actually passed college level classes on trig , calculus , and even physics .
) Now lawyers are jumping into the mess when they are n't asked to.What are the lawyers going to do next , threaten to sue people for not preparing for the fantasized , err , 'predicted ' 2012 world disaster ? At least these media spawned circuses keeps the reporters from investigating my secret genesplicing experiments to create parasitic miniaturized colon dwelling hybridized eagle-macaques.Thanks , take a break , and laugh at the stupidity before you drown in it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's see:flying monkeys crawling out your rectum  &gt;  LHC destroying the world  &gt;   homosexual leprechaun giving you magical money tree that grows $100 bills for leaves and has cocaine filled nutsOf course, it's kind of hard to prove any of those is absolutely impossible, but you sure can calculate them as having absurdly low odds.... (So low, that if you tried to count the zeros between the decimal point and the first non-zero digit you'd fall asleep long before you got to it.
That's why scientists like using those funny looking math formulas most of the LHC haters can't understand.
)Sorry Slashdotters, but I'm getting sick of this paranoid ignorant jihad to crucify a rather expensive but potentially critical piece of research.If you want to whine about how much money is being used, fine, it's a bloody lot.
(Though it's less than the cost of 10 stealth bombers.
)If you want to whine about how 'pure research' isn't useful, fine.
(When electricity was still in the 'pure research' stage and the question was raised as to what use was it, a famous scientist replied "what use is a baby"...)If you want to spout conspiracy theories (yours or other peoples), please go back to your paranoid blogs and leave this stuff to people who actually passed grade school math and science classes without cheating.
(Many slashdotters have actually passed college level classes on trig, calculus, and even physics.
)Now lawyers are jumping into the mess when they aren't asked to.What are the lawyers going to do next, threaten to sue people for not preparing for the fantasized, err, 'predicted' 2012 world disaster?At least these media spawned circuses keeps the reporters from investigating my secret genesplicing experiments to create parasitic miniaturized colon dwelling hybridized eagle-macaques.Thanks, take a break, and laugh at the stupidity before you drown in it...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666330</id>
	<title>Re:STFU</title>
	<author>BronsCon</author>
	<datestamp>1262719800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The LHC will not destroy the world; and if it does, it'll be over before you knew it started. No worries, either way.</p><p>There, fixed that for ya.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The LHC will not destroy the world ; and if it does , it 'll be over before you knew it started .
No worries , either way.There , fixed that for ya .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The LHC will not destroy the world; and if it does, it'll be over before you knew it started.
No worries, either way.There, fixed that for ya.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30671224</id>
	<title>Re:markyg</title>
	<author>delt0r</author>
	<datestamp>1262800020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am a physicist, and there are so many things wrong with the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. discussion its no wonder the general public has no clue.
<br> <br>
First off we could only hope to get a black hole if and only if we live in very particular type of universe with the right number of dimensions folded the right way (aka a possible string theory universe). Classical or lower dimensional explanations need far higher energy and masses than LHC could ever hope for. Many people don't think string theory is correct so in this case we can't even hope to create one.
<br> <br>
Secondly if the theory that says we would get a black hole is right, its also the case that it would probably evaporate... very very quickly. 10^-20 seconds quickly.
<br> <br>
If by some obscure reason string theory is right with the correct number of dimensions etc but hawking was wrong and black holes don't evaporate, then the kind of time for a proton mass black hole (will all the gravity might of a proton) would be age of the universe type thing. Because at these scales gravity is simply not that important. And as stated before the chances that the black hole has escape velocity is practically unity.
<br> <br>
Finally we can see a lot of universe from here... And guess how often a "cosmic ray" or other type of stupidly high energy particles collides with stars, white dwarfs, neutron stars etc over the last 13-5 billion years... We don't see this happening.
<br> <br>
More alarmingly, why the frick should i need a judge to decide whats correct. I didn't appoint/vote them to run society. They don't represent anything relevant here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am a physicist , and there are so many things wrong with the / .
discussion its no wonder the general public has no clue .
First off we could only hope to get a black hole if and only if we live in very particular type of universe with the right number of dimensions folded the right way ( aka a possible string theory universe ) .
Classical or lower dimensional explanations need far higher energy and masses than LHC could ever hope for .
Many people do n't think string theory is correct so in this case we ca n't even hope to create one .
Secondly if the theory that says we would get a black hole is right , its also the case that it would probably evaporate... very very quickly .
10 ^ -20 seconds quickly .
If by some obscure reason string theory is right with the correct number of dimensions etc but hawking was wrong and black holes do n't evaporate , then the kind of time for a proton mass black hole ( will all the gravity might of a proton ) would be age of the universe type thing .
Because at these scales gravity is simply not that important .
And as stated before the chances that the black hole has escape velocity is practically unity .
Finally we can see a lot of universe from here... And guess how often a " cosmic ray " or other type of stupidly high energy particles collides with stars , white dwarfs , neutron stars etc over the last 13-5 billion years... We do n't see this happening .
More alarmingly , why the frick should i need a judge to decide whats correct .
I did n't appoint/vote them to run society .
They do n't represent anything relevant here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am a physicist, and there are so many things wrong with the /.
discussion its no wonder the general public has no clue.
First off we could only hope to get a black hole if and only if we live in very particular type of universe with the right number of dimensions folded the right way (aka a possible string theory universe).
Classical or lower dimensional explanations need far higher energy and masses than LHC could ever hope for.
Many people don't think string theory is correct so in this case we can't even hope to create one.
Secondly if the theory that says we would get a black hole is right, its also the case that it would probably evaporate... very very quickly.
10^-20 seconds quickly.
If by some obscure reason string theory is right with the correct number of dimensions etc but hawking was wrong and black holes don't evaporate, then the kind of time for a proton mass black hole (will all the gravity might of a proton) would be age of the universe type thing.
Because at these scales gravity is simply not that important.
And as stated before the chances that the black hole has escape velocity is practically unity.
Finally we can see a lot of universe from here... And guess how often a "cosmic ray" or other type of stupidly high energy particles collides with stars, white dwarfs, neutron stars etc over the last 13-5 billion years... We don't see this happening.
More alarmingly, why the frick should i need a judge to decide whats correct.
I didn't appoint/vote them to run society.
They don't represent anything relevant here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30667244</id>
	<title>Re:oh well</title>
	<author>Boronx</author>
	<datestamp>1262775000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"to life,universe, and everything"</p><p>That's not even a question.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" to life,universe , and everything " That 's not even a question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"to life,universe, and everything"That's not even a question.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666090</id>
	<title>Re:We'll save the justice system first....</title>
	<author>Surt</author>
	<datestamp>1262717700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It only has to escape an earth mass black hole, so about 12km/s will do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It only has to escape an earth mass black hole , so about 12km/s will do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It only has to escape an earth mass black hole, so about 12km/s will do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666720</id>
	<title>False premise</title>
	<author>Bubz</author>
	<datestamp>1262811240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Surely one significant problem in the study (this being Slashdot, I of course haven't read it myself) is the premise that only professional particle physicists can understand the subject matter well enough to be an expert witness? I'd bet there are a good number of (non-particle physicists) here who understand the theory well enough.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Surely one significant problem in the study ( this being Slashdot , I of course have n't read it myself ) is the premise that only professional particle physicists can understand the subject matter well enough to be an expert witness ?
I 'd bet there are a good number of ( non-particle physicists ) here who understand the theory well enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surely one significant problem in the study (this being Slashdot, I of course haven't read it myself) is the premise that only professional particle physicists can understand the subject matter well enough to be an expert witness?
I'd bet there are a good number of (non-particle physicists) here who understand the theory well enough.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30669988</id>
	<title>It's not that new.</title>
	<author>stuartkahler</author>
	<datestamp>1262795520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the main problem with peoples' view of CERN is that they think CERN is doing something completely new.  The fact is, Fermilab has been doing the same thing for 30+ years.  CERN is just going to slowly up the energy level to about 10x what Fermilab topped out at.
<br> <br>
The other problem is that people don't understand the terms flying around.  Words like tevatron, large hadron, high-energy particle accelerator and 'energy level of the Big Bang' lead people to think that this is the next step past nuclear bombs.  What they really need to understand about colliding protons at energy levels of a trillion electron volts is that an electron volt is pretty much the smallest way to measure energy that we use, and the collisions only involve two protons.  Seriously, you should be more worried every time you get your teeth x-rayed.

<br> <br>
It's absurd to think that they'll hit a tipping point where the energy being put in will be enough to blow up the Earth.  It's absurd to think that they could create a micro black hole that would engulf the Earth (if micro black holes are actually possible, AND could engulf a planet, then the universe would be dominated by them).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the main problem with peoples ' view of CERN is that they think CERN is doing something completely new .
The fact is , Fermilab has been doing the same thing for 30 + years .
CERN is just going to slowly up the energy level to about 10x what Fermilab topped out at .
The other problem is that people do n't understand the terms flying around .
Words like tevatron , large hadron , high-energy particle accelerator and 'energy level of the Big Bang ' lead people to think that this is the next step past nuclear bombs .
What they really need to understand about colliding protons at energy levels of a trillion electron volts is that an electron volt is pretty much the smallest way to measure energy that we use , and the collisions only involve two protons .
Seriously , you should be more worried every time you get your teeth x-rayed .
It 's absurd to think that they 'll hit a tipping point where the energy being put in will be enough to blow up the Earth .
It 's absurd to think that they could create a micro black hole that would engulf the Earth ( if micro black holes are actually possible , AND could engulf a planet , then the universe would be dominated by them ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the main problem with peoples' view of CERN is that they think CERN is doing something completely new.
The fact is, Fermilab has been doing the same thing for 30+ years.
CERN is just going to slowly up the energy level to about 10x what Fermilab topped out at.
The other problem is that people don't understand the terms flying around.
Words like tevatron, large hadron, high-energy particle accelerator and 'energy level of the Big Bang' lead people to think that this is the next step past nuclear bombs.
What they really need to understand about colliding protons at energy levels of a trillion electron volts is that an electron volt is pretty much the smallest way to measure energy that we use, and the collisions only involve two protons.
Seriously, you should be more worried every time you get your teeth x-rayed.
It's absurd to think that they'll hit a tipping point where the energy being put in will be enough to blow up the Earth.
It's absurd to think that they could create a micro black hole that would engulf the Earth (if micro black holes are actually possible, AND could engulf a planet, then the universe would be dominated by them).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30671710</id>
	<title>Re:STFU</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1262801940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hubris is thinking LHC is more powerful than the cosmic ray collisions that happen all day, every day. It is not. Compared to the "OH my God" particle, for example,  LHC is a pea shooter. Imagine, a single particle with as much kinetic energy as a major league fastball.</p><p>Pretty much everyone who is wringing their hands over this thinks nothing about the much greater probability that they'll be killed in an auto accident. I would be entirely unsurprised to find that more than one of them dies from sticking a fork into a plugged in toaster.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hubris is thinking LHC is more powerful than the cosmic ray collisions that happen all day , every day .
It is not .
Compared to the " OH my God " particle , for example , LHC is a pea shooter .
Imagine , a single particle with as much kinetic energy as a major league fastball.Pretty much everyone who is wringing their hands over this thinks nothing about the much greater probability that they 'll be killed in an auto accident .
I would be entirely unsurprised to find that more than one of them dies from sticking a fork into a plugged in toaster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hubris is thinking LHC is more powerful than the cosmic ray collisions that happen all day, every day.
It is not.
Compared to the "OH my God" particle, for example,  LHC is a pea shooter.
Imagine, a single particle with as much kinetic energy as a major league fastball.Pretty much everyone who is wringing their hands over this thinks nothing about the much greater probability that they'll be killed in an auto accident.
I would be entirely unsurprised to find that more than one of them dies from sticking a fork into a plugged in toaster.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30669176</id>
	<title>Re:We'll save the justice system first....</title>
	<author>dissy</author>
	<datestamp>1262791800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How fast will this lifeboat be traveling? If this lifeboat is to be escaping a black hole.. it'd have to be moving pretty fast.</p></div><p>Well, since the black hole will have the exact same mass as the Earth, and thus will have the exact same gravitational pull, if the Earth was turned into a black hole, you will still only need to overcome 1G.</p><p>So basically, you can move about the speed of any satellite we already put in orbit, or the space station.  Thou one would probably want to go a little faster than that..  We are trying to escape after all, not stay in orbit.</p><p>In fact, the ISS space station will be unaffected, as it is already in orbit right now, so nothing different will need to be done to remain there.  Granted it needs to fire boosters to remain in orbit now, but as I said, that just won't change as it will still need to boost back in orbit around the black hole in our place.</p><p>Either way, you would have to be lacking any senses, or really stupid, to think we do not exist right now and have been swallowed by a black hole a few trillion times over already...  Which is exactly what you are arguing if you think the LHC with its extremely low power particles will create black holes with more freqency than the already existing much much more energetic particles we have on earth right now.</p><p>In a political way, it might really have been better to spend these billions of dollars on finding a way to hold our particle detectors up in the atmosphere.   Then we could have an LHC that is a few thousand times more powerful than the one we just built, and no one would really be able to bitch.</p><p>Sure, idiots can try to get a judge to shut down the LHC due to non-existent fears, but I would love to watch some judge try to sue the sun to shut down!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How fast will this lifeboat be traveling ?
If this lifeboat is to be escaping a black hole.. it 'd have to be moving pretty fast.Well , since the black hole will have the exact same mass as the Earth , and thus will have the exact same gravitational pull , if the Earth was turned into a black hole , you will still only need to overcome 1G.So basically , you can move about the speed of any satellite we already put in orbit , or the space station .
Thou one would probably want to go a little faster than that.. We are trying to escape after all , not stay in orbit.In fact , the ISS space station will be unaffected , as it is already in orbit right now , so nothing different will need to be done to remain there .
Granted it needs to fire boosters to remain in orbit now , but as I said , that just wo n't change as it will still need to boost back in orbit around the black hole in our place.Either way , you would have to be lacking any senses , or really stupid , to think we do not exist right now and have been swallowed by a black hole a few trillion times over already... Which is exactly what you are arguing if you think the LHC with its extremely low power particles will create black holes with more freqency than the already existing much much more energetic particles we have on earth right now.In a political way , it might really have been better to spend these billions of dollars on finding a way to hold our particle detectors up in the atmosphere .
Then we could have an LHC that is a few thousand times more powerful than the one we just built , and no one would really be able to bitch.Sure , idiots can try to get a judge to shut down the LHC due to non-existent fears , but I would love to watch some judge try to sue the sun to shut down !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How fast will this lifeboat be traveling?
If this lifeboat is to be escaping a black hole.. it'd have to be moving pretty fast.Well, since the black hole will have the exact same mass as the Earth, and thus will have the exact same gravitational pull, if the Earth was turned into a black hole, you will still only need to overcome 1G.So basically, you can move about the speed of any satellite we already put in orbit, or the space station.
Thou one would probably want to go a little faster than that..  We are trying to escape after all, not stay in orbit.In fact, the ISS space station will be unaffected, as it is already in orbit right now, so nothing different will need to be done to remain there.
Granted it needs to fire boosters to remain in orbit now, but as I said, that just won't change as it will still need to boost back in orbit around the black hole in our place.Either way, you would have to be lacking any senses, or really stupid, to think we do not exist right now and have been swallowed by a black hole a few trillion times over already...  Which is exactly what you are arguing if you think the LHC with its extremely low power particles will create black holes with more freqency than the already existing much much more energetic particles we have on earth right now.In a political way, it might really have been better to spend these billions of dollars on finding a way to hold our particle detectors up in the atmosphere.
Then we could have an LHC that is a few thousand times more powerful than the one we just built, and no one would really be able to bitch.Sure, idiots can try to get a judge to shut down the LHC due to non-existent fears, but I would love to watch some judge try to sue the sun to shut down!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665848</id>
	<title>Re:We'll save the justice system first....</title>
	<author>snowgirl</author>
	<datestamp>1262715120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Of course, this is relevant because in the event of an LHC-created black hole destroying the planet, we will of course launch into space a "lifeboat" containing a judge, defense and plaintiff lawyers, Rusty the Bailiff to keep everyone in line, and one token normal person to be the plaintiff. Justice will be served no matter what the damage to the planet is.</p></div><p>I seem to recall that some physics thought that before the Trinity Explosion, that perhaps an atom explosion would vaporise the entire atmosphere.</p><p>One guy on the site is even ranting about the LHC actually being a "quark cannon", and says that (paraphrasing) "cosmic rays are single atoms" and in the same sentence (because it's a runon, like this one) that we've never observed a quark in cosmic rays.  All credibility is lost with that, and that's the problem with even debating this issue... the average person has no real decent understanding of the actual risks involved, but if they know about it, they get all paranoid, and someone breaks out the SciFi.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , this is relevant because in the event of an LHC-created black hole destroying the planet , we will of course launch into space a " lifeboat " containing a judge , defense and plaintiff lawyers , Rusty the Bailiff to keep everyone in line , and one token normal person to be the plaintiff .
Justice will be served no matter what the damage to the planet is.I seem to recall that some physics thought that before the Trinity Explosion , that perhaps an atom explosion would vaporise the entire atmosphere.One guy on the site is even ranting about the LHC actually being a " quark cannon " , and says that ( paraphrasing ) " cosmic rays are single atoms " and in the same sentence ( because it 's a runon , like this one ) that we 've never observed a quark in cosmic rays .
All credibility is lost with that , and that 's the problem with even debating this issue... the average person has no real decent understanding of the actual risks involved , but if they know about it , they get all paranoid , and someone breaks out the SciFi .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, this is relevant because in the event of an LHC-created black hole destroying the planet, we will of course launch into space a "lifeboat" containing a judge, defense and plaintiff lawyers, Rusty the Bailiff to keep everyone in line, and one token normal person to be the plaintiff.
Justice will be served no matter what the damage to the planet is.I seem to recall that some physics thought that before the Trinity Explosion, that perhaps an atom explosion would vaporise the entire atmosphere.One guy on the site is even ranting about the LHC actually being a "quark cannon", and says that (paraphrasing) "cosmic rays are single atoms" and in the same sentence (because it's a runon, like this one) that we've never observed a quark in cosmic rays.
All credibility is lost with that, and that's the problem with even debating this issue... the average person has no real decent understanding of the actual risks involved, but if they know about it, they get all paranoid, and someone breaks out the SciFi.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30669792</id>
	<title>Re:CERN Analysis</title>
	<author>MozeeToby</author>
	<datestamp>1262794800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If we say it's safe and we're wrong, we'll all be dead and it won't matter.</p></div><p>Unless every scientist that took part in the safety analysis has a death wish, I'd say it would probably matter to them.  Actually, not just a death wish for themselves but also for their families, their friends, and every single person they've ever met.  This argument is equivalent to calling every scientist that took part in the safety studies a suicidal, homicidal psychopath.  You might be able to convince me one or two are, but <b>all</b> of them?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If we say it 's safe and we 're wrong , we 'll all be dead and it wo n't matter.Unless every scientist that took part in the safety analysis has a death wish , I 'd say it would probably matter to them .
Actually , not just a death wish for themselves but also for their families , their friends , and every single person they 've ever met .
This argument is equivalent to calling every scientist that took part in the safety studies a suicidal , homicidal psychopath .
You might be able to convince me one or two are , but all of them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we say it's safe and we're wrong, we'll all be dead and it won't matter.Unless every scientist that took part in the safety analysis has a death wish, I'd say it would probably matter to them.
Actually, not just a death wish for themselves but also for their families, their friends, and every single person they've ever met.
This argument is equivalent to calling every scientist that took part in the safety studies a suicidal, homicidal psychopath.
You might be able to convince me one or two are, but all of them?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666768</id>
	<title>Critical Mass</title>
	<author>moozoo</author>
	<datestamp>1262768580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What if someone had reached a critical mass of enriched uranium before we knew it would start a fission reaction... And did so in a lab within a major city...

I do think LHC is safe. But who knows. Yes the earth has been bombarded by higher energies than those in the LHC.
But are they doing so under the same conditions as those inside the LHC.
What if there is something we don't know that happens with say high energy collisions in a high very magnetic field (which probably doesn't happen naturally).</htmltext>
<tokenext>What if someone had reached a critical mass of enriched uranium before we knew it would start a fission reaction... And did so in a lab within a major city.. . I do think LHC is safe .
But who knows .
Yes the earth has been bombarded by higher energies than those in the LHC .
But are they doing so under the same conditions as those inside the LHC .
What if there is something we do n't know that happens with say high energy collisions in a high very magnetic field ( which probably does n't happen naturally ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if someone had reached a critical mass of enriched uranium before we knew it would start a fission reaction... And did so in a lab within a major city...

I do think LHC is safe.
But who knows.
Yes the earth has been bombarded by higher energies than those in the LHC.
But are they doing so under the same conditions as those inside the LHC.
What if there is something we don't know that happens with say high energy collisions in a high very magnetic field (which probably doesn't happen naturally).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30668892</id>
	<title>Re:In a way I blame certain scientists</title>
	<author>Jason Levine</author>
	<datestamp>1262790120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If a stellar mass BH went through our solar system the most likely thing it would do to the Earth is distort it's orbit and or move the Sun.</p></div></blockquote><p>Either of which would be pretty bad.  We could find the Earth too hot or too cold to live on.  We could even find ourselves getting tossed out of the solar system entirely.  And if it came too close, we could wind up in orbit around the black hole, most likely a decaying one where being gobbled up was just a matter of time.  Luckily, the chances of a rogue stellar mass black hole coming upon us is tiny.  (This exact scenario is discussed in BadAstronomer/Phil Plait's excellent book Death From The Skies which I'm in the middle of reading.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If a stellar mass BH went through our solar system the most likely thing it would do to the Earth is distort it 's orbit and or move the Sun.Either of which would be pretty bad .
We could find the Earth too hot or too cold to live on .
We could even find ourselves getting tossed out of the solar system entirely .
And if it came too close , we could wind up in orbit around the black hole , most likely a decaying one where being gobbled up was just a matter of time .
Luckily , the chances of a rogue stellar mass black hole coming upon us is tiny .
( This exact scenario is discussed in BadAstronomer/Phil Plait 's excellent book Death From The Skies which I 'm in the middle of reading .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a stellar mass BH went through our solar system the most likely thing it would do to the Earth is distort it's orbit and or move the Sun.Either of which would be pretty bad.
We could find the Earth too hot or too cold to live on.
We could even find ourselves getting tossed out of the solar system entirely.
And if it came too close, we could wind up in orbit around the black hole, most likely a decaying one where being gobbled up was just a matter of time.
Luckily, the chances of a rogue stellar mass black hole coming upon us is tiny.
(This exact scenario is discussed in BadAstronomer/Phil Plait's excellent book Death From The Skies which I'm in the middle of reading.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30669028</id>
	<title>Re:False premise</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262790900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And, lots of these particle physicists have tenure. Such is the nature of the scientific community. Hence, I doubt they're afraid for their livelihood, as, you know, it's *guaranteed*.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And , lots of these particle physicists have tenure .
Such is the nature of the scientific community .
Hence , I doubt they 're afraid for their livelihood , as , you know , it 's * guaranteed * .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And, lots of these particle physicists have tenure.
Such is the nature of the scientific community.
Hence, I doubt they're afraid for their livelihood, as, you know, it's *guaranteed*.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30670092</id>
	<title>ha!</title>
	<author>medelliadegray</author>
	<datestamp>1262795820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, all of the scientists working at CERN are colluding together to...</p><p>1.) Cover-up the statistical odds of the destruction of earth so they can get grants to...<br>2.) Implement LHC, which will....<br>3.) WHOOOSH....<br>4.) There would be no profit.</p><p>Nevermind that much higher energy cosmic rays hit our atmosphere every minute, and we've somehow never been gobbled up.  But hey, perhaps we should go back to becoming hunter-gatherers because "fire" may cause an uncontrollable reaction consuming the very earth itself! We'd better not risk it, 'lest the gods become angry.</p><p>The author appears to me to be an idiot of the 'global warming isn't real' type.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , all of the scientists working at CERN are colluding together to...1 .
) Cover-up the statistical odds of the destruction of earth so they can get grants to...2 .
) Implement LHC , which will....3 .
) WHOOOSH....4 .
) There would be no profit.Nevermind that much higher energy cosmic rays hit our atmosphere every minute , and we 've somehow never been gobbled up .
But hey , perhaps we should go back to becoming hunter-gatherers because " fire " may cause an uncontrollable reaction consuming the very earth itself !
We 'd better not risk it , 'lest the gods become angry.The author appears to me to be an idiot of the 'global warming is n't real ' type .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, all of the scientists working at CERN are colluding together to...1.
) Cover-up the statistical odds of the destruction of earth so they can get grants to...2.
) Implement LHC, which will....3.
) WHOOOSH....4.
) There would be no profit.Nevermind that much higher energy cosmic rays hit our atmosphere every minute, and we've somehow never been gobbled up.
But hey, perhaps we should go back to becoming hunter-gatherers because "fire" may cause an uncontrollable reaction consuming the very earth itself!
We'd better not risk it, 'lest the gods become angry.The author appears to me to be an idiot of the 'global warming isn't real' type.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666778</id>
	<title>Re:STFU</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262768640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the OP must be the ghost of Fred Hoyle! These are freaking scientists after all, the same people who without fail land space craft on Mars and never make mistakes....oh, wait...</p><p>Don't make me use the cosmological constant example, please, I beg you, it's tedious.</p><p>I don't think the LHC is going to kill us all, either, but not questioning science and telling people to STFU is no different than religious fundamentalism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the OP must be the ghost of Fred Hoyle !
These are freaking scientists after all , the same people who without fail land space craft on Mars and never make mistakes....oh , wait...Do n't make me use the cosmological constant example , please , I beg you , it 's tedious.I do n't think the LHC is going to kill us all , either , but not questioning science and telling people to STFU is no different than religious fundamentalism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the OP must be the ghost of Fred Hoyle!
These are freaking scientists after all, the same people who without fail land space craft on Mars and never make mistakes....oh, wait...Don't make me use the cosmological constant example, please, I beg you, it's tedious.I don't think the LHC is going to kill us all, either, but not questioning science and telling people to STFU is no different than religious fundamentalism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30670738</id>
	<title>Re:You Missed One</title>
	<author>MORB</author>
	<datestamp>1262798040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article just skims the surface of the lawyer's 90 pages essay. He does address all of these points. It's actually a very interesting read.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article just skims the surface of the lawyer 's 90 pages essay .
He does address all of these points .
It 's actually a very interesting read .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article just skims the surface of the lawyer's 90 pages essay.
He does address all of these points.
It's actually a very interesting read.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30668832</id>
	<title>Can someone explain RHIC comment?</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1262789760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Then there were the calculations that physicists used to reassure the public that another accelerator called RHIC was safe. These too turned out to be seriously flawed.</i></p><p>Can someone elaborate on this comment?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then there were the calculations that physicists used to reassure the public that another accelerator called RHIC was safe .
These too turned out to be seriously flawed.Can someone elaborate on this comment ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then there were the calculations that physicists used to reassure the public that another accelerator called RHIC was safe.
These too turned out to be seriously flawed.Can someone elaborate on this comment?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30672998</id>
	<title>Re:oh well</title>
	<author>arminw</author>
	<datestamp>1262807040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>.....Please keep your mythological beliefs to yourself....</p><p>Why am I supposed to do that, when others on Slashdot spout their mythological beliefs and falsely call it science? I thought we lived in a free country, where we have freedom of speech (still) and can express our opinions freely. Just because someone with more degrees than a thermometer spouts a doomsday scenario, doesn't mean it will happen.</p><p>If you want to quake in your boots, because a black hole from the LHC may swallow up the earth, that's fine if you want to believe that nonsense. Just because such garbage is cloaked in scientific terms, doesn't suddenly make it true.</p><p>However, you or your descendants will quake in your boots, not because of a black hole, but when Jesus shows up to judge his enemies.</p><p>Revelation 6:16  And they said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us and hide us from the face of Him sitting on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb;<br>Revelation 6:17  for the great day of His wrath has come, and who will be able to stand?</p><p>Jesus Christ has done more to change the earth and history than any other human being, because he was more than human, he is God. The whole earth, the East as well as the West, EVERYBODY counts the time of their existence on this earth from the time Jesus appeared. We just changed the calendar to the year 2010, counted from the time the God man Jesus showed up on the earth.</p><p>You will be forgotten in a short time, but millions of Christians around the earth still worship him, who walked this earth so many centuries ago and celebrate the time of his birth, death and resurrection.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.....Please keep your mythological beliefs to yourself....Why am I supposed to do that , when others on Slashdot spout their mythological beliefs and falsely call it science ?
I thought we lived in a free country , where we have freedom of speech ( still ) and can express our opinions freely .
Just because someone with more degrees than a thermometer spouts a doomsday scenario , does n't mean it will happen.If you want to quake in your boots , because a black hole from the LHC may swallow up the earth , that 's fine if you want to believe that nonsense .
Just because such garbage is cloaked in scientific terms , does n't suddenly make it true.However , you or your descendants will quake in your boots , not because of a black hole , but when Jesus shows up to judge his enemies.Revelation 6 : 16 And they said to the mountains and rocks , Fall on us and hide us from the face of Him sitting on the throne , and from the wrath of the Lamb ; Revelation 6 : 17 for the great day of His wrath has come , and who will be able to stand ? Jesus Christ has done more to change the earth and history than any other human being , because he was more than human , he is God .
The whole earth , the East as well as the West , EVERYBODY counts the time of their existence on this earth from the time Jesus appeared .
We just changed the calendar to the year 2010 , counted from the time the God man Jesus showed up on the earth.You will be forgotten in a short time , but millions of Christians around the earth still worship him , who walked this earth so many centuries ago and celebrate the time of his birth , death and resurrection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.....Please keep your mythological beliefs to yourself....Why am I supposed to do that, when others on Slashdot spout their mythological beliefs and falsely call it science?
I thought we lived in a free country, where we have freedom of speech (still) and can express our opinions freely.
Just because someone with more degrees than a thermometer spouts a doomsday scenario, doesn't mean it will happen.If you want to quake in your boots, because a black hole from the LHC may swallow up the earth, that's fine if you want to believe that nonsense.
Just because such garbage is cloaked in scientific terms, doesn't suddenly make it true.However, you or your descendants will quake in your boots, not because of a black hole, but when Jesus shows up to judge his enemies.Revelation 6:16  And they said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us and hide us from the face of Him sitting on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb;Revelation 6:17  for the great day of His wrath has come, and who will be able to stand?Jesus Christ has done more to change the earth and history than any other human being, because he was more than human, he is God.
The whole earth, the East as well as the West, EVERYBODY counts the time of their existence on this earth from the time Jesus appeared.
We just changed the calendar to the year 2010, counted from the time the God man Jesus showed up on the earth.You will be forgotten in a short time, but millions of Christians around the earth still worship him, who walked this earth so many centuries ago and celebrate the time of his birth, death and resurrection.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30667992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665878</id>
	<title>Read the disclaimer</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1262715540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>IN NO EVENT WILL THE LHC BE LIABLE TO ANY THIRD PARTY FOR ANY SPECIAL, COLLATERAL, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, EXEMPLARY, PUNITIVE, OR ENHANCED DAMAGES ("EXCLUDED DAMAGES"). EXCLUDED DAMAGES INCLUDE COSTS OF INSPECTION, REMOVAL, AND REPLACEMENT COSTS, REPROCUREMENT COSTS (INCLUDING MAGRATHEA'S ADMINISTRATIVE AND PERSONNEL COSTS) OF REPLACEMENT OR SUBSTITUTE PLANETS, LOSS OF GOODWILL, LOSS OF REVENUE OR PROFITS, AND LOSS OF USE, WITHOUT REGARD TO WHETHER LHC HAS BEEN NOTIFIED IN ADVANCE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF ANY SUCH CLAIM OR DAMAGE.</b></p><p>Blah blah blah, there's too much YELLING in this post. Here's some junk for the filter: This Agreement will be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective permitted successors and assigns. Buyer may not assign this Agreement in any respect without the prior written consent of Seller. Seller may assign this Agreement, in whole or in part, or any of its rights or obligations hereunder without notice to or consent by Buyer. Seller may subcontract manufacturing or other work as to any or all Products without notice to or consent of Buyer. The failure of a party to enforce any right hereunder shall not waive that or any other right. If any provision of any Order Document is held to be illegal, invalid or unenforceable, then (i) such provision will be reformed to cure or remove such defect and if not reformed will be severed, (ii) the legality, validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions will not be affected or impaired, and (iii) the parties will endeavor in good faith to replace the severed provisions with valid provisions of the same or similar economic effect. The invalidity of a provision in a particular jurisdiction will not render unenforceable such provision in any other jurisdiction. No amendment or modification to the Order Documents will be effective unless specifically agreed in a writing signed by Seller</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IN NO EVENT WILL THE LHC BE LIABLE TO ANY THIRD PARTY FOR ANY SPECIAL , COLLATERAL , INDIRECT , INCIDENTAL , CONSEQUENTIAL , EXEMPLARY , PUNITIVE , OR ENHANCED DAMAGES ( " EXCLUDED DAMAGES " ) .
EXCLUDED DAMAGES INCLUDE COSTS OF INSPECTION , REMOVAL , AND REPLACEMENT COSTS , REPROCUREMENT COSTS ( INCLUDING MAGRATHEA 'S ADMINISTRATIVE AND PERSONNEL COSTS ) OF REPLACEMENT OR SUBSTITUTE PLANETS , LOSS OF GOODWILL , LOSS OF REVENUE OR PROFITS , AND LOSS OF USE , WITHOUT REGARD TO WHETHER LHC HAS BEEN NOTIFIED IN ADVANCE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF ANY SUCH CLAIM OR DAMAGE.Blah blah blah , there 's too much YELLING in this post .
Here 's some junk for the filter : This Agreement will be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective permitted successors and assigns .
Buyer may not assign this Agreement in any respect without the prior written consent of Seller .
Seller may assign this Agreement , in whole or in part , or any of its rights or obligations hereunder without notice to or consent by Buyer .
Seller may subcontract manufacturing or other work as to any or all Products without notice to or consent of Buyer .
The failure of a party to enforce any right hereunder shall not waive that or any other right .
If any provision of any Order Document is held to be illegal , invalid or unenforceable , then ( i ) such provision will be reformed to cure or remove such defect and if not reformed will be severed , ( ii ) the legality , validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions will not be affected or impaired , and ( iii ) the parties will endeavor in good faith to replace the severed provisions with valid provisions of the same or similar economic effect .
The invalidity of a provision in a particular jurisdiction will not render unenforceable such provision in any other jurisdiction .
No amendment or modification to the Order Documents will be effective unless specifically agreed in a writing signed by Seller</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IN NO EVENT WILL THE LHC BE LIABLE TO ANY THIRD PARTY FOR ANY SPECIAL, COLLATERAL, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, EXEMPLARY, PUNITIVE, OR ENHANCED DAMAGES ("EXCLUDED DAMAGES").
EXCLUDED DAMAGES INCLUDE COSTS OF INSPECTION, REMOVAL, AND REPLACEMENT COSTS, REPROCUREMENT COSTS (INCLUDING MAGRATHEA'S ADMINISTRATIVE AND PERSONNEL COSTS) OF REPLACEMENT OR SUBSTITUTE PLANETS, LOSS OF GOODWILL, LOSS OF REVENUE OR PROFITS, AND LOSS OF USE, WITHOUT REGARD TO WHETHER LHC HAS BEEN NOTIFIED IN ADVANCE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF ANY SUCH CLAIM OR DAMAGE.Blah blah blah, there's too much YELLING in this post.
Here's some junk for the filter: This Agreement will be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective permitted successors and assigns.
Buyer may not assign this Agreement in any respect without the prior written consent of Seller.
Seller may assign this Agreement, in whole or in part, or any of its rights or obligations hereunder without notice to or consent by Buyer.
Seller may subcontract manufacturing or other work as to any or all Products without notice to or consent of Buyer.
The failure of a party to enforce any right hereunder shall not waive that or any other right.
If any provision of any Order Document is held to be illegal, invalid or unenforceable, then (i) such provision will be reformed to cure or remove such defect and if not reformed will be severed, (ii) the legality, validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions will not be affected or impaired, and (iii) the parties will endeavor in good faith to replace the severed provisions with valid provisions of the same or similar economic effect.
The invalidity of a provision in a particular jurisdiction will not render unenforceable such provision in any other jurisdiction.
No amendment or modification to the Order Documents will be effective unless specifically agreed in a writing signed by Seller</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666450</id>
	<title>CERN Analysis</title>
	<author>RAMMS+EIN</author>
	<datestamp>1262721300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>``But most worrying of all, it points out that the safety analyses so far have all been done by CERN itself.''</p><p>If we say it's dangerous, we don't get funding. We lose.</p><p>If we say it's safe and we're right, we get funding. We win.</p><p>If we say it's safe and we're wrong, we'll all be dead and it won't matter.</p><p>Therefore, we're gonna say it's safe.</p><p>Not saying that there is any risk that LHC will destroy Earth, nor that I believe CERN's analysis went that way, nor even that I believe that CERN really was the only party doing the safety analysis. But having one party assess the safety of its own planned activities, without any independent verification, is a bad idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>` ` But most worrying of all , it points out that the safety analyses so far have all been done by CERN itself .
''If we say it 's dangerous , we do n't get funding .
We lose.If we say it 's safe and we 're right , we get funding .
We win.If we say it 's safe and we 're wrong , we 'll all be dead and it wo n't matter.Therefore , we 're gon na say it 's safe.Not saying that there is any risk that LHC will destroy Earth , nor that I believe CERN 's analysis went that way , nor even that I believe that CERN really was the only party doing the safety analysis .
But having one party assess the safety of its own planned activities , without any independent verification , is a bad idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>``But most worrying of all, it points out that the safety analyses so far have all been done by CERN itself.
''If we say it's dangerous, we don't get funding.
We lose.If we say it's safe and we're right, we get funding.
We win.If we say it's safe and we're wrong, we'll all be dead and it won't matter.Therefore, we're gonna say it's safe.Not saying that there is any risk that LHC will destroy Earth, nor that I believe CERN's analysis went that way, nor even that I believe that CERN really was the only party doing the safety analysis.
But having one party assess the safety of its own planned activities, without any independent verification, is a bad idea.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666418</id>
	<title>Re:In a way I blame certain scientists</title>
	<author>razvan784</author>
	<datestamp>1262720880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Electrons and quarks are NOT singularities, they're described by wave equations. They're not balls or points or anything like that either. They are "spread out" in space and time if you will. Only because they have significant momentum due to thermal motion, their spread is so small they look like points. If you cool them down to fractions of a kelvin you get Bose-Einstein condensates that actually do look like waves.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Electrons and quarks are NOT singularities , they 're described by wave equations .
They 're not balls or points or anything like that either .
They are " spread out " in space and time if you will .
Only because they have significant momentum due to thermal motion , their spread is so small they look like points .
If you cool them down to fractions of a kelvin you get Bose-Einstein condensates that actually do look like waves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Electrons and quarks are NOT singularities, they're described by wave equations.
They're not balls or points or anything like that either.
They are "spread out" in space and time if you will.
Only because they have significant momentum due to thermal motion, their spread is so small they look like points.
If you cool them down to fractions of a kelvin you get Bose-Einstein condensates that actually do look like waves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30671330</id>
	<title>Re:US LAW ?</title>
	<author>delt0r</author>
	<datestamp>1262800320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A large chuck of the LHC funding is from the US.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A large chuck of the LHC funding is from the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A large chuck of the LHC funding is from the US.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666404</id>
	<title>Re:We'll save the justice system first....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262720760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I volunteer to be the plaintiff on this "lifeboat".  Or a member of the Jury.  Or one of the lawyers.  Or the judge.  Or the bailiff.  Or one of the pilots.  Or a member of the cleaning crew.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I volunteer to be the plaintiff on this " lifeboat " .
Or a member of the Jury .
Or one of the lawyers .
Or the judge .
Or the bailiff .
Or one of the pilots .
Or a member of the cleaning crew .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I volunteer to be the plaintiff on this "lifeboat".
Or a member of the Jury.
Or one of the lawyers.
Or the judge.
Or the bailiff.
Or one of the pilots.
Or a member of the cleaning crew.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30668718</id>
	<title>Re:STFU</title>
	<author>Kopachris</author>
	<datestamp>1262788980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thank you!  I wish I got here sooner so that I could have gotten that 5, Insightful.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you !
I wish I got here sooner so that I could have gotten that 5 , Insightful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you!
I wish I got here sooner so that I could have gotten that 5, Insightful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30669208</id>
	<title>repost</title>
	<author>HollyMolly-1122</author>
	<datestamp>1262791980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Black hole - is that the top of the mankind capabilities they could "create" ? Why nobody was able to find any alien civilizations yet ? - That's because of there are black holes in place of them now.... Why not ? For every small problem with collider smart scientists say: ohh well, - we didn't account for that small issue. Keeping things this way, there could appear the moment when there is nobody left to say: ohh, - we didn't account for that small issue. 99\% of population are delegating their future and safety to the remaining 1\%. They also hope that this 1\% knows all possible consequences. Isn't that scary ? If present science are so sure about all possible consequences of creating black holes using Large Hadron Collider or any collider that size, than why any expirements needed ? How theese government founded scientists can guarantee any HollyDolly mother, that she's childs are in safe place, if they are going to create something that they know nothing about ? Especially if this nothing has one way information flow. Information can enter black hole but can't escape. Especially if this nothing has recommended self as dangerous thing to be played with ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Black hole - is that the top of the mankind capabilities they could " create " ?
Why nobody was able to find any alien civilizations yet ?
- That 's because of there are black holes in place of them now.... Why not ?
For every small problem with collider smart scientists say : ohh well , - we did n't account for that small issue .
Keeping things this way , there could appear the moment when there is nobody left to say : ohh , - we did n't account for that small issue .
99 \ % of population are delegating their future and safety to the remaining 1 \ % .
They also hope that this 1 \ % knows all possible consequences .
Is n't that scary ?
If present science are so sure about all possible consequences of creating black holes using Large Hadron Collider or any collider that size , than why any expirements needed ?
How theese government founded scientists can guarantee any HollyDolly mother , that she 's childs are in safe place , if they are going to create something that they know nothing about ?
Especially if this nothing has one way information flow .
Information can enter black hole but ca n't escape .
Especially if this nothing has recommended self as dangerous thing to be played with ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Black hole - is that the top of the mankind capabilities they could "create" ?
Why nobody was able to find any alien civilizations yet ?
- That's because of there are black holes in place of them now.... Why not ?
For every small problem with collider smart scientists say: ohh well, - we didn't account for that small issue.
Keeping things this way, there could appear the moment when there is nobody left to say: ohh, - we didn't account for that small issue.
99\% of population are delegating their future and safety to the remaining 1\%.
They also hope that this 1\% knows all possible consequences.
Isn't that scary ?
If present science are so sure about all possible consequences of creating black holes using Large Hadron Collider or any collider that size, than why any expirements needed ?
How theese government founded scientists can guarantee any HollyDolly mother, that she's childs are in safe place, if they are going to create something that they know nothing about ?
Especially if this nothing has one way information flow.
Information can enter black hole but can't escape.
Especially if this nothing has recommended self as dangerous thing to be played with ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30667714</id>
	<title>Re:We'll save the justice system first....</title>
	<author>st0nes</author>
	<datestamp>1262780220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>we will of course launch into space a "lifeboat" containing a judge, defense and plaintiff lawyers, Rusty the Bailiff to keep everyone in line, and one token normal person to be the plaintiff.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Would that be the "B" ship?  What about the hairdressers and telephone sanitizers?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>we will of course launch into space a " lifeboat " containing a judge , defense and plaintiff lawyers , Rusty the Bailiff to keep everyone in line , and one token normal person to be the plaintiff .
Would that be the " B " ship ?
What about the hairdressers and telephone sanitizers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we will of course launch into space a "lifeboat" containing a judge, defense and plaintiff lawyers, Rusty the Bailiff to keep everyone in line, and one token normal person to be the plaintiff.
Would that be the "B" ship?
What about the hairdressers and telephone sanitizers?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30670204</id>
	<title>Re:In a way I blame certain scientists</title>
	<author>BetterSense</author>
	<datestamp>1262796240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can't just decide that the issue of wave-particle duality is solved and declare electrons to be waves, and unparticles in any useful sense. Electrons are particles in many useful senses. You can count them, they have a certain amount of charge, and they have a measurable mass. Heck, they even have a 'spin'. There are massless entities like photons that are are much 'wavier'. Photons have a momentum, but at least they don't have mass, charge, or spin.<br><br>Oh, and electrons are yellow, I don't care what anyone else says. Yellow!</htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't just decide that the issue of wave-particle duality is solved and declare electrons to be waves , and unparticles in any useful sense .
Electrons are particles in many useful senses .
You can count them , they have a certain amount of charge , and they have a measurable mass .
Heck , they even have a 'spin' .
There are massless entities like photons that are are much 'wavier' .
Photons have a momentum , but at least they do n't have mass , charge , or spin.Oh , and electrons are yellow , I do n't care what anyone else says .
Yellow !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't just decide that the issue of wave-particle duality is solved and declare electrons to be waves, and unparticles in any useful sense.
Electrons are particles in many useful senses.
You can count them, they have a certain amount of charge, and they have a measurable mass.
Heck, they even have a 'spin'.
There are massless entities like photons that are are much 'wavier'.
Photons have a momentum, but at least they don't have mass, charge, or spin.Oh, and electrons are yellow, I don't care what anyone else says.
Yellow!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666018</id>
	<title>Re:I don't think this is worth doing.</title>
	<author>martin-boundary</author>
	<datestamp>1262717100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nonsense! Everyone knows that in the event that the Earth is destroyed, jurisdiction will be handled
by the Court Of Final Judgement, the Hon. F.S. Monster presiding. So you'll just have to make
your case in front of him. But I should warn you, F.S. frowns upon worldly goods, and if you
start talking about lost assets, you'll probably get "burned".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nonsense !
Everyone knows that in the event that the Earth is destroyed , jurisdiction will be handled by the Court Of Final Judgement , the Hon .
F.S. Monster presiding .
So you 'll just have to make your case in front of him .
But I should warn you , F.S .
frowns upon worldly goods , and if you start talking about lost assets , you 'll probably get " burned " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nonsense!
Everyone knows that in the event that the Earth is destroyed, jurisdiction will be handled
by the Court Of Final Judgement, the Hon.
F.S. Monster presiding.
So you'll just have to make
your case in front of him.
But I should warn you, F.S.
frowns upon worldly goods, and if you
start talking about lost assets, you'll probably get "burned".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30668436</id>
	<title>Event horizon</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1262787180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>electrons and quarks don't have a size, they're singularities.</p></div><p>Every singularity has a size, namely that of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic\_censorship\_hypothesis" title="wikipedia.org">its surrounding event horizon</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>electrons and quarks do n't have a size , they 're singularities.Every singularity has a size , namely that of its surrounding event horizon [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>electrons and quarks don't have a size, they're singularities.Every singularity has a size, namely that of its surrounding event horizon [wikipedia.org].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30668344</id>
	<title>Choosing which parts to believe?</title>
	<author>Lemming Mark</author>
	<datestamp>1262786400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why believe only the parts of the maths that sound dangerous if the same scientific work also says that it's *not* dangerous?  That's just like taking a sentence of somebody's speech and quoting it out of context.  If the argument is "but the maths might be wrong" then you might as well disbelieve it all, which a) means that you've eliminated the suggestion of danger in the first place b) means that if you want to argue *anything* you need to come up with some new maths to prove them wrong (and revolutionise the discipline of Physics, get a guaranteed Nobel Prize and be remembered as the saviour of mankind for thousands of years)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why believe only the parts of the maths that sound dangerous if the same scientific work also says that it 's * not * dangerous ?
That 's just like taking a sentence of somebody 's speech and quoting it out of context .
If the argument is " but the maths might be wrong " then you might as well disbelieve it all , which a ) means that you 've eliminated the suggestion of danger in the first place b ) means that if you want to argue * anything * you need to come up with some new maths to prove them wrong ( and revolutionise the discipline of Physics , get a guaranteed Nobel Prize and be remembered as the saviour of mankind for thousands of years )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why believe only the parts of the maths that sound dangerous if the same scientific work also says that it's *not* dangerous?
That's just like taking a sentence of somebody's speech and quoting it out of context.
If the argument is "but the maths might be wrong" then you might as well disbelieve it all, which a) means that you've eliminated the suggestion of danger in the first place b) means that if you want to argue *anything* you need to come up with some new maths to prove them wrong (and revolutionise the discipline of Physics, get a guaranteed Nobel Prize and be remembered as the saviour of mankind for thousands of years)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665794</id>
	<title>These arguments could be used with AGW too.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262714700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seems to me the same arguments could be made for the "expert witnesses" (and if you take the Climate-Change-will-destroy-humanity crowd at their word, the cost-benefit analysis as well) in the AGW debate.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems to me the same arguments could be made for the " expert witnesses " ( and if you take the Climate-Change-will-destroy-humanity crowd at their word , the cost-benefit analysis as well ) in the AGW debate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems to me the same arguments could be made for the "expert witnesses" (and if you take the Climate-Change-will-destroy-humanity crowd at their word, the cost-benefit analysis as well) in the AGW debate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30669260</id>
	<title>Re:STFU</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262792160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The scientists care about their lives to. They don't want to die anymore than you or I do. I count on them to engineer something that won't destroy the Earth for that reason.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The scientists care about their lives to .
They do n't want to die anymore than you or I do .
I count on them to engineer something that wo n't destroy the Earth for that reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The scientists care about their lives to.
They don't want to die anymore than you or I do.
I count on them to engineer something that won't destroy the Earth for that reason.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666162</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting and sobering.</title>
	<author>mevets</author>
	<datestamp>1262718300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a species, we have already significantly 'damaged' the earth.  The 'earth' isn't the issue, the habitability of the planet by people is the issue.   We have damaged that more.<br>The earth doesn't matter, other than as it applies to us (inhabitants, not people from the USA).  Unfortunately, we still can't tell if we will all die because we collapsed the plankton, polluted the air, depleted the climate buffers, or whatever our next clever trick is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a species , we have already significantly 'damaged ' the earth .
The 'earth ' is n't the issue , the habitability of the planet by people is the issue .
We have damaged that more.The earth does n't matter , other than as it applies to us ( inhabitants , not people from the USA ) .
Unfortunately , we still ca n't tell if we will all die because we collapsed the plankton , polluted the air , depleted the climate buffers , or whatever our next clever trick is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a species, we have already significantly 'damaged' the earth.
The 'earth' isn't the issue, the habitability of the planet by people is the issue.
We have damaged that more.The earth doesn't matter, other than as it applies to us (inhabitants, not people from the USA).
Unfortunately, we still can't tell if we will all die because we collapsed the plankton, polluted the air, depleted the climate buffers, or whatever our next clever trick is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30668036</id>
	<title>Re:We'll save the justice system first....</title>
	<author>Rigrig</author>
	<datestamp>1262783640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about we preemptively launch those lawyers into space right now, just to be on the safe side?<br>After all, this LHC sounds at least as dangerous as a mutant star goat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about we preemptively launch those lawyers into space right now , just to be on the safe side ? After all , this LHC sounds at least as dangerous as a mutant star goat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about we preemptively launch those lawyers into space right now, just to be on the safe side?After all, this LHC sounds at least as dangerous as a mutant star goat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30669270</id>
	<title>Re:We'll save the justice system first....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262792220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>it's a runon</p></div></blockquote><p>Is that one of those hypothetical particles that the LHC is supposed to detect?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's a runonIs that one of those hypothetical particles that the LHC is supposed to detect ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's a runonIs that one of those hypothetical particles that the LHC is supposed to detect?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30668976</id>
	<title>Re:STFU</title>
	<author>radtea</author>
	<datestamp>1262790720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>That's entirely the attitude the article addresses: hubris. </i></p><p>You mean the hubris of the arrogant idiots who are putting the entire world at risk with their endless legalistics promotion of irrational fears and fantasy scenarios?</p><p>How do you know that the very act of posting this arrogant and uninformed response won't bring about the end of civilization?  Show me the proof that it is safe for you to post here.  I'm waiting.</p><p>This is the problem:  scientists are being held to a standard by arrogant idiot lawyers (but I repeat myself) that they do not hold themselves too.  The cowards who pretend to be so concerned about this particular incredibly implausible scenario are somehow silent when it comes to the massive risks to others entailed by their own behaviour.</p><p>We know that civilizations have ended due to becoming moribund with legalistic bureacracy.  How do you know you aren't in the process of killing ours?  And when your self-aggrandizing antics result in social collapse, who pays?</p><p>Once you've answered that, you can start calling other people arrogant.  Until then, people who have dedicated their lives to deepening human understanding of the universe will know you for what you are:  a cowardly hypocrite, who fears the imaginary consequences of other's actions while never examining the far more probable negative consequences of their own.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's entirely the attitude the article addresses : hubris .
You mean the hubris of the arrogant idiots who are putting the entire world at risk with their endless legalistics promotion of irrational fears and fantasy scenarios ? How do you know that the very act of posting this arrogant and uninformed response wo n't bring about the end of civilization ?
Show me the proof that it is safe for you to post here .
I 'm waiting.This is the problem : scientists are being held to a standard by arrogant idiot lawyers ( but I repeat myself ) that they do not hold themselves too .
The cowards who pretend to be so concerned about this particular incredibly implausible scenario are somehow silent when it comes to the massive risks to others entailed by their own behaviour.We know that civilizations have ended due to becoming moribund with legalistic bureacracy .
How do you know you are n't in the process of killing ours ?
And when your self-aggrandizing antics result in social collapse , who pays ? Once you 've answered that , you can start calling other people arrogant .
Until then , people who have dedicated their lives to deepening human understanding of the universe will know you for what you are : a cowardly hypocrite , who fears the imaginary consequences of other 's actions while never examining the far more probable negative consequences of their own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's entirely the attitude the article addresses: hubris.
You mean the hubris of the arrogant idiots who are putting the entire world at risk with their endless legalistics promotion of irrational fears and fantasy scenarios?How do you know that the very act of posting this arrogant and uninformed response won't bring about the end of civilization?
Show me the proof that it is safe for you to post here.
I'm waiting.This is the problem:  scientists are being held to a standard by arrogant idiot lawyers (but I repeat myself) that they do not hold themselves too.
The cowards who pretend to be so concerned about this particular incredibly implausible scenario are somehow silent when it comes to the massive risks to others entailed by their own behaviour.We know that civilizations have ended due to becoming moribund with legalistic bureacracy.
How do you know you aren't in the process of killing ours?
And when your self-aggrandizing antics result in social collapse, who pays?Once you've answered that, you can start calling other people arrogant.
Until then, people who have dedicated their lives to deepening human understanding of the universe will know you for what you are:  a cowardly hypocrite, who fears the imaginary consequences of other's actions while never examining the far more probable negative consequences of their own.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666172</id>
	<title>Inappropriate use of cost-benefit analysis</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262718360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost-benefit\_analysis" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Cost-benefit analysis</a> [wikipedia.org] is inappropriate for an experiment like that in that the worst-case undesirable outcome would result in everyone being dead. A <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk-benefit\_analysis" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Risk-benefit analysis</a> [wikipedia.org] is the preferred method of determining if an experiment is ethical.</p><p>Let us imagine we were doing an analysis of the following game - Someone will pay you one million dollars to take a single bullet, load it into a six shot revolver, spin the cylinder and then point the gun to your head and pull the trigger. A cost-benefit analysis says you shouldn't do this - the risk is your life, or 100\% vs one million dollars. On the other hand, a risk-benefit analysis says you have a 83.33\% chance of walking away with one million dollars, which is a pretty good bet (admit it, you'd probably do it.)</p><p>The LHC is similar. Even the nay-sayers agree the chances of something cataclysmic happening is very low. On the other end, the things we learn about the inner workings of the universe and strange particles could improve life for everyone on earth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cost-benefit analysis [ wikipedia.org ] is inappropriate for an experiment like that in that the worst-case undesirable outcome would result in everyone being dead .
A Risk-benefit analysis [ wikipedia.org ] is the preferred method of determining if an experiment is ethical.Let us imagine we were doing an analysis of the following game - Someone will pay you one million dollars to take a single bullet , load it into a six shot revolver , spin the cylinder and then point the gun to your head and pull the trigger .
A cost-benefit analysis says you should n't do this - the risk is your life , or 100 \ % vs one million dollars .
On the other hand , a risk-benefit analysis says you have a 83.33 \ % chance of walking away with one million dollars , which is a pretty good bet ( admit it , you 'd probably do it .
) The LHC is similar .
Even the nay-sayers agree the chances of something cataclysmic happening is very low .
On the other end , the things we learn about the inner workings of the universe and strange particles could improve life for everyone on earth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cost-benefit analysis [wikipedia.org] is inappropriate for an experiment like that in that the worst-case undesirable outcome would result in everyone being dead.
A Risk-benefit analysis [wikipedia.org] is the preferred method of determining if an experiment is ethical.Let us imagine we were doing an analysis of the following game - Someone will pay you one million dollars to take a single bullet, load it into a six shot revolver, spin the cylinder and then point the gun to your head and pull the trigger.
A cost-benefit analysis says you shouldn't do this - the risk is your life, or 100\% vs one million dollars.
On the other hand, a risk-benefit analysis says you have a 83.33\% chance of walking away with one million dollars, which is a pretty good bet (admit it, you'd probably do it.
)The LHC is similar.
Even the nay-sayers agree the chances of something cataclysmic happening is very low.
On the other end, the things we learn about the inner workings of the universe and strange particles could improve life for everyone on earth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30676200</id>
	<title>Re:Common sense required; hopeless...</title>
	<author>aminorex</author>
	<datestamp>1262778420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your logic leaks like a sieve of Eratosthenes.  The fact that two events have similar energies does not make them equivalent, any more that the fact that I weigh the same that you do means that I can sleep with your wife.  5kg of watermelon and 5kg of plutonium behave very differently when compressed.  A few TeV in a cosmic ray isn't going to create a strangelet that crystallizes the earth into dark matter, but a few TeV in the LHC... nobody knows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your logic leaks like a sieve of Eratosthenes .
The fact that two events have similar energies does not make them equivalent , any more that the fact that I weigh the same that you do means that I can sleep with your wife .
5kg of watermelon and 5kg of plutonium behave very differently when compressed .
A few TeV in a cosmic ray is n't going to create a strangelet that crystallizes the earth into dark matter , but a few TeV in the LHC... nobody knows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your logic leaks like a sieve of Eratosthenes.
The fact that two events have similar energies does not make them equivalent, any more that the fact that I weigh the same that you do means that I can sleep with your wife.
5kg of watermelon and 5kg of plutonium behave very differently when compressed.
A few TeV in a cosmic ray isn't going to create a strangelet that crystallizes the earth into dark matter, but a few TeV in the LHC... nobody knows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665984</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665720</id>
	<title>Are you kidding?</title>
	<author>The Wild Norseman</author>
	<datestamp>1262714100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Everyone knows that after the Earth is destroyed and humanity is wiped off the face of the planet, there will still be cockroaches and lawyers around.
<br> <br> <b>Bailiff:  All rise!  Judge Periplaneta americana Linnaeus now presiding!</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone knows that after the Earth is destroyed and humanity is wiped off the face of the planet , there will still be cockroaches and lawyers around .
Bailiff : All rise !
Judge Periplaneta americana Linnaeus now presiding !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone knows that after the Earth is destroyed and humanity is wiped off the face of the planet, there will still be cockroaches and lawyers around.
Bailiff:  All rise!
Judge Periplaneta americana Linnaeus now presiding!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30669798</id>
	<title>Re:In a way I blame certain scientists</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262794800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, it's pretty hard to distinguish our idea of an elementary particle from a black hole with the same mass and force charges.  What feature of electrons and quarks is it that you think is distinct from a black hole?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , it 's pretty hard to distinguish our idea of an elementary particle from a black hole with the same mass and force charges .
What feature of electrons and quarks is it that you think is distinct from a black hole ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, it's pretty hard to distinguish our idea of an elementary particle from a black hole with the same mass and force charges.
What feature of electrons and quarks is it that you think is distinct from a black hole?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30677788</id>
	<title>On the flipside</title>
	<author>nintendoeats</author>
	<datestamp>1262788380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My internal philosophy majour Is absolutely fascinated by this whole idea. The ethical complexities (and how we have decided to to put them into law) are totally cool, though perhaps in a rather morbid way. Forget the science: How do we deal with potential no-win scenarioes and, more interestingly, how scalable is the law?</htmltext>
<tokenext>My internal philosophy majour Is absolutely fascinated by this whole idea .
The ethical complexities ( and how we have decided to to put them into law ) are totally cool , though perhaps in a rather morbid way .
Forget the science : How do we deal with potential no-win scenarioes and , more interestingly , how scalable is the law ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My internal philosophy majour Is absolutely fascinated by this whole idea.
The ethical complexities (and how we have decided to to put them into law) are totally cool, though perhaps in a rather morbid way.
Forget the science: How do we deal with potential no-win scenarioes and, more interestingly, how scalable is the law?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666804</id>
	<title>Re:US LAW ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262769000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sweden?? Sweden is NOT the same as "Switzerland"...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sweden ? ?
Sweden is NOT the same as " Switzerland " .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sweden??
Sweden is NOT the same as "Switzerland"...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30678502</id>
	<title>What government institution can decide ?</title>
	<author>HollyMolly-1122</author>
	<datestamp>1262794320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The properties of "can" is rather limited.
The only decidement that can be made: Let's wait for results of experiment by the world !</htmltext>
<tokenext>The properties of " can " is rather limited .
The only decidement that can be made : Let 's wait for results of experiment by the world !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The properties of "can" is rather limited.
The only decidement that can be made: Let's wait for results of experiment by the world !</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30676316</id>
	<title>Re:US LAW ?</title>
	<author>mhelander</author>
	<datestamp>1262778960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What if lower energy collision makes it *more* likely for an eventual black hole to hang around and start swallowing stuff? Do you have a completely solid reason why this could not be the case?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What if lower energy collision makes it * more * likely for an eventual black hole to hang around and start swallowing stuff ?
Do you have a completely solid reason why this could not be the case ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if lower energy collision makes it *more* likely for an eventual black hole to hang around and start swallowing stuff?
Do you have a completely solid reason why this could not be the case?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30667426</id>
	<title>lawyers in charge of science experiments?</title>
	<author>Rick Bentley</author>
	<datestamp>1262776980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sure, let's put lawyers in charge of science experiments.  After that, imploding into a black would be a relief.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , let 's put lawyers in charge of science experiments .
After that , imploding into a black would be a relief .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, let's put lawyers in charge of science experiments.
After that, imploding into a black would be a relief.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30668216</id>
	<title>Quite</title>
	<author>Viol8</author>
	<datestamp>1262785320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Physicists keep telling everyone this but the knuckle draggers and pig ignorant arts graduates just keep on whining away anyway.</p><p>Though its the usual story - anything scientific that isn't commonplace and they don't understand they automatically don't like whether it be GM crops, MMR vaccines, stem cell research etc etc.</p><p>Morons , the lot of them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Physicists keep telling everyone this but the knuckle draggers and pig ignorant arts graduates just keep on whining away anyway.Though its the usual story - anything scientific that is n't commonplace and they do n't understand they automatically do n't like whether it be GM crops , MMR vaccines , stem cell research etc etc.Morons , the lot of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Physicists keep telling everyone this but the knuckle draggers and pig ignorant arts graduates just keep on whining away anyway.Though its the usual story - anything scientific that isn't commonplace and they don't understand they automatically don't like whether it be GM crops, MMR vaccines, stem cell research etc etc.Morons , the lot of them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30670486</id>
	<title>Re:STFU</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262797260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And no one will prove you wrong!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And no one will prove you wrong !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And no one will prove you wrong!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666354</id>
	<title>What happens ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262720160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> if you take 3 minature black holes and place them into the horadic cube ?</p><p>Problem solved?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if you take 3 minature black holes and place them into the horadic cube ? Problem solved ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> if you take 3 minature black holes and place them into the horadic cube ?Problem solved?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30669314</id>
	<title>Rubbish!</title>
	<author>whoisisis</author>
	<datestamp>1262792400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Will people please get into their heads that if the LHC could generate an earth absorbing black hole,<br>we would not have been around to build it. The sort of events that happen in the LHC happen in the atmosphere<br>every day because of cosmic radiation. The LHC just takes a closer look at this process, at much lower energies<br>than what nature can produce.</p><p>I'm tired of these wild speculations of black holes emerging from the LHC. Get over it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Will people please get into their heads that if the LHC could generate an earth absorbing black hole,we would not have been around to build it .
The sort of events that happen in the LHC happen in the atmosphereevery day because of cosmic radiation .
The LHC just takes a closer look at this process , at much lower energiesthan what nature can produce.I 'm tired of these wild speculations of black holes emerging from the LHC .
Get over it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will people please get into their heads that if the LHC could generate an earth absorbing black hole,we would not have been around to build it.
The sort of events that happen in the LHC happen in the atmosphereevery day because of cosmic radiation.
The LHC just takes a closer look at this process, at much lower energiesthan what nature can produce.I'm tired of these wild speculations of black holes emerging from the LHC.
Get over it!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30669394</id>
	<title>Generic question</title>
	<author>HollyMolly-1122</author>
	<datestamp>1262792820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Future of the world by experiment: isn't that topic for global voting ? Doesn't this account for everybody's safety on this green yet planet ? Who was asking any mother - do she wants their childs being placed under unique experiment with their future being here ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Future of the world by experiment : is n't that topic for global voting ?
Does n't this account for everybody 's safety on this green yet planet ?
Who was asking any mother - do she wants their childs being placed under unique experiment with their future being here ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Future of the world by experiment: isn't that topic for global voting ?
Doesn't this account for everybody's safety on this green yet planet ?
Who was asking any mother - do she wants their childs being placed under unique experiment with their future being here ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30669290</id>
	<title>Maybe the scientists are worried too</title>
	<author>qmaqdk</author>
	<datestamp>1262792280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One would think the scientists are at least as worried about their lives as they are about their livelihood.</p><p>Can you imagine them saying "Let's destroy the planet so that we can get this grant."?</p><p>Doesn't really make any sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One would think the scientists are at least as worried about their lives as they are about their livelihood.Can you imagine them saying " Let 's destroy the planet so that we can get this grant .
" ? Does n't really make any sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One would think the scientists are at least as worried about their lives as they are about their livelihood.Can you imagine them saying "Let's destroy the planet so that we can get this grant.
"?Doesn't really make any sense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666928</id>
	<title>Re:CERN Analysis</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262771100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If we say it's safe and we're wrong, we'll all be dead and it won't matter.</p></div><p>Uhm, it won't matter? Well legally maybe, but you know, scientist at CERN are not some crazy mad scientists with a deathwish for themselves and everybody else. It's not like they say "Hmm, well, the earth will probably be destroyed, but that means I don't have to go to that boring annual tea party in june. Ah, what the heck, let's say it's safe". It would be more like "Uhm, guys, check these calculations, we'd better send this to mr big boss NOW, since if we go to higher energies we might fuck things up"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If we say it 's safe and we 're wrong , we 'll all be dead and it wo n't matter.Uhm , it wo n't matter ?
Well legally maybe , but you know , scientist at CERN are not some crazy mad scientists with a deathwish for themselves and everybody else .
It 's not like they say " Hmm , well , the earth will probably be destroyed , but that means I do n't have to go to that boring annual tea party in june .
Ah , what the heck , let 's say it 's safe " .
It would be more like " Uhm , guys , check these calculations , we 'd better send this to mr big boss NOW , since if we go to higher energies we might fuck things up "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we say it's safe and we're wrong, we'll all be dead and it won't matter.Uhm, it won't matter?
Well legally maybe, but you know, scientist at CERN are not some crazy mad scientists with a deathwish for themselves and everybody else.
It's not like they say "Hmm, well, the earth will probably be destroyed, but that means I don't have to go to that boring annual tea party in june.
Ah, what the heck, let's say it's safe".
It would be more like "Uhm, guys, check these calculations, we'd better send this to mr big boss NOW, since if we go to higher energies we might fuck things up"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30669222</id>
	<title>Re:STFU</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1262791980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's the same argument as (the flawed) Pascal's Wager - "As long as the chance is non-zero of something infinitely bad happening, the cost is still infinite".</p><p>The problem is that your argument could apply to anything. I could assert that there's a chance, no matter how small, that you posting to Slashdot will cause the planet to blow up.</p><p>So, in the absence of evidence for that assertion, should we waste time having endless legal debates about it? Should you even be prevented from posting to Slashdot, just in case?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the same argument as ( the flawed ) Pascal 's Wager - " As long as the chance is non-zero of something infinitely bad happening , the cost is still infinite " .The problem is that your argument could apply to anything .
I could assert that there 's a chance , no matter how small , that you posting to Slashdot will cause the planet to blow up.So , in the absence of evidence for that assertion , should we waste time having endless legal debates about it ?
Should you even be prevented from posting to Slashdot , just in case ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the same argument as (the flawed) Pascal's Wager - "As long as the chance is non-zero of something infinitely bad happening, the cost is still infinite".The problem is that your argument could apply to anything.
I could assert that there's a chance, no matter how small, that you posting to Slashdot will cause the planet to blow up.So, in the absence of evidence for that assertion, should we waste time having endless legal debates about it?
Should you even be prevented from posting to Slashdot, just in case?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666456</id>
	<title>Re:US LAW ?</title>
	<author>dmartin</author>
	<datestamp>1262721360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Who cares what the American law says ? Its built by CERN, its in the France-Switzerland border<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div></blockquote><p>Followed by</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Whoa there bucko. Sweden is next to France?!</p></div><p>No, but <b>Switzerland</b> is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.......</p><p><a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?client=safari&amp;q=France&amp;oe=UTF-8&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;hl=en&amp;hq=&amp;hnear=France&amp;ll=46.483265,6.394043&amp;spn=8.941327,23.291016&amp;z=6" title="google.com">Map of France/Switzerland</a> [google.com]<br>Wikipedia entry on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden" title="wikipedia.org">Sweden</a> [wikipedia.org].<br>Wikipedia entry on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland" title="wikipedia.org">Switzerland</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who cares what the American law says ?
Its built by CERN , its in the France-Switzerland border ...Followed byWhoa there bucko .
Sweden is next to France ?
! No , but Switzerland is .......Map of France/Switzerland [ google.com ] Wikipedia entry on Sweden [ wikipedia.org ] .Wikipedia entry on Switzerland [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who cares what the American law says ?
Its built by CERN, its in the France-Switzerland border ...Followed byWhoa there bucko.
Sweden is next to France?
!No, but Switzerland is .......Map of France/Switzerland [google.com]Wikipedia entry on Sweden [wikipedia.org].Wikipedia entry on Switzerland [wikipedia.org].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30667992</id>
	<title>Re:oh well</title>
	<author>stjobe</author>
	<datestamp>1262783160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please keep your mythological beliefs to yourself. I don't care what consenting adults do behind locked doors, but to do it in the public's view like this is... disturbing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please keep your mythological beliefs to yourself .
I do n't care what consenting adults do behind locked doors , but to do it in the public 's view like this is... disturbing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please keep your mythological beliefs to yourself.
I don't care what consenting adults do behind locked doors, but to do it in the public's view like this is... disturbing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30676426</id>
	<title>Re:I'm going with the probabilities...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262779800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your wife likes my cocaine filled nuts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your wife likes my cocaine filled nuts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your wife likes my cocaine filled nuts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30667224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30667174</id>
	<title>The real question.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262774160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not about black holes, it's about the creation of the Higg's field. The debate boils down to whether the Higg's particle (messenger particle of the Higg's field) can exist without being observed. If it only comes into existence when it is observed, then the Higg's field will be created by the observers. The function of the Higg's field is to destroy and recreate the universe. That's why the Higg's particle is called the 'god' particle. And that is what they are looking for. Wave function theories fall on two sides; one, that the particle must be observed to exist, two, that there are an infinite number of universes hiving off from  this one every instant, and we exist in the universe where the particle has been observed. If the first scenario is correct, our universe will be recycled and we will not exist. The other prediction is that we will pop up in a universe where an 'accident' has prevented the observation from taking place (it took place in an alternate universe). Of course, the universe we pop up in may be slightly different (worldwide economic collapse, religious wars, 'bama/'sama, palin/putin, climate collapse etc.) I figure it will take another half dozen 'accidents at the LHC before we smell something fishy in Switzerland, and it won't be the cheese.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not about black holes , it 's about the creation of the Higg 's field .
The debate boils down to whether the Higg 's particle ( messenger particle of the Higg 's field ) can exist without being observed .
If it only comes into existence when it is observed , then the Higg 's field will be created by the observers .
The function of the Higg 's field is to destroy and recreate the universe .
That 's why the Higg 's particle is called the 'god ' particle .
And that is what they are looking for .
Wave function theories fall on two sides ; one , that the particle must be observed to exist , two , that there are an infinite number of universes hiving off from this one every instant , and we exist in the universe where the particle has been observed .
If the first scenario is correct , our universe will be recycled and we will not exist .
The other prediction is that we will pop up in a universe where an 'accident ' has prevented the observation from taking place ( it took place in an alternate universe ) .
Of course , the universe we pop up in may be slightly different ( worldwide economic collapse , religious wars , 'bama/'sama , palin/putin , climate collapse etc .
) I figure it will take another half dozen 'accidents at the LHC before we smell something fishy in Switzerland , and it wo n't be the cheese .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not about black holes, it's about the creation of the Higg's field.
The debate boils down to whether the Higg's particle (messenger particle of the Higg's field) can exist without being observed.
If it only comes into existence when it is observed, then the Higg's field will be created by the observers.
The function of the Higg's field is to destroy and recreate the universe.
That's why the Higg's particle is called the 'god' particle.
And that is what they are looking for.
Wave function theories fall on two sides; one, that the particle must be observed to exist, two, that there are an infinite number of universes hiving off from  this one every instant, and we exist in the universe where the particle has been observed.
If the first scenario is correct, our universe will be recycled and we will not exist.
The other prediction is that we will pop up in a universe where an 'accident' has prevented the observation from taking place (it took place in an alternate universe).
Of course, the universe we pop up in may be slightly different (worldwide economic collapse, religious wars, 'bama/'sama, palin/putin, climate collapse etc.
) I figure it will take another half dozen 'accidents at the LHC before we smell something fishy in Switzerland, and it won't be the cheese.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30669998</id>
	<title>Re:False premise</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262795520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some of the most convincing arguments for why the LHC will not destroy the planet come from astronomy anyway.  And astronomers don't really have any vested interest in the LHC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some of the most convincing arguments for why the LHC will not destroy the planet come from astronomy anyway .
And astronomers do n't really have any vested interest in the LHC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some of the most convincing arguments for why the LHC will not destroy the planet come from astronomy anyway.
And astronomers don't really have any vested interest in the LHC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30671158</id>
	<title>Re:oh well</title>
	<author>Sir\_Lewk</author>
	<datestamp>1262799780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with you, within limitation.  Humanity has no point other than attempting to understand the universe.  However, individuals can lead happy lives while completely ignoring those issues.  Not everyone gets off on science.</p><p>If you're not familar with this concept, then I suggest you go get laid.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with you , within limitation .
Humanity has no point other than attempting to understand the universe .
However , individuals can lead happy lives while completely ignoring those issues .
Not everyone gets off on science.If you 're not familar with this concept , then I suggest you go get laid .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with you, within limitation.
Humanity has no point other than attempting to understand the universe.
However, individuals can lead happy lives while completely ignoring those issues.
Not everyone gets off on science.If you're not familar with this concept, then I suggest you go get laid.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30668312</id>
	<title>Re:STFU</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1262786100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; No one really understands string theory<br><br>String theory was never intended to be understood.  It was designed to make the guys who write papers about it sound smart, without requiring them to actually figure anything out about how the universe works.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; No one really understands string theoryString theory was never intended to be understood .
It was designed to make the guys who write papers about it sound smart , without requiring them to actually figure anything out about how the universe works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; No one really understands string theoryString theory was never intended to be understood.
It was designed to make the guys who write papers about it sound smart, without requiring them to actually figure anything out about how the universe works.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30667264</id>
	<title>triumph</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262775240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Attorney tries to triumph a natural law with a judical law. Well, let's see who wins.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Attorney tries to triumph a natural law with a judical law .
Well , let 's see who wins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Attorney tries to triumph a natural law with a judical law.
Well, let's see who wins.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30667250</id>
	<title>Re:We'll save the justice system first....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262775060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <tt>How fast will this lifeboat be traveling? If this lifeboat is to be escaping a black hole.. it'd have to be moving pretty fast.</tt></p> </div><p>No it wouldn't.  The gravity of a black hole the mass of the earth at a given level, is exactly the same as the gravity of the earth.  So the lifeboat would only need to be able to reach earth escape velocity.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How fast will this lifeboat be traveling ?
If this lifeboat is to be escaping a black hole.. it 'd have to be moving pretty fast .
No it would n't .
The gravity of a black hole the mass of the earth at a given level , is exactly the same as the gravity of the earth .
So the lifeboat would only need to be able to reach earth escape velocity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> How fast will this lifeboat be traveling?
If this lifeboat is to be escaping a black hole.. it'd have to be moving pretty fast.
No it wouldn't.
The gravity of a black hole the mass of the earth at a given level, is exactly the same as the gravity of the earth.
So the lifeboat would only need to be able to reach earth escape velocity.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30668004</id>
	<title>MAke a law about nuclear weapons.</title>
	<author>jbssm</author>
	<datestamp>1262783280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would rather see a law about how ALL nations (and I mean all, not just Iran and North Korea) should be strictly forbidden to have any kind of nuclear weapon. That yes, seems to me a real threat to the planet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would rather see a law about how ALL nations ( and I mean all , not just Iran and North Korea ) should be strictly forbidden to have any kind of nuclear weapon .
That yes , seems to me a real threat to the planet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would rather see a law about how ALL nations (and I mean all, not just Iran and North Korea) should be strictly forbidden to have any kind of nuclear weapon.
That yes, seems to me a real threat to the planet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666220</id>
	<title>End of world</title>
	<author>TheLinker</author>
	<datestamp>1262718660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I say to test the LHC on 2012/12/21, so if there is a end of world, we will know (or not)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I say to test the LHC on 2012/12/21 , so if there is a end of world , we will know ( or not )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I say to test the LHC on 2012/12/21, so if there is a end of world, we will know (or not)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665864</id>
	<title>Americans</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262715300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It had to be an American lawyer.  Its a good thing the idiots in this country can't do much about it.  There are idiots everywhere but why do OURS have to be so meddlesome?  Before the first atomic weapons were used some scientists thought that the explosion would consume the entire atmosphere all around the world. One of the things that guy sites as an example of scientists failing to assess the outcome of an experiment is the bomb that was 15 megatons instead of 5.  He claims miscalculations caused it?  Yes miscalculations in the sense that they were pretty much guessing like our scientists are doing to some extent.  This is why they weren't just like, "aight guys, lets put ALL the plutonium in there...the bigger the better right...?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It had to be an American lawyer .
Its a good thing the idiots in this country ca n't do much about it .
There are idiots everywhere but why do OURS have to be so meddlesome ?
Before the first atomic weapons were used some scientists thought that the explosion would consume the entire atmosphere all around the world .
One of the things that guy sites as an example of scientists failing to assess the outcome of an experiment is the bomb that was 15 megatons instead of 5 .
He claims miscalculations caused it ?
Yes miscalculations in the sense that they were pretty much guessing like our scientists are doing to some extent .
This is why they were n't just like , " aight guys , lets put ALL the plutonium in there...the bigger the better right... ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It had to be an American lawyer.
Its a good thing the idiots in this country can't do much about it.
There are idiots everywhere but why do OURS have to be so meddlesome?
Before the first atomic weapons were used some scientists thought that the explosion would consume the entire atmosphere all around the world.
One of the things that guy sites as an example of scientists failing to assess the outcome of an experiment is the bomb that was 15 megatons instead of 5.
He claims miscalculations caused it?
Yes miscalculations in the sense that they were pretty much guessing like our scientists are doing to some extent.
This is why they weren't just like, "aight guys, lets put ALL the plutonium in there...the bigger the better right...?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30675294</id>
	<title>Re:We'll save the justice system first....</title>
	<author>WuphonsReach</author>
	<datestamp>1262774340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Of course, this is relevant because in the event of an LHC-created black hole destroying the planet, we will of course launch into space a "lifeboat" containing a judge, defense and plaintiff lawyers, Rusty the Bailiff to keep everyone in line, and one token normal person to be the plaintiff. Justice will be served no matter what the damage to the planet is.</i> <br>
<br>
So we'll be acting out the "Forge of God" story?<br>
<br>
(End of the book, the young people on the lifeboat style arks are brought to the observation ports in order to watch the destruction.  Then they get inducted into the force that is bent on punishing the planet destroyers.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , this is relevant because in the event of an LHC-created black hole destroying the planet , we will of course launch into space a " lifeboat " containing a judge , defense and plaintiff lawyers , Rusty the Bailiff to keep everyone in line , and one token normal person to be the plaintiff .
Justice will be served no matter what the damage to the planet is .
So we 'll be acting out the " Forge of God " story ?
( End of the book , the young people on the lifeboat style arks are brought to the observation ports in order to watch the destruction .
Then they get inducted into the force that is bent on punishing the planet destroyers .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, this is relevant because in the event of an LHC-created black hole destroying the planet, we will of course launch into space a "lifeboat" containing a judge, defense and plaintiff lawyers, Rusty the Bailiff to keep everyone in line, and one token normal person to be the plaintiff.
Justice will be served no matter what the damage to the planet is.
So we'll be acting out the "Forge of God" story?
(End of the book, the young people on the lifeboat style arks are brought to the observation ports in order to watch the destruction.
Then they get inducted into the force that is bent on punishing the planet destroyers.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666382</id>
	<title>Re:US LAW ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262720520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why, yes.  <b>Switzerland</b> is next to France.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why , yes .
Switzerland is next to France .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why, yes.
Switzerland is next to France.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665888</id>
	<title>In a way I blame certain scientists</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262715660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I mean they make it sound like when something turns into a black hole it gains "More gravity" and sucks everything around into it which is utterly not true. (If a stellar mass BH went through our solar system the most likely thing it would do to the Earth is distort it's orbit and or move the Sun.) I mean we're talking about creating black holes so small they could literally go straight through a proton and miss all the quarks inside, sucking up nothing. Hey that reminds me, electrons and quarks don't have a size, they're singularities.(Kind of like the things they want to make in the LHC.) However they've never been observed to act like a BH even though you'd think they would. So that makes me think even if they made a singularity that small it wouldn't act like a BH either.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean they make it sound like when something turns into a black hole it gains " More gravity " and sucks everything around into it which is utterly not true .
( If a stellar mass BH went through our solar system the most likely thing it would do to the Earth is distort it 's orbit and or move the Sun .
) I mean we 're talking about creating black holes so small they could literally go straight through a proton and miss all the quarks inside , sucking up nothing .
Hey that reminds me , electrons and quarks do n't have a size , they 're singularities .
( Kind of like the things they want to make in the LHC .
) However they 've never been observed to act like a BH even though you 'd think they would .
So that makes me think even if they made a singularity that small it would n't act like a BH either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean they make it sound like when something turns into a black hole it gains "More gravity" and sucks everything around into it which is utterly not true.
(If a stellar mass BH went through our solar system the most likely thing it would do to the Earth is distort it's orbit and or move the Sun.
) I mean we're talking about creating black holes so small they could literally go straight through a proton and miss all the quarks inside, sucking up nothing.
Hey that reminds me, electrons and quarks don't have a size, they're singularities.
(Kind of like the things they want to make in the LHC.
) However they've never been observed to act like a BH even though you'd think they would.
So that makes me think even if they made a singularity that small it wouldn't act like a BH either.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30669376</id>
	<title>Re:markyg</title>
	<author>qmaqdk</author>
	<datestamp>1262792700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In theory the black hole can start from the mass of an atom and increase in mass to the mass of the Earth (plus us of course).</p></div><p>What theory is that? IANAP but as far as I know Hawking radiation is inversely proportional to the mass of the black hole. For the kinds of masses we're talking about at the LHC the black hole would dissipate very quickly.</p><p>And if the theory suggests that it is possible, why haven't we seen one yet coming from cosmic background radiation?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In theory the black hole can start from the mass of an atom and increase in mass to the mass of the Earth ( plus us of course ) .What theory is that ?
IANAP but as far as I know Hawking radiation is inversely proportional to the mass of the black hole .
For the kinds of masses we 're talking about at the LHC the black hole would dissipate very quickly.And if the theory suggests that it is possible , why have n't we seen one yet coming from cosmic background radiation ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In theory the black hole can start from the mass of an atom and increase in mass to the mass of the Earth (plus us of course).What theory is that?
IANAP but as far as I know Hawking radiation is inversely proportional to the mass of the black hole.
For the kinds of masses we're talking about at the LHC the black hole would dissipate very quickly.And if the theory suggests that it is possible, why haven't we seen one yet coming from cosmic background radiation?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666966</id>
	<title>Re:STFU</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1262771520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The LHC will not destroy the world.</p></div></blockquote><p>

At least not this one,<br> <br>

RESIDENTS OF VEGA IV YOU'RE DOOM IS AT HAND.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The LHC will not destroy the world .
At least not this one , RESIDENTS OF VEGA IV YOU 'RE DOOM IS AT HAND .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The LHC will not destroy the world.
At least not this one, 

RESIDENTS OF VEGA IV YOU'RE DOOM IS AT HAND.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30668714</id>
	<title>Re:We'll save the justice system first....</title>
	<author>MiniMike</author>
	<datestamp>1262788980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just had an image of a confused alien, in the distant future, opening a lifeboat full of coconuts...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just had an image of a confused alien , in the distant future , opening a lifeboat full of coconuts.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just had an image of a confused alien, in the distant future, opening a lifeboat full of coconuts...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30667226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665974</id>
	<title>Re:Read the disclaimer</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1262716680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As long as Magrathea has a backup I say we go for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as Magrathea has a backup I say we go for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as Magrathea has a backup I say we go for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30669942</id>
	<title>Re:STFU</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262795400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And if it was going to do something, it would have by now.</p></div><p>Uh huh and all crows were black until someone discovered white crows.</p><p>http://www.birds.cornell.edu/crows/images/albino4a.jpg</p><p>The chances are practically zero but not actually zero.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And if it was going to do something , it would have by now.Uh huh and all crows were black until someone discovered white crows.http : //www.birds.cornell.edu/crows/images/albino4a.jpgThe chances are practically zero but not actually zero .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And if it was going to do something, it would have by now.Uh huh and all crows were black until someone discovered white crows.http://www.birds.cornell.edu/crows/images/albino4a.jpgThe chances are practically zero but not actually zero.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30667226</id>
	<title>Re:We'll save the justice system first....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262774820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <tt>How fast will this lifeboat be traveling? If this lifeboat is to be escaping a black hole.. it'd have to be moving pretty fast.</tt></p> </div><p>Is it an African lifeboat or a European lifeboat?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How fast will this lifeboat be traveling ?
If this lifeboat is to be escaping a black hole.. it 'd have to be moving pretty fast .
Is it an African lifeboat or a European lifeboat ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> How fast will this lifeboat be traveling?
If this lifeboat is to be escaping a black hole.. it'd have to be moving pretty fast.
Is it an African lifeboat or a European lifeboat?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665710</id>
	<title>I don't think this is worth doing.</title>
	<author>LostCluster</author>
	<datestamp>1262713920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Assuming the LHC destroys the world with the LHC itself getting swallowed first and all of Earth going next and eventuallyd swallowing the Solar System, what assets would they have left? You should know better than to sue somebody without assets, particularly when you can't hire a lawyer because all your money is gone, all the lawyers are gone, and for that matter, you're gone too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Assuming the LHC destroys the world with the LHC itself getting swallowed first and all of Earth going next and eventuallyd swallowing the Solar System , what assets would they have left ?
You should know better than to sue somebody without assets , particularly when you ca n't hire a lawyer because all your money is gone , all the lawyers are gone , and for that matter , you 're gone too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Assuming the LHC destroys the world with the LHC itself getting swallowed first and all of Earth going next and eventuallyd swallowing the Solar System, what assets would they have left?
You should know better than to sue somebody without assets, particularly when you can't hire a lawyer because all your money is gone, all the lawyers are gone, and for that matter, you're gone too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665984</id>
	<title>Common sense required; hopeless...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262716740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The argument for safety is very simple, and it doesn't require a physicist to make it.  Sadly, it does require common sense, which is likely to be absent in this case.</p><p>Anyway, here it is: the Earth has been--and continues to be--bombarded by cosmic rays of immensely greater energies than found in the LHC.  After billions of years without incident, one can only conclude that any problems must not be very significant, as we are here after all.</p><p>We aren't off the hook though; even if the LHC may not be capable of destroying the Earth, the lawyers are certainly doing a fine job.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The argument for safety is very simple , and it does n't require a physicist to make it .
Sadly , it does require common sense , which is likely to be absent in this case.Anyway , here it is : the Earth has been--and continues to be--bombarded by cosmic rays of immensely greater energies than found in the LHC .
After billions of years without incident , one can only conclude that any problems must not be very significant , as we are here after all.We are n't off the hook though ; even if the LHC may not be capable of destroying the Earth , the lawyers are certainly doing a fine job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The argument for safety is very simple, and it doesn't require a physicist to make it.
Sadly, it does require common sense, which is likely to be absent in this case.Anyway, here it is: the Earth has been--and continues to be--bombarded by cosmic rays of immensely greater energies than found in the LHC.
After billions of years without incident, one can only conclude that any problems must not be very significant, as we are here after all.We aren't off the hook though; even if the LHC may not be capable of destroying the Earth, the lawyers are certainly doing a fine job.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30668364</id>
	<title>CERN = Black Mesa</title>
	<author>Wolfraider</author>
	<datestamp>1262786580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I, for one, welcome our new Combine overlords</htmltext>
<tokenext>I , for one , welcome our new Combine overlords</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I, for one, welcome our new Combine overlords</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666024</id>
	<title>Re:US LAW ?</title>
	<author>TheRealMindChild</author>
	<datestamp>1262717100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Whoa there bucko. Sweden is next to France?!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whoa there bucko .
Sweden is next to France ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whoa there bucko.
Sweden is next to France?
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30672358</id>
	<title>Re:We'll save the justice system first....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262804400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p> <tt>How fast will this lifeboat be traveling? If this lifeboat is to be escaping a black hole.. it'd have to be moving pretty fast.</tt> </p></div><p>Is it an African lifeboat or a European lifeboat?</p></div><p>But either way, it'll be a ladened lifeboat.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How fast will this lifeboat be traveling ?
If this lifeboat is to be escaping a black hole.. it 'd have to be moving pretty fast .
Is it an African lifeboat or a European lifeboat ? But either way , it 'll be a ladened lifeboat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> How fast will this lifeboat be traveling?
If this lifeboat is to be escaping a black hole.. it'd have to be moving pretty fast.
Is it an African lifeboat or a European lifeboat?But either way, it'll be a ladened lifeboat.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30667226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665812</id>
	<title>There's a fundamental problem with this...</title>
	<author>JoshuaZ</author>
	<datestamp>1262714820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm in the process of reading TFA, but if the summary given is correct there's a serious problem. Suppose I'm a nutjob who claims that some new technologies will destroy the world. Say releasing the new Apple tablet. Or maybe the latest Linux security patch. There's some tiny but non-zero probability that I'm correct. If one takesserious  the argument as given " that death is not a redressable injury under American tort law, which could imply that the value in any cost-benefit analysis of the future of the Earth after it had been destroyed is zero" then it should hold regardless of the probability of the risk. Essentially this is an unhealthy variant of Pascal's wager which already has lots of problems. What if, for example, I claim that the world would be destroyed if we don't run the LHC? Again, some tiny but non-zero probability. This sort of argument simply cannot be used without clearly ridiculous results.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm in the process of reading TFA , but if the summary given is correct there 's a serious problem .
Suppose I 'm a nutjob who claims that some new technologies will destroy the world .
Say releasing the new Apple tablet .
Or maybe the latest Linux security patch .
There 's some tiny but non-zero probability that I 'm correct .
If one takesserious the argument as given " that death is not a redressable injury under American tort law , which could imply that the value in any cost-benefit analysis of the future of the Earth after it had been destroyed is zero " then it should hold regardless of the probability of the risk .
Essentially this is an unhealthy variant of Pascal 's wager which already has lots of problems .
What if , for example , I claim that the world would be destroyed if we do n't run the LHC ?
Again , some tiny but non-zero probability .
This sort of argument simply can not be used without clearly ridiculous results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm in the process of reading TFA, but if the summary given is correct there's a serious problem.
Suppose I'm a nutjob who claims that some new technologies will destroy the world.
Say releasing the new Apple tablet.
Or maybe the latest Linux security patch.
There's some tiny but non-zero probability that I'm correct.
If one takesserious  the argument as given " that death is not a redressable injury under American tort law, which could imply that the value in any cost-benefit analysis of the future of the Earth after it had been destroyed is zero" then it should hold regardless of the probability of the risk.
Essentially this is an unhealthy variant of Pascal's wager which already has lots of problems.
What if, for example, I claim that the world would be destroyed if we don't run the LHC?
Again, some tiny but non-zero probability.
This sort of argument simply cannot be used without clearly ridiculous results.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30667836</id>
	<title>Re:STFU</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262781480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>These are freaking <b>scientists</b> after all, the same people who without fail land space craft on Mars<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</i></p><p>You misspelt "engineers".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These are freaking scientists after all , the same people who without fail land space craft on Mars ...You misspelt " engineers " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These are freaking scientists after all, the same people who without fail land space craft on Mars ...You misspelt "engineers".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665836</id>
	<title>Sssh! We're ok as long as we don't ask..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262715060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>We're neither dead nor alive so long as nobody looks into this issue.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're neither dead nor alive so long as nobody looks into this issue .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're neither dead nor alive so long as nobody looks into this issue.
:-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666110</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting and sobering.</title>
	<author>mindstrm</author>
	<datestamp>1262717760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes.... science could be nicer about it.  But from a scientific point of view, why should they be?  Billions weren't spent on this thing like they were on, say, nonsense political wars.    A great many learned individuals who have studied the physics in question for, you know, their entire adult lives are cool with this experiment - it's the next natural step to figure out how the universe works.  If they skipped a step, let's point it out... but otherwise, enough is enough already.</p><p>You're more likely to die slipping in the shower tomorrow morning than from the LHC.</p><p>"Oh, the math can't prove it?" math can't *prove* anything but math - math is not physics.  Math is a tool, and a study that is purely logical and abstract and lives by itself.  No math is going to *prove* smashing large hadrons together at incredibly high energies is safe - the only thing that will prove that is smashing lots of them together in a controlled, observed environment. Which is what we are doing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes.... science could be nicer about it .
But from a scientific point of view , why should they be ?
Billions were n't spent on this thing like they were on , say , nonsense political wars .
A great many learned individuals who have studied the physics in question for , you know , their entire adult lives are cool with this experiment - it 's the next natural step to figure out how the universe works .
If they skipped a step , let 's point it out... but otherwise , enough is enough already.You 're more likely to die slipping in the shower tomorrow morning than from the LHC .
" Oh , the math ca n't prove it ?
" math ca n't * prove * anything but math - math is not physics .
Math is a tool , and a study that is purely logical and abstract and lives by itself .
No math is going to * prove * smashing large hadrons together at incredibly high energies is safe - the only thing that will prove that is smashing lots of them together in a controlled , observed environment .
Which is what we are doing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.... science could be nicer about it.
But from a scientific point of view, why should they be?
Billions weren't spent on this thing like they were on, say, nonsense political wars.
A great many learned individuals who have studied the physics in question for, you know, their entire adult lives are cool with this experiment - it's the next natural step to figure out how the universe works.
If they skipped a step, let's point it out... but otherwise, enough is enough already.You're more likely to die slipping in the shower tomorrow morning than from the LHC.
"Oh, the math can't prove it?
" math can't *prove* anything but math - math is not physics.
Math is a tool, and a study that is purely logical and abstract and lives by itself.
No math is going to *prove* smashing large hadrons together at incredibly high energies is safe - the only thing that will prove that is smashing lots of them together in a controlled, observed environment.
Which is what we are doing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665754</id>
	<title>What if it just blow up / messed up part of the ea</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1262714400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What if it just blow up / messed up part of the earth and not all of it how will the court look at that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What if it just blow up / messed up part of the earth and not all of it how will the court look at that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if it just blow up / messed up part of the earth and not all of it how will the court look at that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30671312</id>
	<title>Re:US LAW ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262800320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, a lot of people with no sense of humor replying to this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , a lot of people with no sense of humor replying to this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, a lot of people with no sense of humor replying to this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30671918</id>
	<title>Re:STFU</title>
	<author>bcrowell</author>
	<datestamp>1262802720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The natural collisions are spread out over a much larger area and much longer time.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
This is irrelevant. The end-of-the-world scenario is one in which a stable black hole becomes gravitationally bound to the earth. You only need one of those, and then the earth is toast.
</p><blockquote><div><p>Also with natural collisions only one particle is moving at high velocity which might cause any harmful particle or black hole to move through the earth very quickly. In the LHC two particles of about the same velocity collide. This could cause any potentially harmful particles to linger by some or all of the momentum being canceled by the collision.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
This is basically correct, except that with very high probability the products of LHC collisions are not quite at rest, they're moving at greater than the earth's escape velocity. The hypothetical danger would come from low-probability events in which black holes were produced at velocities less than escape velocity.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The natural collisions are spread out over a much larger area and much longer time .
This is irrelevant .
The end-of-the-world scenario is one in which a stable black hole becomes gravitationally bound to the earth .
You only need one of those , and then the earth is toast .
Also with natural collisions only one particle is moving at high velocity which might cause any harmful particle or black hole to move through the earth very quickly .
In the LHC two particles of about the same velocity collide .
This could cause any potentially harmful particles to linger by some or all of the momentum being canceled by the collision .
This is basically correct , except that with very high probability the products of LHC collisions are not quite at rest , they 're moving at greater than the earth 's escape velocity .
The hypothetical danger would come from low-probability events in which black holes were produced at velocities less than escape velocity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The natural collisions are spread out over a much larger area and much longer time.
This is irrelevant.
The end-of-the-world scenario is one in which a stable black hole becomes gravitationally bound to the earth.
You only need one of those, and then the earth is toast.
Also with natural collisions only one particle is moving at high velocity which might cause any harmful particle or black hole to move through the earth very quickly.
In the LHC two particles of about the same velocity collide.
This could cause any potentially harmful particles to linger by some or all of the momentum being canceled by the collision.
This is basically correct, except that with very high probability the products of LHC collisions are not quite at rest, they're moving at greater than the earth's escape velocity.
The hypothetical danger would come from low-probability events in which black holes were produced at velocities less than escape velocity.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30670020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665936</id>
	<title>Re:US LAW ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262716380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Its built by CERN, its in the France-Switzerland border<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>How's any court going to exercise jurisdiction over a black hole?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its built by CERN , its in the France-Switzerland border ...How 's any court going to exercise jurisdiction over a black hole ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its built by CERN, its in the France-Switzerland border ...How's any court going to exercise jurisdiction over a black hole?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666304</id>
	<title>Re:US LAW ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262719500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Switzerland != Sweden. Please stop posting while drunk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Switzerland ! = Sweden .
Please stop posting while drunk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Switzerland != Sweden.
Please stop posting while drunk.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665920</id>
	<title>Re:US LAW ?</title>
	<author>Jeff DeMaagd</author>
	<datestamp>1262716140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>True.</p><p>It's an interesting series of arguments, too bad the LHC's name and organization seems to be plugged into the argument to capitalize on the fear and hysteria about something that the LHC will never be able to do.</p><p>The LHC is simply not going to be able to make anything that swallows Earth.  We know that because countless far more energetic particles hit Earth over a period of billions of years, and yet Earth still exists.  The LHC just can't compete against that.  The people that think otherwise might as well go watch Plan 9 as if it were a documentary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>True.It 's an interesting series of arguments , too bad the LHC 's name and organization seems to be plugged into the argument to capitalize on the fear and hysteria about something that the LHC will never be able to do.The LHC is simply not going to be able to make anything that swallows Earth .
We know that because countless far more energetic particles hit Earth over a period of billions of years , and yet Earth still exists .
The LHC just ca n't compete against that .
The people that think otherwise might as well go watch Plan 9 as if it were a documentary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True.It's an interesting series of arguments, too bad the LHC's name and organization seems to be plugged into the argument to capitalize on the fear and hysteria about something that the LHC will never be able to do.The LHC is simply not going to be able to make anything that swallows Earth.
We know that because countless far more energetic particles hit Earth over a period of billions of years, and yet Earth still exists.
The LHC just can't compete against that.
The people that think otherwise might as well go watch Plan 9 as if it were a documentary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666452</id>
	<title>Delayed until 2012?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262721300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great, now legal challenges will delay the LHC experiments until December 12, 2012.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great , now legal challenges will delay the LHC experiments until December 12 , 2012 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great, now legal challenges will delay the LHC experiments until December 12, 2012.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30676178</id>
	<title>Re:I'm going with the probabilities...</title>
	<author>CyberDragon777</author>
	<datestamp>1262778360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>homosexual leprechaun giving you magical money tree that grows $100 bills for leaves and has cocaine filled nuts.</p></div><p>Hmm...</p><p>homosexual - homosexuals exist<br>leprechaun - there are really small people who could be described as "dwarfs", "gnomes" or "leprechauns"<br>give - there are some religions are really are about sharing your stuff<br>magical - any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic<br>tree that grows $100 bills for leaves and has cocaine filled nuts - both banknotes and cocaine are plant based, probably could be done with some really advanced genetic engineering</p><p>I think this has a bigger chance of happening than the LHC black hole. (Not sure about the flying ass-monkeys though.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>homosexual leprechaun giving you magical money tree that grows $ 100 bills for leaves and has cocaine filled nuts.Hmm...homosexual - homosexuals existleprechaun - there are really small people who could be described as " dwarfs " , " gnomes " or " leprechauns " give - there are some religions are really are about sharing your stuffmagical - any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magictree that grows $ 100 bills for leaves and has cocaine filled nuts - both banknotes and cocaine are plant based , probably could be done with some really advanced genetic engineeringI think this has a bigger chance of happening than the LHC black hole .
( Not sure about the flying ass-monkeys though .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>homosexual leprechaun giving you magical money tree that grows $100 bills for leaves and has cocaine filled nuts.Hmm...homosexual - homosexuals existleprechaun - there are really small people who could be described as "dwarfs", "gnomes" or "leprechauns"give - there are some religions are really are about sharing your stuffmagical - any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magictree that grows $100 bills for leaves and has cocaine filled nuts - both banknotes and cocaine are plant based, probably could be done with some really advanced genetic engineeringI think this has a bigger chance of happening than the LHC black hole.
(Not sure about the flying ass-monkeys though.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30667224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30667170</id>
	<title>Doomsday device</title>
	<author>mrjb</author>
	<datestamp>1262774160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So basically anyone that builds a proper doomsday device can legally get away with it? AWESOME.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So basically anyone that builds a proper doomsday device can legally get away with it ?
AWESOME .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So basically anyone that builds a proper doomsday device can legally get away with it?
AWESOME.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30682704</id>
	<title>Oblig</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1262881440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com/" title="hasthelarg...rldyet.com">http://hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com/</a> [hasthelarg...rldyet.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com/ [ hasthelarg...rldyet.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com/ [hasthelarg...rldyet.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30671616</id>
	<title>Re:We'll save the justice system first....</title>
	<author>robinstar1574</author>
	<datestamp>1262801460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NASA was started to save the earth. Their role is comming soon. Your saying that we should save the lazy-*** lawyers and judges who charge us millions of dollars per second? What about the people like us who support the country for what it is?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NASA was started to save the earth .
Their role is comming soon .
Your saying that we should save the lazy- * * * lawyers and judges who charge us millions of dollars per second ?
What about the people like us who support the country for what it is ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NASA was started to save the earth.
Their role is comming soon.
Your saying that we should save the lazy-*** lawyers and judges who charge us millions of dollars per second?
What about the people like us who support the country for what it is?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666718</id>
	<title>If there is zero chance....</title>
	<author>thinktech</author>
	<datestamp>1262811240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>then why didn't the risk assessment team place the risk at zero? If the risk is greater than zero, then why take a chance with the entire planet? Within a few decades this would be entirely possible to do on the moon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>then why did n't the risk assessment team place the risk at zero ?
If the risk is greater than zero , then why take a chance with the entire planet ?
Within a few decades this would be entirely possible to do on the moon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>then why didn't the risk assessment team place the risk at zero?
If the risk is greater than zero, then why take a chance with the entire planet?
Within a few decades this would be entirely possible to do on the moon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30667690</id>
	<title>Re:STFU</title>
	<author>AlecC</author>
	<datestamp>1262779980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What reason is there to believe that the LHC will do something that cosmic rays at considerably higher energies striking the Earth every day do not? These energies are not high as the Universe reckons, only as controlled laboratory experimentation reckons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What reason is there to believe that the LHC will do something that cosmic rays at considerably higher energies striking the Earth every day do not ?
These energies are not high as the Universe reckons , only as controlled laboratory experimentation reckons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What reason is there to believe that the LHC will do something that cosmic rays at considerably higher energies striking the Earth every day do not?
These energies are not high as the Universe reckons, only as controlled laboratory experimentation reckons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30670216</id>
	<title>Re:If there is zero chance....</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1262796300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a non-zero chance that your next Slashdot posting will cause a quantum mechanical reaction that will destroy the planet (or the universe, whatever).  Therefore you should refrain from posting on Slashdot, right?</p><p>BTW - the LHC is the most expensive (and largest?) scientific apparatus ever constructed.  It's going to be a LONG time before we're realistically able to build anything like it on the moon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a non-zero chance that your next Slashdot posting will cause a quantum mechanical reaction that will destroy the planet ( or the universe , whatever ) .
Therefore you should refrain from posting on Slashdot , right ? BTW - the LHC is the most expensive ( and largest ?
) scientific apparatus ever constructed .
It 's going to be a LONG time before we 're realistically able to build anything like it on the moon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a non-zero chance that your next Slashdot posting will cause a quantum mechanical reaction that will destroy the planet (or the universe, whatever).
Therefore you should refrain from posting on Slashdot, right?BTW - the LHC is the most expensive (and largest?
) scientific apparatus ever constructed.
It's going to be a LONG time before we're realistically able to build anything like it on the moon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30668968</id>
	<title>Re:STFU</title>
	<author>Peaker</author>
	<datestamp>1262790660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Easy to say that, you won't be having to face "I told you so"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Easy to say that , you wo n't be having to face " I told you so " : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Easy to say that, you won't be having to face "I told you so" :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30673772</id>
	<title>Re:We'll save the justice system first....</title>
	<author>psithurism</author>
	<datestamp>1262810580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I seem to recall that some physics thought that before the Trinity Explosion, that perhaps an atom explosion would vaporise the entire atmosphere.</p></div><p>
I recall that too. However in the parallel universes in which such an explosion does dissolve the atmosphere's atoms, they don't recall that.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>One guy on the site is even ranting..</p></div><p>Yeah, I wish they would just ignore those guys too. However, I'd like to know that we're not risking our existence based on the old "only an idiot would think that" logical fallacy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I seem to recall that some physics thought that before the Trinity Explosion , that perhaps an atom explosion would vaporise the entire atmosphere .
I recall that too .
However in the parallel universes in which such an explosion does dissolve the atmosphere 's atoms , they do n't recall that.One guy on the site is even ranting..Yeah , I wish they would just ignore those guys too .
However , I 'd like to know that we 're not risking our existence based on the old " only an idiot would think that " logical fallacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I seem to recall that some physics thought that before the Trinity Explosion, that perhaps an atom explosion would vaporise the entire atmosphere.
I recall that too.
However in the parallel universes in which such an explosion does dissolve the atmosphere's atoms, they don't recall that.One guy on the site is even ranting..Yeah, I wish they would just ignore those guys too.
However, I'd like to know that we're not risking our existence based on the old "only an idiot would think that" logical fallacy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30699650</id>
	<title>Good!</title>
	<author>jtgd</author>
	<datestamp>1262943720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Once the LHC makes a black hole that swallows the earth, I'm sure there'll be plenty of lawsuits!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Once the LHC makes a black hole that swallows the earth , I 'm sure there 'll be plenty of lawsuits !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once the LHC makes a black hole that swallows the earth, I'm sure there'll be plenty of lawsuits!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30698454</id>
	<title>Re:There's a fundamental problem with this...</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1262981940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...which could imply that the value in any cost-benefit analysis of the future of the Earth after it had been destroyed is zero" then it should hold regardless of the probability of the risk.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Fortunately, USA courts do not rely exclusively on cost-benefit analysis.
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De\_minimis" title="wikipedia.org"> De minimis non curat lex </a> [wikipedia.org] and a trifle is exactly what this "risk" is.  The article is merely an amusing "moot court" sort of exercise.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...which could imply that the value in any cost-benefit analysis of the future of the Earth after it had been destroyed is zero " then it should hold regardless of the probability of the risk .
Fortunately , USA courts do not rely exclusively on cost-benefit analysis .
De minimis non curat lex [ wikipedia.org ] and a trifle is exactly what this " risk " is .
The article is merely an amusing " moot court " sort of exercise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...which could imply that the value in any cost-benefit analysis of the future of the Earth after it had been destroyed is zero" then it should hold regardless of the probability of the risk.
Fortunately, USA courts do not rely exclusively on cost-benefit analysis.
De minimis non curat lex  [wikipedia.org] and a trifle is exactly what this "risk" is.
The article is merely an amusing "moot court" sort of exercise.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30671118</id>
	<title>Re:We'll save the justice system first....</title>
	<author>Peter Nikolic</author>
	<datestamp>1262799600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Of course, this is relevant because in the event of an LHC-created black hole destroying the planet, we will of course launch into space a "lifeboat" containing a judge, defense and plaintiff lawyers, Rusty the Bailiff to keep everyone in line, and one token normal person to be the plaintiff. Justice will be served no matter what the damage to the planet is.</p></div><p>Yes and they will all be freakin Americans once more trying to prove they own the planet like F**K they do , Keep ya jealous theiving fingers out we all know you are only getting upitty cus it's not been built over there in the USA  tough</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , this is relevant because in the event of an LHC-created black hole destroying the planet , we will of course launch into space a " lifeboat " containing a judge , defense and plaintiff lawyers , Rusty the Bailiff to keep everyone in line , and one token normal person to be the plaintiff .
Justice will be served no matter what the damage to the planet is.Yes and they will all be freakin Americans once more trying to prove they own the planet like F * * K they do , Keep ya jealous theiving fingers out we all know you are only getting upitty cus it 's not been built over there in the USA tough</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, this is relevant because in the event of an LHC-created black hole destroying the planet, we will of course launch into space a "lifeboat" containing a judge, defense and plaintiff lawyers, Rusty the Bailiff to keep everyone in line, and one token normal person to be the plaintiff.
Justice will be served no matter what the damage to the planet is.Yes and they will all be freakin Americans once more trying to prove they own the planet like F**K they do , Keep ya jealous theiving fingers out we all know you are only getting upitty cus it's not been built over there in the USA  tough
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30669272</id>
	<title>Re:STFU</title>
	<author>tist</author>
	<datestamp>1262792220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr><i>...And if it was going to do something, it would have by now.</i></p> </div><p>

And if it was going to do something \_chances are\_, it would have by now.

There, fixed that for ya.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...And if it was going to do something , it would have by now .
And if it was going to do something \ _chances are \ _ , it would have by now .
There , fixed that for ya .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...And if it was going to do something, it would have by now.
And if it was going to do something \_chances are\_, it would have by now.
There, fixed that for ya.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30683472</id>
	<title>Re:Read the disclaimer</title>
	<author>JAlexoi</author>
	<datestamp>1262884200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I always do backups of my 'magrathea' server<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-D But I don't think it would help....</htmltext>
<tokenext>I always do backups of my 'magrathea ' server : -D But I do n't think it would help... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always do backups of my 'magrathea' server :-D But I don't think it would help....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30668784</id>
	<title>Re:oh well</title>
	<author>Jason Levine</author>
	<datestamp>1262789520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, but we'll find out that answer on October 10th of this year.</p><p>*waits to see if people figure it out or if my joke was too obscure*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but we 'll find out that answer on October 10th of this year .
* waits to see if people figure it out or if my joke was too obscure *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but we'll find out that answer on October 10th of this year.
*waits to see if people figure it out or if my joke was too obscure*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666240</id>
	<title>Seriously?!</title>
	<author>gillbates</author>
	<datestamp>1262718960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I like the academic arguments.  In this case, its purely academic.
</p><p>
But the problem I have with this guy's approach is that while the likelihood of LHC-created Earth-destroying black holes is infitesimally small, the likelihood of crazy nutjobs picking up his argument as "proof" of LHC dangers approaches 1.  Society will always have people with mental disabilities; taking advantage of them doesn't make you look smart - it just makes you look cruel and stupid.  In this case, it's fairly obvious he's either oblivious to the problems his statements will create for other people, or he cares more for gaining publicity than the possible problems his statements will create.
</p><p>
There are valid concerns with the global warming debate.  I have seen the data, and yes, a cursory analysis of temperature puts us on the downward decline of a 100 year cycle*.  However, even a rudimentary understanding of physics dispels any concerns over LHC created black holes.  The controversy is manufactured entirely by the press and a few, possibly very stupid, lackeys who go along with them for reasons unknown.  I can only speculate the reasons why he can't be bothered to obtain even a first-semester understanding of physics, but I, for one, would not hire anyone as my lawyer who demonstrates not only a complete misunderstanding of physics, but also the inability to even perform a Google search on the subject.
</p><p>
<i>
There is another possibility of course; that they'll simply attempt to ignore it.
</i>
</p><p>
He forgets a third possibility: that the physicist who does respond will expose his ignorance in a very public and demeaning manner.  The more charitable physicists might simply dismiss the charge, but if I had to respond, it would be very difficult for me to refrain from calling him incorrigibly stupid and recommending him for a career digging ditches, as digging himself into a hole is the only talent he's demonstrated.  The only recovery possible from such a ludicrous position is to admit you've found Jesus and have changed from your old, vindictive, lying, self.
</p><p>
* - Yes, I understand there are, really, genuinely crazy people denying global warming.  However, there are also well-reasoned arguments calling into question the connection between burning fossil fuels and global temperature (for example, we can only account for about half of the carbon burned as fossil fuels; it's going somewhere, but it's not staying in the atmosphere...)  But that's nowhere close to the notion of LHC-created black holes destroying the earth.  Even if we could create black holes with the LHC, they would possess the same mass and gravitational attraction as their constituent particles - negligible.  Unlike global warming, the LHC issue is not a matter of an unresolved scientific question, but rather, a misunderstanding of basic physics.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like the academic arguments .
In this case , its purely academic .
But the problem I have with this guy 's approach is that while the likelihood of LHC-created Earth-destroying black holes is infitesimally small , the likelihood of crazy nutjobs picking up his argument as " proof " of LHC dangers approaches 1 .
Society will always have people with mental disabilities ; taking advantage of them does n't make you look smart - it just makes you look cruel and stupid .
In this case , it 's fairly obvious he 's either oblivious to the problems his statements will create for other people , or he cares more for gaining publicity than the possible problems his statements will create .
There are valid concerns with the global warming debate .
I have seen the data , and yes , a cursory analysis of temperature puts us on the downward decline of a 100 year cycle * .
However , even a rudimentary understanding of physics dispels any concerns over LHC created black holes .
The controversy is manufactured entirely by the press and a few , possibly very stupid , lackeys who go along with them for reasons unknown .
I can only speculate the reasons why he ca n't be bothered to obtain even a first-semester understanding of physics , but I , for one , would not hire anyone as my lawyer who demonstrates not only a complete misunderstanding of physics , but also the inability to even perform a Google search on the subject .
There is another possibility of course ; that they 'll simply attempt to ignore it .
He forgets a third possibility : that the physicist who does respond will expose his ignorance in a very public and demeaning manner .
The more charitable physicists might simply dismiss the charge , but if I had to respond , it would be very difficult for me to refrain from calling him incorrigibly stupid and recommending him for a career digging ditches , as digging himself into a hole is the only talent he 's demonstrated .
The only recovery possible from such a ludicrous position is to admit you 've found Jesus and have changed from your old , vindictive , lying , self .
* - Yes , I understand there are , really , genuinely crazy people denying global warming .
However , there are also well-reasoned arguments calling into question the connection between burning fossil fuels and global temperature ( for example , we can only account for about half of the carbon burned as fossil fuels ; it 's going somewhere , but it 's not staying in the atmosphere... ) But that 's nowhere close to the notion of LHC-created black holes destroying the earth .
Even if we could create black holes with the LHC , they would possess the same mass and gravitational attraction as their constituent particles - negligible .
Unlike global warming , the LHC issue is not a matter of an unresolved scientific question , but rather , a misunderstanding of basic physics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I like the academic arguments.
In this case, its purely academic.
But the problem I have with this guy's approach is that while the likelihood of LHC-created Earth-destroying black holes is infitesimally small, the likelihood of crazy nutjobs picking up his argument as "proof" of LHC dangers approaches 1.
Society will always have people with mental disabilities; taking advantage of them doesn't make you look smart - it just makes you look cruel and stupid.
In this case, it's fairly obvious he's either oblivious to the problems his statements will create for other people, or he cares more for gaining publicity than the possible problems his statements will create.
There are valid concerns with the global warming debate.
I have seen the data, and yes, a cursory analysis of temperature puts us on the downward decline of a 100 year cycle*.
However, even a rudimentary understanding of physics dispels any concerns over LHC created black holes.
The controversy is manufactured entirely by the press and a few, possibly very stupid, lackeys who go along with them for reasons unknown.
I can only speculate the reasons why he can't be bothered to obtain even a first-semester understanding of physics, but I, for one, would not hire anyone as my lawyer who demonstrates not only a complete misunderstanding of physics, but also the inability to even perform a Google search on the subject.
There is another possibility of course; that they'll simply attempt to ignore it.
He forgets a third possibility: that the physicist who does respond will expose his ignorance in a very public and demeaning manner.
The more charitable physicists might simply dismiss the charge, but if I had to respond, it would be very difficult for me to refrain from calling him incorrigibly stupid and recommending him for a career digging ditches, as digging himself into a hole is the only talent he's demonstrated.
The only recovery possible from such a ludicrous position is to admit you've found Jesus and have changed from your old, vindictive, lying, self.
* - Yes, I understand there are, really, genuinely crazy people denying global warming.
However, there are also well-reasoned arguments calling into question the connection between burning fossil fuels and global temperature (for example, we can only account for about half of the carbon burned as fossil fuels; it's going somewhere, but it's not staying in the atmosphere...)  But that's nowhere close to the notion of LHC-created black holes destroying the earth.
Even if we could create black holes with the LHC, they would possess the same mass and gravitational attraction as their constituent particles - negligible.
Unlike global warming, the LHC issue is not a matter of an unresolved scientific question, but rather, a misunderstanding of basic physics.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30671850</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262802480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back to the middle ages, where theologians and secular law at universities determined what was to be considered the be truth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back to the middle ages , where theologians and secular law at universities determined what was to be considered the be truth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back to the middle ages, where theologians and secular law at universities determined what was to be considered the be truth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666116</id>
	<title>Re:US LAW ?</title>
	<author>msimm</author>
	<datestamp>1262717820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes but it's important and THAT makes it American!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes but it 's important and THAT makes it American !
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes but it's important and THAT makes it American!
;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30674804</id>
	<title>Re:In a way I blame certain scientists</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1262772120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've never heard any scientist claim that a black hole sucks anything....Hollywood and TV show makers on the other hand......</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've never heard any scientist claim that a black hole sucks anything....Hollywood and TV show makers on the other hand..... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've never heard any scientist claim that a black hole sucks anything....Hollywood and TV show makers on the other hand......</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30668260</id>
	<title>Re:STFU</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1262785740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It will destroy some people's world when they find out their made-up guy doesn't exist. That's what people really think will happen is this will turn people away from god and they think this because deep down there is something nagging them telling them they're wrong.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It will destroy some people 's world when they find out their made-up guy does n't exist .
That 's what people really think will happen is this will turn people away from god and they think this because deep down there is something nagging them telling them they 're wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It will destroy some people's world when they find out their made-up guy doesn't exist.
That's what people really think will happen is this will turn people away from god and they think this because deep down there is something nagging them telling them they're wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666480</id>
	<title>Re:We'll save the justice system first....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262808180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LHC was designed to shed light on why there is matter at all in this universe.   But, matter is not all that matters, there is also justice.  Is it right to endanger everybody, because somebody wants to risk destroying everything just to find out why there is anything?  Opponents of LHC are trying everything, but nothing seems to work.   Its seems there is nothing anybody can do, mostly because nobody really cares.   And we will be left with nothing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LHC was designed to shed light on why there is matter at all in this universe .
But , matter is not all that matters , there is also justice .
Is it right to endanger everybody , because somebody wants to risk destroying everything just to find out why there is anything ?
Opponents of LHC are trying everything , but nothing seems to work .
Its seems there is nothing anybody can do , mostly because nobody really cares .
And we will be left with nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LHC was designed to shed light on why there is matter at all in this universe.
But, matter is not all that matters, there is also justice.
Is it right to endanger everybody, because somebody wants to risk destroying everything just to find out why there is anything?
Opponents of LHC are trying everything, but nothing seems to work.
Its seems there is nothing anybody can do, mostly because nobody really cares.
And we will be left with nothing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666410</id>
	<title>I'm trying to guess...</title>
	<author>rnturn</author>
	<datestamp>1262720820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... the cumulative IQ of the "jury of their peers".  Over 2000?  (Imagine the sort of questions that'll be asked of the potential jurors by the defense counsel.)  Ah, heck. With the way most courts seem to work nowadays, it'd probably be lucky to break 1000.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... the cumulative IQ of the " jury of their peers " .
Over 2000 ?
( Imagine the sort of questions that 'll be asked of the potential jurors by the defense counsel .
) Ah , heck .
With the way most courts seem to work nowadays , it 'd probably be lucky to break 1000 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... the cumulative IQ of the "jury of their peers".
Over 2000?
(Imagine the sort of questions that'll be asked of the potential jurors by the defense counsel.
)  Ah, heck.
With the way most courts seem to work nowadays, it'd probably be lucky to break 1000.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30680242</id>
	<title>I actually spent the 2 hours to RTFA</title>
	<author>ericfitz</author>
	<datestamp>1262859180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's clear that most of the posters on this thread have not read it.  I highly suggest that you do so regardless of your position on the issue.</p><p>The author (a lawyer, not a physicist) does not attempt to judge the science of the issue.  He also specifically considers and discusses many of the arguments that have been set up as straw men elsewhere in the thread, e.g. "the earth has been subjected to cosmic rays for millions of years", "the objections are just the paranoid rantings of luddites and uneducated lunatics", etc.</p><p>Before I read the article I was of the opinion that opposition to LHC was simply paranoiac raving; after all the physicists at CERN understand the underlying physics, right?  After I read the article I am actually moderately concerned and I hope that a court does hear a request for an injunction (I have no opinion whether an injunction is warranted but I want someone OUTSIDE the physics community to review the risk analysis done by CERN).</p><p>The author first does a really thorough job of describing the scientific literature around the proposed risks of the LHC and CERN's responses.</p><p>The second half of the paper addresses the issue of "if a request for an injunction against the LHC comes before a court, how is a judge to decide"?</p><p>The author considers and rejects both the testimony of expert witnesses (he discusses US Supreme Court criteria for judging the testimony of expert witnesses and notes that in this case there are two difficult (perhaps insurmountable) problems with expert witness testimony in this case- personal bias and testability of theories- pp55-58).  The author also considers and rejects use of cost-benefit analysis which evidently is a common tool courts use to decide whether to grant an injunction (pp58-65).  Instead the author poses 4 frameworks that courts could use to decide the matter - analyzing the theoretical grounding that the scientists involved used to assess risk (e.g. are the scientists basing risk on known knowns, known unknowns or unknown unknowns), analyzing for faulty scientific work (e.g. mathematical errors in calculating risk), analyzing for mistakes in risk assessment due to "credulity"- e.g. predisposition and/or groupthink (you can see that all over this thread), and analyzing for bias or negligence.</p><p>I found the table on p71 of the pdf (and the associated discussion) to be pretty damning for the dismissive position taking by LHC proponents.  The bottom line is that CERN made its risk assessments and arguments for the safety of LHC, but that every time one of these arguments has been challenged, the argument was not defended, but rather a new argument was made.  If it's safe, then the arguments that it's safe should be able to withstand some scrutiny- this is the empirical nature of science, right?</p><p>I am not saying that LHC is unsafe but rather that CERN hasn't reasonably proven that it is and that their behavior has raised my suspicious rather than lowering them.</p><p>Given the undesirability of the worst case scenario (destruction of the planet), it seems that there should be plausible arguments for the safety of the device that withstand moderately intense scrutiny.  I'm not claiming that every nut job with a wacky theory should be able to derail such endeavors.  However in this specific instance I believe that there are plausible concerns that have not been adequately addressed.</p><p>I'm not going to drill into further details of the paper but as of this writing, the author of the paper had addressed the arguments proposed in every concern (or dismissal) that I've read in this<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. thread at +3 or higher moderation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's clear that most of the posters on this thread have not read it .
I highly suggest that you do so regardless of your position on the issue.The author ( a lawyer , not a physicist ) does not attempt to judge the science of the issue .
He also specifically considers and discusses many of the arguments that have been set up as straw men elsewhere in the thread , e.g .
" the earth has been subjected to cosmic rays for millions of years " , " the objections are just the paranoid rantings of luddites and uneducated lunatics " , etc.Before I read the article I was of the opinion that opposition to LHC was simply paranoiac raving ; after all the physicists at CERN understand the underlying physics , right ?
After I read the article I am actually moderately concerned and I hope that a court does hear a request for an injunction ( I have no opinion whether an injunction is warranted but I want someone OUTSIDE the physics community to review the risk analysis done by CERN ) .The author first does a really thorough job of describing the scientific literature around the proposed risks of the LHC and CERN 's responses.The second half of the paper addresses the issue of " if a request for an injunction against the LHC comes before a court , how is a judge to decide " ? The author considers and rejects both the testimony of expert witnesses ( he discusses US Supreme Court criteria for judging the testimony of expert witnesses and notes that in this case there are two difficult ( perhaps insurmountable ) problems with expert witness testimony in this case- personal bias and testability of theories- pp55-58 ) .
The author also considers and rejects use of cost-benefit analysis which evidently is a common tool courts use to decide whether to grant an injunction ( pp58-65 ) .
Instead the author poses 4 frameworks that courts could use to decide the matter - analyzing the theoretical grounding that the scientists involved used to assess risk ( e.g .
are the scientists basing risk on known knowns , known unknowns or unknown unknowns ) , analyzing for faulty scientific work ( e.g .
mathematical errors in calculating risk ) , analyzing for mistakes in risk assessment due to " credulity " - e.g .
predisposition and/or groupthink ( you can see that all over this thread ) , and analyzing for bias or negligence.I found the table on p71 of the pdf ( and the associated discussion ) to be pretty damning for the dismissive position taking by LHC proponents .
The bottom line is that CERN made its risk assessments and arguments for the safety of LHC , but that every time one of these arguments has been challenged , the argument was not defended , but rather a new argument was made .
If it 's safe , then the arguments that it 's safe should be able to withstand some scrutiny- this is the empirical nature of science , right ? I am not saying that LHC is unsafe but rather that CERN has n't reasonably proven that it is and that their behavior has raised my suspicious rather than lowering them.Given the undesirability of the worst case scenario ( destruction of the planet ) , it seems that there should be plausible arguments for the safety of the device that withstand moderately intense scrutiny .
I 'm not claiming that every nut job with a wacky theory should be able to derail such endeavors .
However in this specific instance I believe that there are plausible concerns that have not been adequately addressed.I 'm not going to drill into further details of the paper but as of this writing , the author of the paper had addressed the arguments proposed in every concern ( or dismissal ) that I 've read in this / .
thread at + 3 or higher moderation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's clear that most of the posters on this thread have not read it.
I highly suggest that you do so regardless of your position on the issue.The author (a lawyer, not a physicist) does not attempt to judge the science of the issue.
He also specifically considers and discusses many of the arguments that have been set up as straw men elsewhere in the thread, e.g.
"the earth has been subjected to cosmic rays for millions of years", "the objections are just the paranoid rantings of luddites and uneducated lunatics", etc.Before I read the article I was of the opinion that opposition to LHC was simply paranoiac raving; after all the physicists at CERN understand the underlying physics, right?
After I read the article I am actually moderately concerned and I hope that a court does hear a request for an injunction (I have no opinion whether an injunction is warranted but I want someone OUTSIDE the physics community to review the risk analysis done by CERN).The author first does a really thorough job of describing the scientific literature around the proposed risks of the LHC and CERN's responses.The second half of the paper addresses the issue of "if a request for an injunction against the LHC comes before a court, how is a judge to decide"?The author considers and rejects both the testimony of expert witnesses (he discusses US Supreme Court criteria for judging the testimony of expert witnesses and notes that in this case there are two difficult (perhaps insurmountable) problems with expert witness testimony in this case- personal bias and testability of theories- pp55-58).
The author also considers and rejects use of cost-benefit analysis which evidently is a common tool courts use to decide whether to grant an injunction (pp58-65).
Instead the author poses 4 frameworks that courts could use to decide the matter - analyzing the theoretical grounding that the scientists involved used to assess risk (e.g.
are the scientists basing risk on known knowns, known unknowns or unknown unknowns), analyzing for faulty scientific work (e.g.
mathematical errors in calculating risk), analyzing for mistakes in risk assessment due to "credulity"- e.g.
predisposition and/or groupthink (you can see that all over this thread), and analyzing for bias or negligence.I found the table on p71 of the pdf (and the associated discussion) to be pretty damning for the dismissive position taking by LHC proponents.
The bottom line is that CERN made its risk assessments and arguments for the safety of LHC, but that every time one of these arguments has been challenged, the argument was not defended, but rather a new argument was made.
If it's safe, then the arguments that it's safe should be able to withstand some scrutiny- this is the empirical nature of science, right?I am not saying that LHC is unsafe but rather that CERN hasn't reasonably proven that it is and that their behavior has raised my suspicious rather than lowering them.Given the undesirability of the worst case scenario (destruction of the planet), it seems that there should be plausible arguments for the safety of the device that withstand moderately intense scrutiny.
I'm not claiming that every nut job with a wacky theory should be able to derail such endeavors.
However in this specific instance I believe that there are plausible concerns that have not been adequately addressed.I'm not going to drill into further details of the paper but as of this writing, the author of the paper had addressed the arguments proposed in every concern (or dismissal) that I've read in this /.
thread at +3 or higher moderation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665970</id>
	<title>Re:I don't think this is worth doing.</title>
	<author>Magic5Ball</author>
	<datestamp>1262716560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do we assume that it takes a device of a size noticeable to authorities or the public in order to create a globally destructive black hole?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do we assume that it takes a device of a size noticeable to authorities or the public in order to create a globally destructive black hole ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do we assume that it takes a device of a size noticeable to authorities or the public in order to create a globally destructive black hole?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30669200</id>
	<title>Re:In a way I blame certain scientists</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262791920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>What is the energy density of an unbound electron? Due to its mass? Due to its charge?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What is the energy density of an unbound electron ?
Due to its mass ?
Due to its charge ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is the energy density of an unbound electron?
Due to its mass?
Due to its charge?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30667496</id>
	<title>Re:We'll save the justice system first....</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1262777760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the meantime, no scientific and credible study have proven that there doesn't exist a critical mass of lawyer density in a given human population that irreversibly fuck it up. There are even quite a few proponent of this theory. Before getting into legalities, I suggest we do experiments to determine that. Preferably by compressing a huge number of lawyers until they reach critical mass.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the meantime , no scientific and credible study have proven that there does n't exist a critical mass of lawyer density in a given human population that irreversibly fuck it up .
There are even quite a few proponent of this theory .
Before getting into legalities , I suggest we do experiments to determine that .
Preferably by compressing a huge number of lawyers until they reach critical mass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the meantime, no scientific and credible study have proven that there doesn't exist a critical mass of lawyer density in a given human population that irreversibly fuck it up.
There are even quite a few proponent of this theory.
Before getting into legalities, I suggest we do experiments to determine that.
Preferably by compressing a huge number of lawyers until they reach critical mass.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30672690</id>
	<title>Re:False premise</title>
	<author>countblah</author>
	<datestamp>1262805780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not just false, but demonstrating extreme ignorance of how science actually works. Confirming widely accepted models is useful, but boring. Sure, presenting a crackpot theory as an "expert witness" might be harmful to a physicist's livelihood, but demonstrating that the LHC is dangerous through solid, testable evidence (you know, that science stuff) would make a physicist's reputation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not just false , but demonstrating extreme ignorance of how science actually works .
Confirming widely accepted models is useful , but boring .
Sure , presenting a crackpot theory as an " expert witness " might be harmful to a physicist 's livelihood , but demonstrating that the LHC is dangerous through solid , testable evidence ( you know , that science stuff ) would make a physicist 's reputation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not just false, but demonstrating extreme ignorance of how science actually works.
Confirming widely accepted models is useful, but boring.
Sure, presenting a crackpot theory as an "expert witness" might be harmful to a physicist's livelihood, but demonstrating that the LHC is dangerous through solid, testable evidence (you know, that science stuff) would make a physicist's reputation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666444</id>
	<title>Re:US LAW ?</title>
	<author>Wrath0fb0b</author>
	<datestamp>1262721180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Who cares what the American law says ? Its built by CERN, its in the France-Switzerland border<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>A US Court could:<br>(1) Order all US citizens (over which there is personal jurisdiction) to immediately cease work on it.<br>(2) Order US funding agencies not to release money to the project.<br>(3) Order US-based suppliers not to provide supplies.<br>(4) Order non-US-based suppliers with significant assets in the US not to provide supplies.</p><p>Of course, I don't think that any court would do such things, but courts in all countries have always found ways to leverage their power. The British kangaroo system of libel law is a prime example.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who cares what the American law says ?
Its built by CERN , its in the France-Switzerland border ...A US Court could : ( 1 ) Order all US citizens ( over which there is personal jurisdiction ) to immediately cease work on it .
( 2 ) Order US funding agencies not to release money to the project .
( 3 ) Order US-based suppliers not to provide supplies .
( 4 ) Order non-US-based suppliers with significant assets in the US not to provide supplies.Of course , I do n't think that any court would do such things , but courts in all countries have always found ways to leverage their power .
The British kangaroo system of libel law is a prime example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who cares what the American law says ?
Its built by CERN, its in the France-Switzerland border ...A US Court could:(1) Order all US citizens (over which there is personal jurisdiction) to immediately cease work on it.
(2) Order US funding agencies not to release money to the project.
(3) Order US-based suppliers not to provide supplies.
(4) Order non-US-based suppliers with significant assets in the US not to provide supplies.Of course, I don't think that any court would do such things, but courts in all countries have always found ways to leverage their power.
The British kangaroo system of libel law is a prime example.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30683308</id>
	<title>Sensationalism Plain and Simple</title>
	<author>ikeman32</author>
	<datestamp>1262883660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> I say Balderdash!</p><p> This is nothing more than sensationalism, plain and simple. And for the record it's not a Black Hole that "may" be created it will be a Quantum Singularity. Which as we all know was invented by the Romulans to power their interstellar vessels; however, we have never been able to duplicate their technology.</p><p> Therefore, it is illogical to assume that the Earth will be destroyed since the energy consumed in the creation of said hypothetical quantum singularity can not be maintained. And since the reaction of the particles in question will be contained inside a magnetic chamber it is unlikely that a chain reaction will occur outside the said chamber. Resulting in a dissipation of unharness energy at the conclusion of the experiment thereby quelling the irrational fears of the uneducated and ignorant.</p><p> Even if a remote possibility exists that a hypothetical quantum singularity is created and would somehow be stable enough and powerful to consume the Earth. It would also be powerful enough to consume the rest of our solar system. In any case it hardly matters if such a hypothetical situation is even possible since the irrational quorum of imbeciles have already concluded based upon the Mayan Calendar that the world shall come to an end on December 21, 2012. A full 4 days prior to the estimated date of the world ending experiment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I say Balderdash !
This is nothing more than sensationalism , plain and simple .
And for the record it 's not a Black Hole that " may " be created it will be a Quantum Singularity .
Which as we all know was invented by the Romulans to power their interstellar vessels ; however , we have never been able to duplicate their technology .
Therefore , it is illogical to assume that the Earth will be destroyed since the energy consumed in the creation of said hypothetical quantum singularity can not be maintained .
And since the reaction of the particles in question will be contained inside a magnetic chamber it is unlikely that a chain reaction will occur outside the said chamber .
Resulting in a dissipation of unharness energy at the conclusion of the experiment thereby quelling the irrational fears of the uneducated and ignorant .
Even if a remote possibility exists that a hypothetical quantum singularity is created and would somehow be stable enough and powerful to consume the Earth .
It would also be powerful enough to consume the rest of our solar system .
In any case it hardly matters if such a hypothetical situation is even possible since the irrational quorum of imbeciles have already concluded based upon the Mayan Calendar that the world shall come to an end on December 21 , 2012 .
A full 4 days prior to the estimated date of the world ending experiment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I say Balderdash!
This is nothing more than sensationalism, plain and simple.
And for the record it's not a Black Hole that "may" be created it will be a Quantum Singularity.
Which as we all know was invented by the Romulans to power their interstellar vessels; however, we have never been able to duplicate their technology.
Therefore, it is illogical to assume that the Earth will be destroyed since the energy consumed in the creation of said hypothetical quantum singularity can not be maintained.
And since the reaction of the particles in question will be contained inside a magnetic chamber it is unlikely that a chain reaction will occur outside the said chamber.
Resulting in a dissipation of unharness energy at the conclusion of the experiment thereby quelling the irrational fears of the uneducated and ignorant.
Even if a remote possibility exists that a hypothetical quantum singularity is created and would somehow be stable enough and powerful to consume the Earth.
It would also be powerful enough to consume the rest of our solar system.
In any case it hardly matters if such a hypothetical situation is even possible since the irrational quorum of imbeciles have already concluded based upon the Mayan Calendar that the world shall come to an end on December 21, 2012.
A full 4 days prior to the estimated date of the world ending experiment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30676246</id>
	<title>Raise your hand if you read the actual paper</title>
	<author>saburai</author>
	<datestamp>1262778600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The law review article upon which the linked story is written is 80 pages long. It is, as best I can tell, totally consistent with known science (it doesn't postulate "black holes destroying the universe" or any such nonsense). It is an attempt to do 3 things:</p><p>1. Ask how a court ought to address a science experiment that could, by some very unlikely chance, destroy the earth. He uses LHC as an example, but also suggests Strong AI and nanotechnology as possible future examples.</p><p>2. Analyze how a non-expert court can, or should, evaluate highly technical and possibly controversial scientific claims for and against the safety of a bleeding-edge research project.</p><p>3. Analyze how logical or cognitive errors could realistically lead a scientist to accidentally or intentionally understate or mischaracterize the risks of her research.</p><p>Anyone on this board droning on about "Shut-up-the-LHC-can't-destroy-the-world" either DRTFA or totally misunderstood it. I will now quote the author:</p><blockquote><div><p>My motivation in writing is certainly not to engender fear. I have no apprehension to share...</p><p>It is part of our 21st Century reality that we must take seriously a number of surreal planetary disaster scenarios. In that sense, the synthetic-black-hole disaster is not unique. For some time now, we have been confronted with the possibility of nuclear war and global climate change. In the future, we may have to remove still more scenarios from the science fiction category and place them on a list of real worries. Someday, we may need to seriously consider catastrophic threats from nanotechnology, genetic engineering, or artificial intelligence. Each one of these human-made global disaster scenarios involves incredibly complex questions of science, engineering, and mathematics. Courts must develop tools to deal meaningfully with such complexity. Otherwise, the wildly expanding sphere of human knowledge will overwhelm the institution of the courts and undo the rule of law&mdash;just when we need it most.</p></div></blockquote><p>If he had chosen anthropogenic global climate change as his topic of analysis, I think there would have been a more interesting debate on Slashdot, but apparently any mention of "LHC" in the same breath as "black hole" causes some sort of hysterical allergic reaction in some people.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The law review article upon which the linked story is written is 80 pages long .
It is , as best I can tell , totally consistent with known science ( it does n't postulate " black holes destroying the universe " or any such nonsense ) .
It is an attempt to do 3 things : 1 .
Ask how a court ought to address a science experiment that could , by some very unlikely chance , destroy the earth .
He uses LHC as an example , but also suggests Strong AI and nanotechnology as possible future examples.2 .
Analyze how a non-expert court can , or should , evaluate highly technical and possibly controversial scientific claims for and against the safety of a bleeding-edge research project.3 .
Analyze how logical or cognitive errors could realistically lead a scientist to accidentally or intentionally understate or mischaracterize the risks of her research.Anyone on this board droning on about " Shut-up-the-LHC-ca n't-destroy-the-world " either DRTFA or totally misunderstood it .
I will now quote the author : My motivation in writing is certainly not to engender fear .
I have no apprehension to share...It is part of our 21st Century reality that we must take seriously a number of surreal planetary disaster scenarios .
In that sense , the synthetic-black-hole disaster is not unique .
For some time now , we have been confronted with the possibility of nuclear war and global climate change .
In the future , we may have to remove still more scenarios from the science fiction category and place them on a list of real worries .
Someday , we may need to seriously consider catastrophic threats from nanotechnology , genetic engineering , or artificial intelligence .
Each one of these human-made global disaster scenarios involves incredibly complex questions of science , engineering , and mathematics .
Courts must develop tools to deal meaningfully with such complexity .
Otherwise , the wildly expanding sphere of human knowledge will overwhelm the institution of the courts and undo the rule of law    just when we need it most.If he had chosen anthropogenic global climate change as his topic of analysis , I think there would have been a more interesting debate on Slashdot , but apparently any mention of " LHC " in the same breath as " black hole " causes some sort of hysterical allergic reaction in some people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The law review article upon which the linked story is written is 80 pages long.
It is, as best I can tell, totally consistent with known science (it doesn't postulate "black holes destroying the universe" or any such nonsense).
It is an attempt to do 3 things:1.
Ask how a court ought to address a science experiment that could, by some very unlikely chance, destroy the earth.
He uses LHC as an example, but also suggests Strong AI and nanotechnology as possible future examples.2.
Analyze how a non-expert court can, or should, evaluate highly technical and possibly controversial scientific claims for and against the safety of a bleeding-edge research project.3.
Analyze how logical or cognitive errors could realistically lead a scientist to accidentally or intentionally understate or mischaracterize the risks of her research.Anyone on this board droning on about "Shut-up-the-LHC-can't-destroy-the-world" either DRTFA or totally misunderstood it.
I will now quote the author:My motivation in writing is certainly not to engender fear.
I have no apprehension to share...It is part of our 21st Century reality that we must take seriously a number of surreal planetary disaster scenarios.
In that sense, the synthetic-black-hole disaster is not unique.
For some time now, we have been confronted with the possibility of nuclear war and global climate change.
In the future, we may have to remove still more scenarios from the science fiction category and place them on a list of real worries.
Someday, we may need to seriously consider catastrophic threats from nanotechnology, genetic engineering, or artificial intelligence.
Each one of these human-made global disaster scenarios involves incredibly complex questions of science, engineering, and mathematics.
Courts must develop tools to deal meaningfully with such complexity.
Otherwise, the wildly expanding sphere of human knowledge will overwhelm the institution of the courts and undo the rule of law—just when we need it most.If he had chosen anthropogenic global climate change as his topic of analysis, I think there would have been a more interesting debate on Slashdot, but apparently any mention of "LHC" in the same breath as "black hole" causes some sort of hysterical allergic reaction in some people.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30669986</id>
	<title>What an idiotic argument</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262795520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So...all particle physicists are concerned for their livelihood. Well sure, everybody is. But to argue that they're all concerned for their livelihood <em>more</em> than their lives? Some are a little crazy like that, but how brain dead do you have to be to assume that they're all psychotic and ready to kill anybody at all for their research, let alone willing to kill themselves? It's just a stupid argument to say that because their livelihood is at stake, they're not willing to consider the values of their lives. Assuming all experts in this field are sociopaths? At its core, this argument is yet more anti-intellectual propaganda.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So...all particle physicists are concerned for their livelihood .
Well sure , everybody is .
But to argue that they 're all concerned for their livelihood more than their lives ?
Some are a little crazy like that , but how brain dead do you have to be to assume that they 're all psychotic and ready to kill anybody at all for their research , let alone willing to kill themselves ?
It 's just a stupid argument to say that because their livelihood is at stake , they 're not willing to consider the values of their lives .
Assuming all experts in this field are sociopaths ?
At its core , this argument is yet more anti-intellectual propaganda .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So...all particle physicists are concerned for their livelihood.
Well sure, everybody is.
But to argue that they're all concerned for their livelihood more than their lives?
Some are a little crazy like that, but how brain dead do you have to be to assume that they're all psychotic and ready to kill anybody at all for their research, let alone willing to kill themselves?
It's just a stupid argument to say that because their livelihood is at stake, they're not willing to consider the values of their lives.
Assuming all experts in this field are sociopaths?
At its core, this argument is yet more anti-intellectual propaganda.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30668178</id>
	<title>Re:markyg</title>
	<author>V!NCENT</author>
	<datestamp>1262785140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any reasoning is wasted on these idiots... Don't even attempt to give it a try...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any reasoning is wasted on these idiots... Do n't even attempt to give it a try.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any reasoning is wasted on these idiots... Don't even attempt to give it a try...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30675752</id>
	<title>Re:oh well</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1262776200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure, let's play this game.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>for those of us who believe Jesus Christ is who he said he is, God come to earth, there is nothing to worry about.</p></div><p>"There is no god but God, and Muhammad is the Messenger of God."</p><p><div class="quote"><p>John 11:25 Jesus said to her, I am the Resurrection and the Life! He who believes in Me, though he die, yet he shall live.<br>John 11:26 And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?</p></div><p>"That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah"; - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not."<br>- Sura 4:157</p><p>"If anyone desires a religion other than Islam<br>never will it be accepted of him;<br>and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost. "<br>-- Sura 3:85</p><p>"Unbelievers are those that say:<br>"God is the Messiah, the son of Mary." For the Messiah himself said:<br>"Children of Israel, serve God, my Lord and your Lord."<br>He that worships other gods besides God, God will deny him Paradise,<br>and the fire shall be his home. None shall help the evil-doers. "<br>-- Sura 5:72</p><p>"O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His messengers. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs."<br>-- Sura 4:171</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , let 's play this game.for those of us who believe Jesus Christ is who he said he is , God come to earth , there is nothing to worry about .
" There is no god but God , and Muhammad is the Messenger of God .
" John 11 : 25 Jesus said to her , I am the Resurrection and the Life !
He who believes in Me , though he die , yet he shall live.John 11 : 26 And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die .
Do you believe this ?
" That they said ( in boast ) , " We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary , the Messenger of Allah " ; - but they killed him not , nor crucified him , but so it was made to appear to them , and those who differ therein are full of doubts , with no ( certain ) knowledge , but only conjecture to follow , for of a surety they killed him not .
" - Sura 4 : 157 " If anyone desires a religion other than Islamnever will it be accepted of him ; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost .
" -- Sura 3 : 85 " Unbelievers are those that say : " God is the Messiah , the son of Mary .
" For the Messiah himself said : " Children of Israel , serve God , my Lord and your Lord .
" He that worships other gods besides God , God will deny him Paradise,and the fire shall be his home .
None shall help the evil-doers .
" -- Sura 5 : 72 " O People of the Book !
Commit no excesses in your religion : Nor say of Allah aught but the truth .
Christ Jesus the son of Mary was ( no more than ) a messenger of Allah , and His Word , which He bestowed on Mary , and a spirit proceeding from Him : so believe in Allah and His messengers .
Say not " Trinity " : desist : it will be better for you : for Allah is one Allah : Glory be to Him : ( far exalted is He ) above having a son .
To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth .
And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs .
" -- Sura 4 : 171</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, let's play this game.for those of us who believe Jesus Christ is who he said he is, God come to earth, there is nothing to worry about.
"There is no god but God, and Muhammad is the Messenger of God.
"John 11:25 Jesus said to her, I am the Resurrection and the Life!
He who believes in Me, though he die, yet he shall live.John 11:26 And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die.
Do you believe this?
"That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah"; - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not.
"- Sura 4:157"If anyone desires a religion other than Islamnever will it be accepted of him;and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost.
"-- Sura 3:85"Unbelievers are those that say:"God is the Messiah, the son of Mary.
" For the Messiah himself said:"Children of Israel, serve God, my Lord and your Lord.
"He that worships other gods besides God, God will deny him Paradise,and the fire shall be his home.
None shall help the evil-doers.
"-- Sura 5:72"O People of the Book!
Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth.
Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His messengers.
Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son.
To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth.
And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs.
"-- Sura 4:171
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30667266</id>
	<title>Antonio</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262775240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All this squabble about the LHC and "possible black holes" makes me think 90\% of the population has the mindset of the middle-ages. No, there is no hope for humanity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All this squabble about the LHC and " possible black holes " makes me think 90 \ % of the population has the mindset of the middle-ages .
No , there is no hope for humanity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All this squabble about the LHC and "possible black holes" makes me think 90\% of the population has the mindset of the middle-ages.
No, there is no hope for humanity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665778</id>
	<title>US LAW ?</title>
	<author>Tensor</author>
	<datestamp>1262714580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who cares what the American law says ? Its built by CERN, its in the France-Switzerland border<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who cares what the American law says ?
Its built by CERN , its in the France-Switzerland border .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who cares what the American law says ?
Its built by CERN, its in the France-Switzerland border ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30668982</id>
	<title>Re:We'll save the justice system first....</title>
	<author>Himring</author>
	<datestamp>1262790720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Interviewer: "Can you destroy the earth?"
<br> <br>
The Tick: "Geez I hope not! That's where I keep all my stuff!!!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Interviewer : " Can you destroy the earth ?
" The Tick : " Geez I hope not !
That 's where I keep all my stuff ! ! !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interviewer: "Can you destroy the earth?
"
 
The Tick: "Geez I hope not!
That's where I keep all my stuff!!!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666742</id>
	<title>Re:STFU</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262811420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>No one really understands string theory or what might happen when you smash particles at high energies.</i> <br> <br>Correct.<br> <br> <i>The chances are small that a major event would occur.</i> <br> <br>Incorrect.  For billions of years, the earth has been bombarded with energies higher than what the LHC is capable of producing.  However, they were random in nature and couldn't be observed because they were gone before anyone knew they happened.  The LHC approximates some of these larger collisions.  They can do nothing there that hasn't happened trillions of times already.  And if it was going to do something, it would have by now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No one really understands string theory or what might happen when you smash particles at high energies .
Correct. The chances are small that a major event would occur .
Incorrect. For billions of years , the earth has been bombarded with energies higher than what the LHC is capable of producing .
However , they were random in nature and could n't be observed because they were gone before anyone knew they happened .
The LHC approximates some of these larger collisions .
They can do nothing there that has n't happened trillions of times already .
And if it was going to do something , it would have by now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one really understands string theory or what might happen when you smash particles at high energies.
Correct.  The chances are small that a major event would occur.
Incorrect.  For billions of years, the earth has been bombarded with energies higher than what the LHC is capable of producing.
However, they were random in nature and couldn't be observed because they were gone before anyone knew they happened.
The LHC approximates some of these larger collisions.
They can do nothing there that hasn't happened trillions of times already.
And if it was going to do something, it would have by now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30668418</id>
	<title>Physics fought the law...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262787000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and the law won!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and the law won !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and the law won!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30667186</id>
	<title>Re:US LAW ?</title>
	<author>Le Tmraire</author>
	<datestamp>1262774400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, and Australia is on the other side.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , and Australia is on the other side .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, and Australia is on the other side.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30669116</id>
	<title>Numerous Legal Nightmares</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1262791440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>           Right off the top there would be a huge issue with jurisdiction. When people are blithering about creating a black hole that could swallow the entire planet just about every government could claim authority to act. Really bad places like Nigeria or Iran might insist that their verdicts are the only correct verdicts.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; We haven't even really decided jurisdictional authorities within the US when things like the net or sales over the phone are involved. One day it's the sender's end of the line that has authority, the next day it is the receiver's end of the line. the next day the feds jump in and cite some really obscure law from a third state that they can put in play. Once in a while it is even a state in which the communication passes through without being viewed that grabs the authority. Even more absurd, deeply encrypted materials that can not be opened or viewed while passing through a state may still be subject to a powerful state action.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right off the top there would be a huge issue with jurisdiction .
When people are blithering about creating a black hole that could swallow the entire planet just about every government could claim authority to act .
Really bad places like Nigeria or Iran might insist that their verdicts are the only correct verdicts .
                      We have n't even really decided jurisdictional authorities within the US when things like the net or sales over the phone are involved .
One day it 's the sender 's end of the line that has authority , the next day it is the receiver 's end of the line .
the next day the feds jump in and cite some really obscure law from a third state that they can put in play .
Once in a while it is even a state in which the communication passes through without being viewed that grabs the authority .
Even more absurd , deeply encrypted materials that can not be opened or viewed while passing through a state may still be subject to a powerful state action .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>           Right off the top there would be a huge issue with jurisdiction.
When people are blithering about creating a black hole that could swallow the entire planet just about every government could claim authority to act.
Really bad places like Nigeria or Iran might insist that their verdicts are the only correct verdicts.
                      We haven't even really decided jurisdictional authorities within the US when things like the net or sales over the phone are involved.
One day it's the sender's end of the line that has authority, the next day it is the receiver's end of the line.
the next day the feds jump in and cite some really obscure law from a third state that they can put in play.
Once in a while it is even a state in which the communication passes through without being viewed that grabs the authority.
Even more absurd, deeply encrypted materials that can not be opened or viewed while passing through a state may still be subject to a powerful state action.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665856</id>
	<title>Re:We'll save the justice system first....</title>
	<author>neoform</author>
	<datestamp>1262715180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>How fast will this lifeboat be traveling? If this lifeboat is to be escaping a black hole.. it'd have to be moving pretty fast.</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>How fast will this lifeboat be traveling ?
If this lifeboat is to be escaping a black hole.. it 'd have to be moving pretty fast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How fast will this lifeboat be traveling?
If this lifeboat is to be escaping a black hole.. it'd have to be moving pretty fast.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666384</id>
	<title>Re:STFU</title>
	<author>darkmeridian</author>
	<datestamp>1262720580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's entirely the attitude the article addresses: hubris. The scientists don't think that it will explode, but do you understand the issues involved or are you blindly listening to them? No one really understands string theory or what might happen when you smash particles at high energies. The chances are small that a major event would occur. However, if the LHC causes great damages, who pays? Would Anonymous Coward be held responsible?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's entirely the attitude the article addresses : hubris .
The scientists do n't think that it will explode , but do you understand the issues involved or are you blindly listening to them ?
No one really understands string theory or what might happen when you smash particles at high energies .
The chances are small that a major event would occur .
However , if the LHC causes great damages , who pays ?
Would Anonymous Coward be held responsible ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's entirely the attitude the article addresses: hubris.
The scientists don't think that it will explode, but do you understand the issues involved or are you blindly listening to them?
No one really understands string theory or what might happen when you smash particles at high energies.
The chances are small that a major event would occur.
However, if the LHC causes great damages, who pays?
Would Anonymous Coward be held responsible?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30667376</id>
	<title>Re:STFU</title>
	<author>jopsen</author>
	<datestamp>1262776500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The LHC <b>will</b> destroy the world. Just as it is a well known fact that if we try to build a space elevator, workers will spontaneously begin speaking different languages...<br>
&lt;/sarcasm&gt;</htmltext>
<tokenext>The LHC will destroy the world .
Just as it is a well known fact that if we try to build a space elevator , workers will spontaneously begin speaking different languages.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The LHC will destroy the world.
Just as it is a well known fact that if we try to build a space elevator, workers will spontaneously begin speaking different languages...
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665852</id>
	<title>ggggyguuuoy yguogpgppppyg8899p8u88i</title>
	<author>For a Free Internet</author>
	<datestamp>1262715180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am falling into a black hole and slashdot is shrinking into an infinitesimal point of suck........ gt67t78oftuuftuvft ftyfgu fiftyg8 8 7798 uoi llll i j l lk  k k.l k;l;uyyg 65 6r7f t8gfyf  y pehis pehis pehis pehis e45e45   4e446466664464c46v64v6v46 f7t</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am falling into a black hole and slashdot is shrinking into an infinitesimal point of suck........ gt67t78oftuuftuvft ftyfgu fiftyg8 8 7798 uoi llll i j l lk k k.l k ; l ; uyyg 65 6r7f t8gfyf y pehis pehis pehis pehis e45e45 4e446466664464c46v64v6v46 f7t</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am falling into a black hole and slashdot is shrinking into an infinitesimal point of suck........ gt67t78oftuuftuvft ftyfgu fiftyg8 8 7798 uoi llll i j l lk  k k.l k;l;uyyg 65 6r7f t8gfyf  y pehis pehis pehis pehis e45e45   4e446466664464c46v64v6v46 f7t</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30671596</id>
	<title>Gluons not quarks</title>
	<author>Roger W Moore</author>
	<datestamp>1262801340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>One guy on the site is even ranting about the LHC actually being a "quark cannon"</p></div><p>
Actually his credibility is lost there. The LHC is far better described as a gluon collider. The cross-section for gluon-gluon collisions is a lot larger than for quark-quark.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One guy on the site is even ranting about the LHC actually being a " quark cannon " Actually his credibility is lost there .
The LHC is far better described as a gluon collider .
The cross-section for gluon-gluon collisions is a lot larger than for quark-quark .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One guy on the site is even ranting about the LHC actually being a "quark cannon"
Actually his credibility is lost there.
The LHC is far better described as a gluon collider.
The cross-section for gluon-gluon collisions is a lot larger than for quark-quark.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30670736</id>
	<title>Re:False premise</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262798040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I am no particle physicist</p></div><p>That would explain a certain resonance cascade...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am no particle physicistThat would explain a certain resonance cascade.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am no particle physicistThat would explain a certain resonance cascade...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30670614</id>
	<title>Cosmic Rays</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262797680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wouldn't worry about destroying the earth but there's a good probability that those scientists are going to turn into orange rock people and stretcho dolls.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't worry about destroying the earth but there 's a good probability that those scientists are going to turn into orange rock people and stretcho dolls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't worry about destroying the earth but there's a good probability that those scientists are going to turn into orange rock people and stretcho dolls.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665966</id>
	<title>Re:markyg</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1262716560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you make a tiny black hole you start a race between evaporation and accretion. The black hole may well evaporate before it collects enough mass to be stable, but it is difficult to be completely sure about this. In theory the black hole can start from the mass of an atom and increase in mass to the mass of the Earth (plus us of course).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you make a tiny black hole you start a race between evaporation and accretion .
The black hole may well evaporate before it collects enough mass to be stable , but it is difficult to be completely sure about this .
In theory the black hole can start from the mass of an atom and increase in mass to the mass of the Earth ( plus us of course ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you make a tiny black hole you start a race between evaporation and accretion.
The black hole may well evaporate before it collects enough mass to be stable, but it is difficult to be completely sure about this.
In theory the black hole can start from the mass of an atom and increase in mass to the mass of the Earth (plus us of course).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666402</id>
	<title>Re:In a way I blame certain scientists</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262720760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Hey that reminds me, electrons and quarks don't have a size, they're singularities.</p></div><p>You fail at quantum mechanics.</p><p>Electrons aren't particles in any truly useful sense, they're waves. If they weren't, we wouldn't have electron orbitals and absolutely none of organic chemistry could work. (OK, they're quantized waves, which gives them some particulate characteristics, but not ones like "position" in any sense that matches the concept used for singularities.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey that reminds me , electrons and quarks do n't have a size , they 're singularities.You fail at quantum mechanics.Electrons are n't particles in any truly useful sense , they 're waves .
If they were n't , we would n't have electron orbitals and absolutely none of organic chemistry could work .
( OK , they 're quantized waves , which gives them some particulate characteristics , but not ones like " position " in any sense that matches the concept used for singularities .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey that reminds me, electrons and quarks don't have a size, they're singularities.You fail at quantum mechanics.Electrons aren't particles in any truly useful sense, they're waves.
If they weren't, we wouldn't have electron orbitals and absolutely none of organic chemistry could work.
(OK, they're quantized waves, which gives them some particulate characteristics, but not ones like "position" in any sense that matches the concept used for singularities.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666310</id>
	<title>Re:Common sense required; hopeless...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262719620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The earth will implode and you don't have a towel ready.</p><p>so long, and thanks for all the fish..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The earth will implode and you do n't have a towel ready.so long , and thanks for all the fish. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The earth will implode and you don't have a towel ready.so long, and thanks for all the fish..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665984</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666640</id>
	<title>You Missed One</title>
	<author>Bob9113</author>
	<datestamp>1262809920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The analysis discusses the problem with expert witnesses, which is that any particle physicists would be afraid for their livelihoods and anybody else afraid for their lives.</i></p><p>Pardon me, Mr. Lawyer, but you missed one.</p><p>The problem with testimony from a lawyer regarding such a potential lawsuit is that any lawyer would assume that a lawsuit and the testimony of opposing expert witnesses is the best way to answer the question.</p><p>The folly of this is clearly encapsulated in the statement above. First it mentions expert witnesses, then it implies that people who are not members of the set "particle physicists" could be expert witnesses. That notion is rooted in the fundamentally flawed and intrinsically lawyerly hypothesis that both sides of any supposition have equal truth value until a couple lawyers get paid and a judge decides which one is more persuasive.</p><p>To put a fine point on it, Mr. Lawyer: Your implicit supposition that a lawsuit can add anything of value to the discussion is prima facie ridiculous. Your law degree and professorship are considerable achievements, but they are not sufficient to give your opinions any merit regarding matters of particle physics -- no more than you would care about my opinion on the validity of a complex corporate contract.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The analysis discusses the problem with expert witnesses , which is that any particle physicists would be afraid for their livelihoods and anybody else afraid for their lives.Pardon me , Mr. Lawyer , but you missed one.The problem with testimony from a lawyer regarding such a potential lawsuit is that any lawyer would assume that a lawsuit and the testimony of opposing expert witnesses is the best way to answer the question.The folly of this is clearly encapsulated in the statement above .
First it mentions expert witnesses , then it implies that people who are not members of the set " particle physicists " could be expert witnesses .
That notion is rooted in the fundamentally flawed and intrinsically lawyerly hypothesis that both sides of any supposition have equal truth value until a couple lawyers get paid and a judge decides which one is more persuasive.To put a fine point on it , Mr. Lawyer : Your implicit supposition that a lawsuit can add anything of value to the discussion is prima facie ridiculous .
Your law degree and professorship are considerable achievements , but they are not sufficient to give your opinions any merit regarding matters of particle physics -- no more than you would care about my opinion on the validity of a complex corporate contract .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The analysis discusses the problem with expert witnesses, which is that any particle physicists would be afraid for their livelihoods and anybody else afraid for their lives.Pardon me, Mr. Lawyer, but you missed one.The problem with testimony from a lawyer regarding such a potential lawsuit is that any lawyer would assume that a lawsuit and the testimony of opposing expert witnesses is the best way to answer the question.The folly of this is clearly encapsulated in the statement above.
First it mentions expert witnesses, then it implies that people who are not members of the set "particle physicists" could be expert witnesses.
That notion is rooted in the fundamentally flawed and intrinsically lawyerly hypothesis that both sides of any supposition have equal truth value until a couple lawyers get paid and a judge decides which one is more persuasive.To put a fine point on it, Mr. Lawyer: Your implicit supposition that a lawsuit can add anything of value to the discussion is prima facie ridiculous.
Your law degree and professorship are considerable achievements, but they are not sufficient to give your opinions any merit regarding matters of particle physics -- no more than you would care about my opinion on the validity of a complex corporate contract.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30668696</id>
	<title>Re:STFU</title>
	<author>Kopachris</author>
	<datestamp>1262788860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wrong.  We <i>do</i> know what happens when you smash particles at high energies.  Particle accelerators across the globe, Fermilab the most prominent until now, have been doing it for years.  The energy the LHC is going to smash at, while much greater than any before, still isn't that much.  Divide the energy, 14TeV, by c^2 to get the mass.  14TeV/c^2 is about 15,000amu, the mass of 15,000 hydrogen atoms or 2.5x10^-20 grams.  Even if the LHC <i>did</i> manage to create a black hole out of <i>all</i> that mass, it would be too little to draw anything in and would evaporate in less than a second.</p><p>And in the event the LHC <i>does</i> cause great damage (more likely to be to the power grid than anything), CERN will be responsible for paying up.  The physicists will not go on trial, CERN will, because CERN is responsible for the LHC in the same way Fermilab is responsible for the Tevatron.  That's why people start corporations&mdash;so they don't become responsible when something goes wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wrong .
We do know what happens when you smash particles at high energies .
Particle accelerators across the globe , Fermilab the most prominent until now , have been doing it for years .
The energy the LHC is going to smash at , while much greater than any before , still is n't that much .
Divide the energy , 14TeV , by c ^ 2 to get the mass .
14TeV/c ^ 2 is about 15,000amu , the mass of 15,000 hydrogen atoms or 2.5x10 ^ -20 grams .
Even if the LHC did manage to create a black hole out of all that mass , it would be too little to draw anything in and would evaporate in less than a second.And in the event the LHC does cause great damage ( more likely to be to the power grid than anything ) , CERN will be responsible for paying up .
The physicists will not go on trial , CERN will , because CERN is responsible for the LHC in the same way Fermilab is responsible for the Tevatron .
That 's why people start corporations    so they do n't become responsible when something goes wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wrong.
We do know what happens when you smash particles at high energies.
Particle accelerators across the globe, Fermilab the most prominent until now, have been doing it for years.
The energy the LHC is going to smash at, while much greater than any before, still isn't that much.
Divide the energy, 14TeV, by c^2 to get the mass.
14TeV/c^2 is about 15,000amu, the mass of 15,000 hydrogen atoms or 2.5x10^-20 grams.
Even if the LHC did manage to create a black hole out of all that mass, it would be too little to draw anything in and would evaporate in less than a second.And in the event the LHC does cause great damage (more likely to be to the power grid than anything), CERN will be responsible for paying up.
The physicists will not go on trial, CERN will, because CERN is responsible for the LHC in the same way Fermilab is responsible for the Tevatron.
That's why people start corporations—so they don't become responsible when something goes wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666384</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30671224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30667376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30669028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30671710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30668718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30668312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666330
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30669376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30668436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30667836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30669200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30667678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30668216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30668036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30669326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30670486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30673772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30668696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30670020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30671918
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30669792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30683472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30674804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30670216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30667508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30667224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30676426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30668496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30676316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30667250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30668352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30670738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30667690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30698454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30668548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30668004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30671738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30674054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30675752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30669176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30669260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30669798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30668178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30668358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30670736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30667244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30667226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30668714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30667186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30674234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30667224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30676178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30668784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30675294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30671596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30676200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30680500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30669270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30671312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30667224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30672844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30667262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30672690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30671158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30667496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30669942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30671330
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30672314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30668982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30668968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30713080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30667714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30668892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30667992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30672998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30668260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30669272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30676044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30669998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30668976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30667756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30670204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30667226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30672358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30669222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30671118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0027229_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30671616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_0027229.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665836
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_0027229.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30667678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665966
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30671224
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30669376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30668178
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_0027229.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665986
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_0027229.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30670738
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_0027229.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30669314
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_0027229.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30667170
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_0027229.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30668436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30674804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666402
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30669200
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30670204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30669798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30668892
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_0027229.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665880
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_0027229.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30667508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30668784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30667244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30671158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666540
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30675752
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30672314
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30667992
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30672998
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_0027229.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30668260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30670486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666778
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30667836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30668968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666966
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30667376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30668718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666384
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30669222
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666742
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30669272
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30713080
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30668216
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30676044
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30669942
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30670020
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30671918
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30671710
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30669260
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30668976
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30668696
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30668358
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30668312
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30667690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30668548
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_0027229.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665920
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30676316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666444
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30674234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666024
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30671312
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666304
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666382
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666464
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30668352
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30680500
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666456
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666804
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666608
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30667186
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30671330
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_0027229.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666240
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_0027229.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30669028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30670736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30669998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30672690
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_0027229.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666450
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30669792
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_0027229.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30698454
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_0027229.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666172
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_0027229.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666410
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_0027229.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30669290
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_0027229.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665720
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30674054
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_0027229.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665974
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30683472
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_0027229.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665794
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_0027229.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30668004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30671738
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_0027229.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666260
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_0027229.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30668982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30667496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30675294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30669326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665848
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30669270
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30671596
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30673772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30668036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665856
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666118
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30667250
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666016
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30667226
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30668714
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30672358
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666090
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30669176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30671118
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30667756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30667714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30671616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30667262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666404
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30668496
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_0027229.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666018
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_0027229.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666110
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_0027229.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30668832
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_0027229.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30667224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30672844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30676426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30676178
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_0027229.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30670216
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_0027229.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30680242
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_0027229.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30665984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30676200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0027229.30666310
</commentlist>
</conversation>
