<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_21_1717234</id>
	<title>Why the Uncanny Valley Doesn't Really Matter</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1264100760000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>malachiorion writes <i>"Are humanoid bots and CGI characters still <a href="http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/robotics/4343054.html">crawling their way out of the Uncanny Valley?</a> Maybe, but maybe it doesn't matter. Here's a cold, hard look at a popular robotics theory that might have no legs to stand on, android or otherwise. It's everything that seems wrong and irrelevant about the Uncanny Valley that I wasn't able to fit into this month's Popular Mechanics cover story on social bots."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>malachiorion writes " Are humanoid bots and CGI characters still crawling their way out of the Uncanny Valley ?
Maybe , but maybe it does n't matter .
Here 's a cold , hard look at a popular robotics theory that might have no legs to stand on , android or otherwise .
It 's everything that seems wrong and irrelevant about the Uncanny Valley that I was n't able to fit into this month 's Popular Mechanics cover story on social bots .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>malachiorion writes "Are humanoid bots and CGI characters still crawling their way out of the Uncanny Valley?
Maybe, but maybe it doesn't matter.
Here's a cold, hard look at a popular robotics theory that might have no legs to stand on, android or otherwise.
It's everything that seems wrong and irrelevant about the Uncanny Valley that I wasn't able to fit into this month's Popular Mechanics cover story on social bots.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850482</id>
	<title>Re:Uncanny valley exists, and does matter, so ther</title>
	<author>pnuema</author>
	<datestamp>1264065660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The first market for social robots will be in some form of customer relations where replacing hourly employees makes business sense</i> <p>The first market for social robots will be fuckbots. You must be new here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The first market for social robots will be in some form of customer relations where replacing hourly employees makes business sense The first market for social robots will be fuckbots .
You must be new here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first market for social robots will be in some form of customer relations where replacing hourly employees makes business sense The first market for social robots will be fuckbots.
You must be new here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849724</id>
	<title>"Deliberately seeks out the uncanny"</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1264105860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article says that one of the designers "deliberately seeks out the uncanny" by making his robots buzz and click, by making them incomplete.</p><p>What this is doing is keeping them firmly on the "cartoon" side of any such valley. If it exists or not, robots that are deliberately avoiding it aren't evidence one way or the other.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article says that one of the designers " deliberately seeks out the uncanny " by making his robots buzz and click , by making them incomplete.What this is doing is keeping them firmly on the " cartoon " side of any such valley .
If it exists or not , robots that are deliberately avoiding it are n't evidence one way or the other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article says that one of the designers "deliberately seeks out the uncanny" by making his robots buzz and click, by making them incomplete.What this is doing is keeping them firmly on the "cartoon" side of any such valley.
If it exists or not, robots that are deliberately avoiding it aren't evidence one way or the other.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30856742</id>
	<title>Re:when lewis and clark</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1264100280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>went on their famous expedition, there was a black guy in their group, york<br> <br>

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/York\_(explorer)" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/York\_(explorer)</a> [wikipedia.org] [wikipedia.org]<br> <br>

the native americans would stand in slack jaw amazement at york, as if he were possessed of magic. they never saw a black man before. york would further dumbfound them by taking out and reinserting his false teeth</p></div><p>Is it because he said "scuse me while I whip this out"?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>went on their famous expedition , there was a black guy in their group , york http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/York \ _ ( explorer ) [ wikipedia.org ] [ wikipedia.org ] the native americans would stand in slack jaw amazement at york , as if he were possessed of magic .
they never saw a black man before .
york would further dumbfound them by taking out and reinserting his false teethIs it because he said " scuse me while I whip this out " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>went on their famous expedition, there was a black guy in their group, york 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/York\_(explorer) [wikipedia.org] [wikipedia.org] 

the native americans would stand in slack jaw amazement at york, as if he were possessed of magic.
they never saw a black man before.
york would further dumbfound them by taking out and reinserting his false teethIs it because he said "scuse me while I whip this out"?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850262</id>
	<title>Re:Dogs hate cats. Dolphins hate sharks.</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1264064940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Got a reference for that?</p><p>Sharks and dolphins compete for food and a lone dolphin is potential prey for a hungry member of one of the larger shark species.</p><p>Ditto with dogs and cats - in the wild they compete for food and are potential prey for each other.  Sure the domesticated variety often live happily together... as long as there's plenty of food and living space.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Got a reference for that ? Sharks and dolphins compete for food and a lone dolphin is potential prey for a hungry member of one of the larger shark species.Ditto with dogs and cats - in the wild they compete for food and are potential prey for each other .
Sure the domesticated variety often live happily together... as long as there 's plenty of food and living space .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Got a reference for that?Sharks and dolphins compete for food and a lone dolphin is potential prey for a hungry member of one of the larger shark species.Ditto with dogs and cats - in the wild they compete for food and are potential prey for each other.
Sure the domesticated variety often live happily together... as long as there's plenty of food and living space.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849518</id>
	<title>Woah!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264104960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Check out the Rack on that Android. Is it a drop in?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Check out the Rack on that Android .
Is it a drop in ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Check out the Rack on that Android.
Is it a drop in?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30857698</id>
	<title>Re:yeah, but why humanoid robots in the first plac</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264158120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There were a lot more than that.</p><p>I think you've missed the point of a lot of the stories.</p><p>The settlers had robots too, but they were all of the Roomba variety.  The spacers had the humanoid equivalents.  It's far more efficient to build a car that drives itself than to have a normal car and a humanoid robot.  The spacer robots filled a slave fetish.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There were a lot more than that.I think you 've missed the point of a lot of the stories.The settlers had robots too , but they were all of the Roomba variety .
The spacers had the humanoid equivalents .
It 's far more efficient to build a car that drives itself than to have a normal car and a humanoid robot .
The spacer robots filled a slave fetish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There were a lot more than that.I think you've missed the point of a lot of the stories.The settlers had robots too, but they were all of the Roomba variety.
The spacers had the humanoid equivalents.
It's far more efficient to build a car that drives itself than to have a normal car and a humanoid robot.
The spacer robots filled a slave fetish.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30854948</id>
	<title>Re:Dogs hate cats. Dolphins hate sharks.</title>
	<author>UnknownSoldier</author>
	<datestamp>1264082760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Are dogs and cats friendly once they've become acquainted?</p><p>Yes.  Having grown up on a farm, all our cats and dogs slept next to each other and never fought because they grew up together.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Are dogs and cats friendly once they 've become acquainted ? Yes .
Having grown up on a farm , all our cats and dogs slept next to each other and never fought because they grew up together .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Are dogs and cats friendly once they've become acquainted?Yes.
Having grown up on a farm, all our cats and dogs slept next to each other and never fought because they grew up together.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30853248</id>
	<title>Re:Well, it certainly \_CAN\_ matter.</title>
	<author>blahplusplus</author>
	<datestamp>1264074420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I remember seeing the Final Fantasy: Spirits Within movie in the theater and just minutes into the movie I was convinced I was looking at real humans"</p><p>I was really quite aware that the movie had 'video game' characters, the plastic and fake way the skin and arms move and how clothing functions on these characters are a dead give away, esp during scenes with short shirts and their arms/flesh are exposed.</p><p>I think people simply forget about it because let's face it, cartoons and animated films have no basis in reality (technically they are "uncanny valley" they are metaphors or tropes based on reality, but we still enjoy these fantasy metaphors nonetheless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I remember seeing the Final Fantasy : Spirits Within movie in the theater and just minutes into the movie I was convinced I was looking at real humans " I was really quite aware that the movie had 'video game ' characters , the plastic and fake way the skin and arms move and how clothing functions on these characters are a dead give away , esp during scenes with short shirts and their arms/flesh are exposed.I think people simply forget about it because let 's face it , cartoons and animated films have no basis in reality ( technically they are " uncanny valley " they are metaphors or tropes based on reality , but we still enjoy these fantasy metaphors nonetheless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I remember seeing the Final Fantasy: Spirits Within movie in the theater and just minutes into the movie I was convinced I was looking at real humans"I was really quite aware that the movie had 'video game' characters, the plastic and fake way the skin and arms move and how clothing functions on these characters are a dead give away, esp during scenes with short shirts and their arms/flesh are exposed.I think people simply forget about it because let's face it, cartoons and animated films have no basis in reality (technically they are "uncanny valley" they are metaphors or tropes based on reality, but we still enjoy these fantasy metaphors nonetheless.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30853944</id>
	<title>Re:yeah, but why humanoid robots in the first plac</title>
	<author>vadim\_t</author>
	<datestamp>1264077120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been saying it for a long time.</p><p>Instead of obsessing over getting human appearance right, they should just give it a human shape, and dress it in a <a href="http://www.mixedcandymascots.com/gallery/v/useyourowneyes/fennec/" title="mixedcandymascots.com">fursuit</a> [mixedcandymascots.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been saying it for a long time.Instead of obsessing over getting human appearance right , they should just give it a human shape , and dress it in a fursuit [ mixedcandymascots.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been saying it for a long time.Instead of obsessing over getting human appearance right, they should just give it a human shape, and dress it in a fursuit [mixedcandymascots.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850174</id>
	<title>Re:yeah, but why humanoid robots in the first plac</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264064580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We all want to own a slave.  We all want to be able to say "get me a beer from the fridge" and have something that doesn't look like a fridge do it.  Every time.  With no back talk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We all want to own a slave .
We all want to be able to say " get me a beer from the fridge " and have something that does n't look like a fridge do it .
Every time .
With no back talk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We all want to own a slave.
We all want to be able to say "get me a beer from the fridge" and have something that doesn't look like a fridge do it.
Every time.
With no back talk.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30855378</id>
	<title>Re:yeah, but why humanoid robots in the first plac</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264086180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who says that my robot sex-slave isn't getting something useful done for me?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who says that my robot sex-slave is n't getting something useful done for me ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who says that my robot sex-slave isn't getting something useful done for me?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850676</id>
	<title>Re:yeah, but why humanoid robots in the first plac</title>
	<author>hitmark</author>
	<datestamp>1264066500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i would not recommend building any kind of cannon into a robot designed to serve us, just in case...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i would not recommend building any kind of cannon into a robot designed to serve us , just in case.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i would not recommend building any kind of cannon into a robot designed to serve us, just in case...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30851302</id>
	<title>Re:Dogs hate cats. Dolphins hate sharks.</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1264068300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, in a fight, dolphins vs. sharks, the dolphins win. They are faster, can turn around quicker, and are <em>much</em> smarter. They ram their noses in the shark&rsquo;s tummy. And apparently, sharks hate that so much, that they run away.</p><p>Ok, if the sharks <em>can&rsquo;t</em> run away... and they begin to panic... then the dolphins are fucked.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , in a fight , dolphins vs. sharks , the dolphins win .
They are faster , can turn around quicker , and are much smarter .
They ram their noses in the shark    s tummy .
And apparently , sharks hate that so much , that they run away.Ok , if the sharks can    t run away... and they begin to panic... then the dolphins are fucked .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, in a fight, dolphins vs. sharks, the dolphins win.
They are faster, can turn around quicker, and are much smarter.
They ram their noses in the shark’s tummy.
And apparently, sharks hate that so much, that they run away.Ok, if the sharks can’t run away... and they begin to panic... then the dolphins are fucked.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30852946</id>
	<title>Re:yeah, but why humanoid robots in the first plac</title>
	<author>atamido</author>
	<datestamp>1264073400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>At least one Asimov robot wasn't humaniform. The short story "Sally" had vehicles outfitted with positronic brains.</p></div><p>And is was down right creepy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>At least one Asimov robot was n't humaniform .
The short story " Sally " had vehicles outfitted with positronic brains.And is was down right creepy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least one Asimov robot wasn't humaniform.
The short story "Sally" had vehicles outfitted with positronic brains.And is was down right creepy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30857442</id>
	<title>Also relevant in Art</title>
	<author>CNTOAGN</author>
	<datestamp>1264153740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have experienced the Uncanny Valley but not necessarily in a bad way.  At the Fort Worth Modern Art Museum the artist, Ron Mueck, for the first set of the sculptures here:
<a href="http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2009/11/mind-blowing-hyperrealistic-sculptures/" title="webdesignerdepot.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2009/11/mind-blowing-hyperrealistic-sculptures/</a> [webdesignerdepot.com] was on display and it was mind blowing.  The woman in the bed made you feel 4 years old again because of the size - she's huge - like 10x normal - but perfect in detail.  The skin has individual hair follicles, the eyes are moist looking, fingernails are slightly translucent - amazing detail.  The two old woman are also perfect - but at 1/2 size normal I couldn't help be stare, up close my sense of perception was skewed and I started to imagine them moving, like you do with dead people (my families catholic, so I've got to stare at all kinds of dead ppl)
<br>Highly recommended if you can catch up to one of his shows.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have experienced the Uncanny Valley but not necessarily in a bad way .
At the Fort Worth Modern Art Museum the artist , Ron Mueck , for the first set of the sculptures here : http : //www.webdesignerdepot.com/2009/11/mind-blowing-hyperrealistic-sculptures/ [ webdesignerdepot.com ] was on display and it was mind blowing .
The woman in the bed made you feel 4 years old again because of the size - she 's huge - like 10x normal - but perfect in detail .
The skin has individual hair follicles , the eyes are moist looking , fingernails are slightly translucent - amazing detail .
The two old woman are also perfect - but at 1/2 size normal I could n't help be stare , up close my sense of perception was skewed and I started to imagine them moving , like you do with dead people ( my families catholic , so I 've got to stare at all kinds of dead ppl ) Highly recommended if you can catch up to one of his shows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have experienced the Uncanny Valley but not necessarily in a bad way.
At the Fort Worth Modern Art Museum the artist, Ron Mueck, for the first set of the sculptures here:
http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2009/11/mind-blowing-hyperrealistic-sculptures/ [webdesignerdepot.com] was on display and it was mind blowing.
The woman in the bed made you feel 4 years old again because of the size - she's huge - like 10x normal - but perfect in detail.
The skin has individual hair follicles, the eyes are moist looking, fingernails are slightly translucent - amazing detail.
The two old woman are also perfect - but at 1/2 size normal I couldn't help be stare, up close my sense of perception was skewed and I started to imagine them moving, like you do with dead people (my families catholic, so I've got to stare at all kinds of dead ppl)
Highly recommended if you can catch up to one of his shows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849674</id>
	<title>Re:yeah, but why humanoid robots in the first plac</title>
	<author>jameskojiro</author>
	<datestamp>1264105680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Humanoid robots are great as they can use the same tools as humans can and can more easily relate to humans.   Why build several $5,000 domestic chore robots that need special tools when you can buy one $20,000 humanoid robot that does all of the shores, need no special tools to clean the toilets, do the dishes,  and vacuum the floor except the cheap tools humans already use.   Plus make it so you can shag the robot so that makes it  win-win...   Kinda hard to have a relationship with a Roomba....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Humanoid robots are great as they can use the same tools as humans can and can more easily relate to humans .
Why build several $ 5,000 domestic chore robots that need special tools when you can buy one $ 20,000 humanoid robot that does all of the shores , need no special tools to clean the toilets , do the dishes , and vacuum the floor except the cheap tools humans already use .
Plus make it so you can shag the robot so that makes it win-win... Kinda hard to have a relationship with a Roomba... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Humanoid robots are great as they can use the same tools as humans can and can more easily relate to humans.
Why build several $5,000 domestic chore robots that need special tools when you can buy one $20,000 humanoid robot that does all of the shores, need no special tools to clean the toilets, do the dishes,  and vacuum the floor except the cheap tools humans already use.
Plus make it so you can shag the robot so that makes it  win-win...   Kinda hard to have a relationship with a Roomba....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30852800</id>
	<title>Re:Woah!</title>
	<author>colinrichardday</author>
	<datestamp>1264072860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shouldn't that be gynoid? At least that's my preference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Should n't that be gynoid ?
At least that 's my preference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shouldn't that be gynoid?
At least that's my preference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850048</id>
	<title>Re:yeah, but why humanoid robots in the first plac</title>
	<author>gyrogeerloose</author>
	<datestamp>1264107240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Robot actors</p></div><p>How about Steven Segal? Or Tom Cruise? Dolph Lundgren? Ah-nuld Schwartzenegger? Sylvester Sallone? Jean-Claude Van Damme? Vin Diesel?</p><p>There's already been a number of successful robotic actors.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Robot actorsHow about Steven Segal ?
Or Tom Cruise ?
Dolph Lundgren ?
Ah-nuld Schwartzenegger ?
Sylvester Sallone ?
Jean-Claude Van Damme ?
Vin Diesel ? There 's already been a number of successful robotic actors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Robot actorsHow about Steven Segal?
Or Tom Cruise?
Dolph Lundgren?
Ah-nuld Schwartzenegger?
Sylvester Sallone?
Jean-Claude Van Damme?
Vin Diesel?There's already been a number of successful robotic actors.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30851578</id>
	<title>Re:yeah, but why humanoid robots in the first plac</title>
	<author>rjmx</author>
	<datestamp>1264069140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps if evolution had given us wheels instead of legs, we'd be using ramps instead of stairs now.</p><p>And even more worrisome, human progress would have taken a great leap (!) forward when somebody invented the leg, way back in the Stone Age.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps if evolution had given us wheels instead of legs , we 'd be using ramps instead of stairs now.And even more worrisome , human progress would have taken a great leap ( !
) forward when somebody invented the leg , way back in the Stone Age .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps if evolution had given us wheels instead of legs, we'd be using ramps instead of stairs now.And even more worrisome, human progress would have taken a great leap (!
) forward when somebody invented the leg, way back in the Stone Age.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850986</id>
	<title>Re:yeah, but why humanoid robots in the first plac</title>
	<author>cbs4385</author>
	<datestamp>1264067400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A robot that would be use in any random setting or handling various chores would probably be best designed as a humanoid.  The tools it would use while preforming the tasks are already designed for us to use.  If I want to have a robot to do my chores, I'd rather not have to buy all new tools as well to enable it to do them.  And even if I did get specialized accessories to enable the robot to work for me, How the hll am I going to use the lawn mover designed for the spider bot with 4 arms when it breaks?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A robot that would be use in any random setting or handling various chores would probably be best designed as a humanoid .
The tools it would use while preforming the tasks are already designed for us to use .
If I want to have a robot to do my chores , I 'd rather not have to buy all new tools as well to enable it to do them .
And even if I did get specialized accessories to enable the robot to work for me , How the hll am I going to use the lawn mover designed for the spider bot with 4 arms when it breaks ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A robot that would be use in any random setting or handling various chores would probably be best designed as a humanoid.
The tools it would use while preforming the tasks are already designed for us to use.
If I want to have a robot to do my chores, I'd rather not have to buy all new tools as well to enable it to do them.
And even if I did get specialized accessories to enable the robot to work for me, How the hll am I going to use the lawn mover designed for the spider bot with 4 arms when it breaks?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30851190</id>
	<title>Re:yeah, but why humanoid robots in the first plac</title>
	<author>Caesar Tjalbo</author>
	<datestamp>1264068000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Humanoid robots are great as they can use the same tools as humans</p></div></blockquote><p>That would be interesting in a situation where the robot (temporarily) replaces a human or the tools are special. <br> <br>Plenty of ordinary tools come with changeable parts, like screwdrivers/drills or tools that can be used with high pressure air. Adding a sort of 'Swiss army knife' of popular connections to the robot is probably more efficient for the robot. Many tools are electronic anyway. Should robots become more obvious in daily life, it seems to me a robot would use its hand to plug its, say, USB cable in a device rather than using the interface for humans.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Humanoid robots are great as they can use the same tools as humansThat would be interesting in a situation where the robot ( temporarily ) replaces a human or the tools are special .
Plenty of ordinary tools come with changeable parts , like screwdrivers/drills or tools that can be used with high pressure air .
Adding a sort of 'Swiss army knife ' of popular connections to the robot is probably more efficient for the robot .
Many tools are electronic anyway .
Should robots become more obvious in daily life , it seems to me a robot would use its hand to plug its , say , USB cable in a device rather than using the interface for humans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Humanoid robots are great as they can use the same tools as humansThat would be interesting in a situation where the robot (temporarily) replaces a human or the tools are special.
Plenty of ordinary tools come with changeable parts, like screwdrivers/drills or tools that can be used with high pressure air.
Adding a sort of 'Swiss army knife' of popular connections to the robot is probably more efficient for the robot.
Many tools are electronic anyway.
Should robots become more obvious in daily life, it seems to me a robot would use its hand to plug its, say, USB cable in a device rather than using the interface for humans.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30855498</id>
	<title>Who says there's only humanoid robots?</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1264087380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>there's no Uncanny Valley for Roombas.</i></p><p>Well yes, you've answered your question. Obviously people only talk about humanoid robots when talking about the uncanny valley, because it doesn't apply to the non-humanoid ones! However, plenty of non-humanoid ones do exist. I don't think anyone's claiming all robots must be humanoid - just that some of them will be, and it's interesting to look at the uncanny valley issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>there 's no Uncanny Valley for Roombas.Well yes , you 've answered your question .
Obviously people only talk about humanoid robots when talking about the uncanny valley , because it does n't apply to the non-humanoid ones !
However , plenty of non-humanoid ones do exist .
I do n't think anyone 's claiming all robots must be humanoid - just that some of them will be , and it 's interesting to look at the uncanny valley issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there's no Uncanny Valley for Roombas.Well yes, you've answered your question.
Obviously people only talk about humanoid robots when talking about the uncanny valley, because it doesn't apply to the non-humanoid ones!
However, plenty of non-humanoid ones do exist.
I don't think anyone's claiming all robots must be humanoid - just that some of them will be, and it's interesting to look at the uncanny valley issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850618</id>
	<title>Re:yeah, but why humanoid robots in the first plac</title>
	<author>spyder913</author>
	<datestamp>1264066200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like this one?</p><p><a href="http://www.duke.edu/~jwc13/beerlauncher.html" title="duke.edu">http://www.duke.edu/~jwc13/beerlauncher.html</a> [duke.edu]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like this one ? http : //www.duke.edu/ ~ jwc13/beerlauncher.html [ duke.edu ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like this one?http://www.duke.edu/~jwc13/beerlauncher.html [duke.edu]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30852372</id>
	<title>Thanks</title>
	<author>izlerken</author>
	<datestamp>1264071540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thankss</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thankss</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thankss</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30851896</id>
	<title>Pimping your article on Slashdot</title>
	<author>icebike</author>
	<datestamp>1264070100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) write thin article for a dying rag<br>2) pimp it on slashdot<br>3) ????<br>4) Profit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) write thin article for a dying rag2 ) pimp it on slashdot3 ) ? ? ?
? 4 ) Profit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) write thin article for a dying rag2) pimp it on slashdot3) ???
?4) Profit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849726</id>
	<title>Re:Dogs hate cats. Dolphins hate sharks.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264105920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Are sharks and dolphins friendly after becoming acquained in a controlled environment? I'll leave that as an experiment up to the user.</p></div></blockquote><p>you owe me 11 replacement dolphins</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are sharks and dolphins friendly after becoming acquained in a controlled environment ?
I 'll leave that as an experiment up to the user.you owe me 11 replacement dolphins</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are sharks and dolphins friendly after becoming acquained in a controlled environment?
I'll leave that as an experiment up to the user.you owe me 11 replacement dolphins
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850004</id>
	<title>Re:Dogs hate cats. Dolphins hate sharks.</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1264107000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Careful. Dolphins are highly intelligent and sharks are death with fins. If they *do* become friendly, you're looking at Deep Blue Sea.</p><p>(Though the opportunity of Samuel L Jackson being tired of these motherfucking sharks and dolphins on this motherfucking marine biology lab is too good to pass up.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Careful .
Dolphins are highly intelligent and sharks are death with fins .
If they * do * become friendly , you 're looking at Deep Blue Sea .
( Though the opportunity of Samuel L Jackson being tired of these motherfucking sharks and dolphins on this motherfucking marine biology lab is too good to pass up .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Careful.
Dolphins are highly intelligent and sharks are death with fins.
If they *do* become friendly, you're looking at Deep Blue Sea.
(Though the opportunity of Samuel L Jackson being tired of these motherfucking sharks and dolphins on this motherfucking marine biology lab is too good to pass up.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30855574</id>
	<title>Re:yeah, but why humanoid robots in the first plac</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1264087980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But then we have washing machines. We have lost the ability to do whatever we did to wash clothes before washing machines (I have no idea) and there is no going back. I think if humanoid robots were available they would have morphed into modern washing machines anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But then we have washing machines .
We have lost the ability to do whatever we did to wash clothes before washing machines ( I have no idea ) and there is no going back .
I think if humanoid robots were available they would have morphed into modern washing machines anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But then we have washing machines.
We have lost the ability to do whatever we did to wash clothes before washing machines (I have no idea) and there is no going back.
I think if humanoid robots were available they would have morphed into modern washing machines anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849970</id>
	<title>Re:Dogs hate cats. Dolphins hate sharks.</title>
	<author>amRadioHed</author>
	<datestamp>1264106880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't it much more likely that dogs tend to attack cats because they're convenient? I'm sure if you had other strange animals around the house a dog would be just as likely to be unfriendly towards them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't it much more likely that dogs tend to attack cats because they 're convenient ?
I 'm sure if you had other strange animals around the house a dog would be just as likely to be unfriendly towards them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't it much more likely that dogs tend to attack cats because they're convenient?
I'm sure if you had other strange animals around the house a dog would be just as likely to be unfriendly towards them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849556</id>
	<title>Dogs hate cats. Dolphins hate sharks.</title>
	<author>CorporateSuit</author>
	<datestamp>1264105200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Many biologists think that dog attack cats and dolphins attack sharks for the reason that the latter of each pairing is too similar to the former of each, that the former might draw the comfort of familiarity until the revulsion of what appears to be an abomination of one's own species at closer inspection -- an "Uncanny Valley in the wild" so to speak.  Are dogs and cats friendly once they've become acquainted?  Oftentimes.  Are sharks and dolphins friendly after becoming acquained in a controlled environment?  I'll leave that as an experiment up to the user.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Many biologists think that dog attack cats and dolphins attack sharks for the reason that the latter of each pairing is too similar to the former of each , that the former might draw the comfort of familiarity until the revulsion of what appears to be an abomination of one 's own species at closer inspection -- an " Uncanny Valley in the wild " so to speak .
Are dogs and cats friendly once they 've become acquainted ?
Oftentimes. Are sharks and dolphins friendly after becoming acquained in a controlled environment ?
I 'll leave that as an experiment up to the user .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many biologists think that dog attack cats and dolphins attack sharks for the reason that the latter of each pairing is too similar to the former of each, that the former might draw the comfort of familiarity until the revulsion of what appears to be an abomination of one's own species at closer inspection -- an "Uncanny Valley in the wild" so to speak.
Are dogs and cats friendly once they've become acquainted?
Oftentimes.  Are sharks and dolphins friendly after becoming acquained in a controlled environment?
I'll leave that as an experiment up to the user.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849988</id>
	<title>Re:Avatar was a step out of uncanny valley</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264106940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It was the first virtual world which I could see as real, which I didn't have to pretend otherwise because all previous efforts has give-aways that it was fake.  It looked goood (and if you sat through the credits, the masses of names hint towards the work needed to make this so) and that's why it's so successful and a breakthrough, imo.</p></div><p>No. The reason you didnt feel the uncanny valley was because it wasnt real. It was so far from real that your brain didnt find the twisted smurf creatures disturbing.</p><p>I'm also pissed off (as a phd in graphics research) that everyone thinks its breakthrough. Gollum in LOTR was a breakthrough, theres no new tech in this movie. James Cameron needs to stop saying how he invented mocap, its stupid. You'll find that most of the amazing "breakthroughs" of the last decade you didnt actually notice because the CG was perfect and more importantly subtle.</p><p>If you create an entirely made up world you can put anything in it and have it "fit", because you have accepted the fantasy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was the first virtual world which I could see as real , which I did n't have to pretend otherwise because all previous efforts has give-aways that it was fake .
It looked goood ( and if you sat through the credits , the masses of names hint towards the work needed to make this so ) and that 's why it 's so successful and a breakthrough , imo.No .
The reason you didnt feel the uncanny valley was because it wasnt real .
It was so far from real that your brain didnt find the twisted smurf creatures disturbing.I 'm also pissed off ( as a phd in graphics research ) that everyone thinks its breakthrough .
Gollum in LOTR was a breakthrough , theres no new tech in this movie .
James Cameron needs to stop saying how he invented mocap , its stupid .
You 'll find that most of the amazing " breakthroughs " of the last decade you didnt actually notice because the CG was perfect and more importantly subtle.If you create an entirely made up world you can put anything in it and have it " fit " , because you have accepted the fantasy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was the first virtual world which I could see as real, which I didn't have to pretend otherwise because all previous efforts has give-aways that it was fake.
It looked goood (and if you sat through the credits, the masses of names hint towards the work needed to make this so) and that's why it's so successful and a breakthrough, imo.No.
The reason you didnt feel the uncanny valley was because it wasnt real.
It was so far from real that your brain didnt find the twisted smurf creatures disturbing.I'm also pissed off (as a phd in graphics research) that everyone thinks its breakthrough.
Gollum in LOTR was a breakthrough, theres no new tech in this movie.
James Cameron needs to stop saying how he invented mocap, its stupid.
You'll find that most of the amazing "breakthroughs" of the last decade you didnt actually notice because the CG was perfect and more importantly subtle.If you create an entirely made up world you can put anything in it and have it "fit", because you have accepted the fantasy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850476</id>
	<title>Re:So?</title>
	<author>poopdeville</author>
	<datestamp>1264065660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>There's only a handful of tasks such a machine would be optimal for</i></p><p>Including replacing most of the service industry.</p><p><i>, and just having a human do it will still be the better choice for quite a while.</i></p><p>I think I'd rather live un-optimally, with a Maidbot 4000.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's only a handful of tasks such a machine would be optimal forIncluding replacing most of the service industry. , and just having a human do it will still be the better choice for quite a while.I think I 'd rather live un-optimally , with a Maidbot 4000 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's only a handful of tasks such a machine would be optimal forIncluding replacing most of the service industry., and just having a human do it will still be the better choice for quite a while.I think I'd rather live un-optimally, with a Maidbot 4000.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849774</id>
	<title>Not yet in the valley....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264106100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uncanny valley may not be real, or be more a problem for CGI than real-life...but the examples proposed are not enough to prove this, or disprove it: All the robots are still clearly too far within the not-human region to enter the uncanny valley imho.<br>Uncanny is something that try to pass for human and may be successful, from far away, if you do not pay attention, in bad light. Not the case here, far from it....</p><p>Those are like dolls, and non-scary ones (some dolls are more deep in the uncanny than those robots).</p><p>Of the 3 examples, I feel only the baby-robot start to look like he can enter the valley - mainly because of it's too-large rubber skin. The first one looks like a real-life attempt to recreate the hero from "robots" (the animation from 2005), and the MIT one looks like industrial design from apple 3 years ago...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uncanny valley may not be real , or be more a problem for CGI than real-life...but the examples proposed are not enough to prove this , or disprove it : All the robots are still clearly too far within the not-human region to enter the uncanny valley imho.Uncanny is something that try to pass for human and may be successful , from far away , if you do not pay attention , in bad light .
Not the case here , far from it....Those are like dolls , and non-scary ones ( some dolls are more deep in the uncanny than those robots ) .Of the 3 examples , I feel only the baby-robot start to look like he can enter the valley - mainly because of it 's too-large rubber skin .
The first one looks like a real-life attempt to recreate the hero from " robots " ( the animation from 2005 ) , and the MIT one looks like industrial design from apple 3 years ago.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uncanny valley may not be real, or be more a problem for CGI than real-life...but the examples proposed are not enough to prove this, or disprove it: All the robots are still clearly too far within the not-human region to enter the uncanny valley imho.Uncanny is something that try to pass for human and may be successful, from far away, if you do not pay attention, in bad light.
Not the case here, far from it....Those are like dolls, and non-scary ones (some dolls are more deep in the uncanny than those robots).Of the 3 examples, I feel only the baby-robot start to look like he can enter the valley - mainly because of it's too-large rubber skin.
The first one looks like a real-life attempt to recreate the hero from "robots" (the animation from 2005), and the MIT one looks like industrial design from apple 3 years ago...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30852550</id>
	<title>Wall-E anyone?</title>
	<author>Areyoukiddingme</author>
	<datestamp>1264072020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the phenomenon labeled Uncanny Valley is perfectly valid and perfectly irrelevant.  At least, as long as it's framed solely in terms of appearance.  It's trivially easy for people to relate to Wall-E.  It doesn't matter in the slightest that he looks only very vaguely cubically humanoid.  He could be, in the great Disney test of yesteryear, an animated flour sack.  As long as he appears to express emotions, the machine instantly becomes "he" to us.  (Or she, depending on the mannerisms.)  A walking talking RealDoll will still be a creepy failure as long as it doesn't move right.  A box with treads will succeed, as long as it can act human (or possibly canine).</p><p>In desktop computers, it's the software that's inadequate, as every attempt at game AI demonstrates.  In robots, there are still a few things that are inadequate in the hardware, but truly it's still the software.  Roombas have zero personality.</p><p>Slashdot carried the story about the little robot let loose in Central Park a while back.  It was nothing but a bump and go car with a flag on it and a sign saying "help me get to point X" and people actually did help it.  Now consider what would have happened if it had been a Wall-E bot.  I'd bet money that if a little robot hunched down, tapped his manipulator tips together, tipped his cameras into a configuration vaguely reminiscent of a worried expression and shuffled his treads, and held up a sign asking for help to reach point X that someone would have literally stopped what they were doing, taken his hand, and led him the entire way there.</p><p>It's the personality, stupid. (To coin a phrase...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the phenomenon labeled Uncanny Valley is perfectly valid and perfectly irrelevant .
At least , as long as it 's framed solely in terms of appearance .
It 's trivially easy for people to relate to Wall-E. It does n't matter in the slightest that he looks only very vaguely cubically humanoid .
He could be , in the great Disney test of yesteryear , an animated flour sack .
As long as he appears to express emotions , the machine instantly becomes " he " to us .
( Or she , depending on the mannerisms .
) A walking talking RealDoll will still be a creepy failure as long as it does n't move right .
A box with treads will succeed , as long as it can act human ( or possibly canine ) .In desktop computers , it 's the software that 's inadequate , as every attempt at game AI demonstrates .
In robots , there are still a few things that are inadequate in the hardware , but truly it 's still the software .
Roombas have zero personality.Slashdot carried the story about the little robot let loose in Central Park a while back .
It was nothing but a bump and go car with a flag on it and a sign saying " help me get to point X " and people actually did help it .
Now consider what would have happened if it had been a Wall-E bot .
I 'd bet money that if a little robot hunched down , tapped his manipulator tips together , tipped his cameras into a configuration vaguely reminiscent of a worried expression and shuffled his treads , and held up a sign asking for help to reach point X that someone would have literally stopped what they were doing , taken his hand , and led him the entire way there.It 's the personality , stupid .
( To coin a phrase... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the phenomenon labeled Uncanny Valley is perfectly valid and perfectly irrelevant.
At least, as long as it's framed solely in terms of appearance.
It's trivially easy for people to relate to Wall-E.  It doesn't matter in the slightest that he looks only very vaguely cubically humanoid.
He could be, in the great Disney test of yesteryear, an animated flour sack.
As long as he appears to express emotions, the machine instantly becomes "he" to us.
(Or she, depending on the mannerisms.
)  A walking talking RealDoll will still be a creepy failure as long as it doesn't move right.
A box with treads will succeed, as long as it can act human (or possibly canine).In desktop computers, it's the software that's inadequate, as every attempt at game AI demonstrates.
In robots, there are still a few things that are inadequate in the hardware, but truly it's still the software.
Roombas have zero personality.Slashdot carried the story about the little robot let loose in Central Park a while back.
It was nothing but a bump and go car with a flag on it and a sign saying "help me get to point X" and people actually did help it.
Now consider what would have happened if it had been a Wall-E bot.
I'd bet money that if a little robot hunched down, tapped his manipulator tips together, tipped his cameras into a configuration vaguely reminiscent of a worried expression and shuffled his treads, and held up a sign asking for help to reach point X that someone would have literally stopped what they were doing, taken his hand, and led him the entire way there.It's the personality, stupid.
(To coin a phrase...)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30851814</id>
	<title>Re:Well, it certainly \_CAN\_ matter.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264069860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had a somewhat different experience with that movie.  I didn't know that the movie was CGI, and it seemed like live-action (albeit with special effects) for the first five or ten minutes, at which point something seemed "wrong".  I kept staring at the lead female's face, and finally decided that it had a not-quite-human shape.  When I realized, "oh, it's CGI", I was able to settle back and resume enjoying the movie.</p><p>It was the analysis-to-resolve-ambiguity which temporarily pulled me "out of the movie".</p><p>But it was just a distraction, not something creepy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had a somewhat different experience with that movie .
I did n't know that the movie was CGI , and it seemed like live-action ( albeit with special effects ) for the first five or ten minutes , at which point something seemed " wrong " .
I kept staring at the lead female 's face , and finally decided that it had a not-quite-human shape .
When I realized , " oh , it 's CGI " , I was able to settle back and resume enjoying the movie.It was the analysis-to-resolve-ambiguity which temporarily pulled me " out of the movie " .But it was just a distraction , not something creepy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had a somewhat different experience with that movie.
I didn't know that the movie was CGI, and it seemed like live-action (albeit with special effects) for the first five or ten minutes, at which point something seemed "wrong".
I kept staring at the lead female's face, and finally decided that it had a not-quite-human shape.
When I realized, "oh, it's CGI", I was able to settle back and resume enjoying the movie.It was the analysis-to-resolve-ambiguity which temporarily pulled me "out of the movie".But it was just a distraction, not something creepy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850094</id>
	<title>Re:Dogs hate cats. Dolphins hate sharks.</title>
	<author>jgeiger</author>
	<datestamp>1264107420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>Are sharks and dolphins friendly after becoming acquained in a controlled environment? I'll leave that as an experiment up to the user.</p></div></blockquote><p>you owe me 11 replacement dolphins</p></div><p>you owe me 11 replacement sharks</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are sharks and dolphins friendly after becoming acquained in a controlled environment ?
I 'll leave that as an experiment up to the user.you owe me 11 replacement dolphinsyou owe me 11 replacement sharks</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are sharks and dolphins friendly after becoming acquained in a controlled environment?
I'll leave that as an experiment up to the user.you owe me 11 replacement dolphinsyou owe me 11 replacement sharks
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30855584</id>
	<title>Train your dog.</title>
	<author>HornWumpus</author>
	<datestamp>1264088040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
It's not that hard.
</p><p>
First think hard: Do I want my dog to know how to open the refrigerator door? (Is your dog a lab? Is there food in 'fridge?)
</p><p>
If the answer is yes, tie a towel to your fridge door. The dog will figure it out on his own.
</p><p>
Once he knows how to open the door with the towel switch to a smaller towel, then smaller etc.
</p><p>
At the end of the process the dog will have figured out how to open the door with his paw.
</p><p>
You can then teach him how to fetch beers using conventional training techniques.
</p><p>
Don't reward him with beer and don't buy can beer.
</p><p>
You shouldn't be drinking canned piss anyhow but obviously your dog will have a harder time getting beer out of bottles (for himself).
</p><p>
Labs will eat everything in the refrigerator. Including the plastic parts of shelves.
</p><p>
Don't do it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not that hard .
First think hard : Do I want my dog to know how to open the refrigerator door ?
( Is your dog a lab ?
Is there food in 'fridge ?
) If the answer is yes , tie a towel to your fridge door .
The dog will figure it out on his own .
Once he knows how to open the door with the towel switch to a smaller towel , then smaller etc .
At the end of the process the dog will have figured out how to open the door with his paw .
You can then teach him how to fetch beers using conventional training techniques .
Do n't reward him with beer and do n't buy can beer .
You should n't be drinking canned piss anyhow but obviously your dog will have a harder time getting beer out of bottles ( for himself ) .
Labs will eat everything in the refrigerator .
Including the plastic parts of shelves .
Do n't do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
It's not that hard.
First think hard: Do I want my dog to know how to open the refrigerator door?
(Is your dog a lab?
Is there food in 'fridge?
)

If the answer is yes, tie a towel to your fridge door.
The dog will figure it out on his own.
Once he knows how to open the door with the towel switch to a smaller towel, then smaller etc.
At the end of the process the dog will have figured out how to open the door with his paw.
You can then teach him how to fetch beers using conventional training techniques.
Don't reward him with beer and don't buy can beer.
You shouldn't be drinking canned piss anyhow but obviously your dog will have a harder time getting beer out of bottles (for himself).
Labs will eat everything in the refrigerator.
Including the plastic parts of shelves.
Don't do it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850012</id>
	<title>Re:Author missing the point?</title>
	<author>jfengel</author>
	<datestamp>1264107060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>He then goes on to talk about a series of robots that aren't nearly human-like enough to trigger the uncanny valley phenomenon.</p> </div><p>Absolutely: animations are quite capable of entering the uncanny valley, but real 3D physical objects aren't yet close.</p><p>When they do get a humanoid robot close enough to be uncanny, though, I suspect it's going to be very unnerving.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>He then goes on to talk about a series of robots that are n't nearly human-like enough to trigger the uncanny valley phenomenon .
Absolutely : animations are quite capable of entering the uncanny valley , but real 3D physical objects are n't yet close.When they do get a humanoid robot close enough to be uncanny , though , I suspect it 's going to be very unnerving .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He then goes on to talk about a series of robots that aren't nearly human-like enough to trigger the uncanny valley phenomenon.
Absolutely: animations are quite capable of entering the uncanny valley, but real 3D physical objects aren't yet close.When they do get a humanoid robot close enough to be uncanny, though, I suspect it's going to be very unnerving.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849662</id>
	<title>Re:yeah, but why humanoid robots in the first plac</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264105620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Robot actors, doctors, teachers etc. all would likely be more personable/likable with a human form and appearance.  I'm sure you can imagine a humanoid robot being a bit more comfortable to be around than something out of the terminator series at the doctor's office as an example.  The point of humanoid robots likely goes beyond being a cute-bot or any of the examples I've used.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Robot actors , doctors , teachers etc .
all would likely be more personable/likable with a human form and appearance .
I 'm sure you can imagine a humanoid robot being a bit more comfortable to be around than something out of the terminator series at the doctor 's office as an example .
The point of humanoid robots likely goes beyond being a cute-bot or any of the examples I 've used .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Robot actors, doctors, teachers etc.
all would likely be more personable/likable with a human form and appearance.
I'm sure you can imagine a humanoid robot being a bit more comfortable to be around than something out of the terminator series at the doctor's office as an example.
The point of humanoid robots likely goes beyond being a cute-bot or any of the examples I've used.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850668</id>
	<title>Re:Avatar was a step out of uncanny valley</title>
	<author>ScentCone</author>
	<datestamp>1264066440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>It was the first virtual world which I could see as real</i>
<br> <br>
Actually, the only phony two-dimensional portrayals in that film were Corporate Goons (tm) and the Evil U.S. Marines-&gt;Mercenaries (tm). I felt more of a credibility gulf between me and those characters than I did between me and the blue dudes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was the first virtual world which I could see as real Actually , the only phony two-dimensional portrayals in that film were Corporate Goons ( tm ) and the Evil U.S. Marines- &gt; Mercenaries ( tm ) .
I felt more of a credibility gulf between me and those characters than I did between me and the blue dudes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was the first virtual world which I could see as real
 
Actually, the only phony two-dimensional portrayals in that film were Corporate Goons (tm) and the Evil U.S. Marines-&gt;Mercenaries (tm).
I felt more of a credibility gulf between me and those characters than I did between me and the blue dudes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850826</id>
	<title>Re:It matters, but we adjust</title>
	<author>JWW</author>
	<datestamp>1264066920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With respect to Pixar.  What I always find really interesting is that Pixar can make things in their movies extremely accurate, but to date they always impart some sort of cartoon quality to all their human characters.  This is especially noticeable in Up and in the Incredibles, their two movies that focus almost exclusively on purely human characters.  All the characters in the Incredibles have a comic book quality to them, and all the characters in Up have exaggerated features, nose, ears, etc.</p><p>I think Pixar knows the uncanny valley exists for them and tries very very hard to stay away from it.</p><p>Perhaps they learned from their short film "Tin Toy" which featured a CGI baby that tried to be accurate and was amazingly disturbing to watch.  I think that short convinced them to consistently and actively try to avoid uncanny valley.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With respect to Pixar .
What I always find really interesting is that Pixar can make things in their movies extremely accurate , but to date they always impart some sort of cartoon quality to all their human characters .
This is especially noticeable in Up and in the Incredibles , their two movies that focus almost exclusively on purely human characters .
All the characters in the Incredibles have a comic book quality to them , and all the characters in Up have exaggerated features , nose , ears , etc.I think Pixar knows the uncanny valley exists for them and tries very very hard to stay away from it.Perhaps they learned from their short film " Tin Toy " which featured a CGI baby that tried to be accurate and was amazingly disturbing to watch .
I think that short convinced them to consistently and actively try to avoid uncanny valley .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With respect to Pixar.
What I always find really interesting is that Pixar can make things in their movies extremely accurate, but to date they always impart some sort of cartoon quality to all their human characters.
This is especially noticeable in Up and in the Incredibles, their two movies that focus almost exclusively on purely human characters.
All the characters in the Incredibles have a comic book quality to them, and all the characters in Up have exaggerated features, nose, ears, etc.I think Pixar knows the uncanny valley exists for them and tries very very hard to stay away from it.Perhaps they learned from their short film "Tin Toy" which featured a CGI baby that tried to be accurate and was amazingly disturbing to watch.
I think that short convinced them to consistently and actively try to avoid uncanny valley.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850222</id>
	<title>About dogs...</title>
	<author>grocer</author>
	<datestamp>1264064820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dogs are domesticated wolves...who live and hunt in packs.  If the cat is an accepted member of the pack, it will be tolerated by the dog.  This is a vast oversimplification, of course, but what it comes down to.  Man has selectively bred dogs for specific tasks since domesticating them...so we have dogs for hunting, herding, security, and companionship.  Depending on which tasks the dog was bred for will determine whether it's sociable with other pets.  Even then, there will be variation between individuals of the same breed and while some breeds are more cat/pet-friendly than others, each dog is still an individual and results will vary. If they dog accepts the cat or cats as part of its pack, there's no problem.  If the dog doesn't have a strong prey drive, it may just ignore the cat.  Either way, it has nothing to do with the Uncanny Valley.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dogs are domesticated wolves...who live and hunt in packs .
If the cat is an accepted member of the pack , it will be tolerated by the dog .
This is a vast oversimplification , of course , but what it comes down to .
Man has selectively bred dogs for specific tasks since domesticating them...so we have dogs for hunting , herding , security , and companionship .
Depending on which tasks the dog was bred for will determine whether it 's sociable with other pets .
Even then , there will be variation between individuals of the same breed and while some breeds are more cat/pet-friendly than others , each dog is still an individual and results will vary .
If they dog accepts the cat or cats as part of its pack , there 's no problem .
If the dog does n't have a strong prey drive , it may just ignore the cat .
Either way , it has nothing to do with the Uncanny Valley .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dogs are domesticated wolves...who live and hunt in packs.
If the cat is an accepted member of the pack, it will be tolerated by the dog.
This is a vast oversimplification, of course, but what it comes down to.
Man has selectively bred dogs for specific tasks since domesticating them...so we have dogs for hunting, herding, security, and companionship.
Depending on which tasks the dog was bred for will determine whether it's sociable with other pets.
Even then, there will be variation between individuals of the same breed and while some breeds are more cat/pet-friendly than others, each dog is still an individual and results will vary.
If they dog accepts the cat or cats as part of its pack, there's no problem.
If the dog doesn't have a strong prey drive, it may just ignore the cat.
Either way, it has nothing to do with the Uncanny Valley.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850998</id>
	<title>Re:It matters, but we adjust</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264067460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, because none of those things you listed are in the valley for the very reason they don't look like humans. We can easily project human qualities and associate with objects that exhibit human-like behaviour. The valley kicks in when something acts and looks like a human, but isn't QUITE right. Maybe the skin texture is wrong, the eyes look glazed, or the movements are slightly too jerky or even too smooth. Of course, we can eventually adapt to that, too, but it requires more mental effort (even if it's unconscious) than relating to Pixar's Luxo.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , because none of those things you listed are in the valley for the very reason they do n't look like humans .
We can easily project human qualities and associate with objects that exhibit human-like behaviour .
The valley kicks in when something acts and looks like a human , but is n't QUITE right .
Maybe the skin texture is wrong , the eyes look glazed , or the movements are slightly too jerky or even too smooth .
Of course , we can eventually adapt to that , too , but it requires more mental effort ( even if it 's unconscious ) than relating to Pixar 's Luxo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, because none of those things you listed are in the valley for the very reason they don't look like humans.
We can easily project human qualities and associate with objects that exhibit human-like behaviour.
The valley kicks in when something acts and looks like a human, but isn't QUITE right.
Maybe the skin texture is wrong, the eyes look glazed, or the movements are slightly too jerky or even too smooth.
Of course, we can eventually adapt to that, too, but it requires more mental effort (even if it's unconscious) than relating to Pixar's Luxo.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850084</id>
	<title>It matters, but we adjust</title>
	<author>DutchUncle</author>
	<datestamp>1264107420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Somehow nobody has trouble dealing with the Muppets, or the Henson-created aliens on Farscape; even little children deal with them, and my non-techie mother-in-law thinks my wife's Rygel doll is "cute".  (Well, maybe it looks better than Rygel did; point is she doesn't say "it's a squishy frog".)  Somehow the folks at Pixar manage to make an architect's lamp behave enough to make people think of it as a creature.  Humans can accept a *lot*.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Somehow nobody has trouble dealing with the Muppets , or the Henson-created aliens on Farscape ; even little children deal with them , and my non-techie mother-in-law thinks my wife 's Rygel doll is " cute " .
( Well , maybe it looks better than Rygel did ; point is she does n't say " it 's a squishy frog " .
) Somehow the folks at Pixar manage to make an architect 's lamp behave enough to make people think of it as a creature .
Humans can accept a * lot * .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somehow nobody has trouble dealing with the Muppets, or the Henson-created aliens on Farscape; even little children deal with them, and my non-techie mother-in-law thinks my wife's Rygel doll is "cute".
(Well, maybe it looks better than Rygel did; point is she doesn't say "it's a squishy frog".
)  Somehow the folks at Pixar manage to make an architect's lamp behave enough to make people think of it as a creature.
Humans can accept a *lot*.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30854944</id>
	<title>Re:Avatar was a step out of uncanny valley</title>
	<author>Matrix14</author>
	<datestamp>1264082760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I feel this way too.  My theory is that they messed with the color balance enough that it didn't look quite natural.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I feel this way too .
My theory is that they messed with the color balance enough that it did n't look quite natural .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I feel this way too.
My theory is that they messed with the color balance enough that it didn't look quite natural.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849738</id>
	<title>Re:Woah!</title>
	<author>igadget78</author>
	<datestamp>1264105920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Check out the Rack on that Android. Is it a drop in?</p></div><p>Go Go Gadget Implants.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Check out the Rack on that Android .
Is it a drop in ? Go Go Gadget Implants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Check out the Rack on that Android.
Is it a drop in?Go Go Gadget Implants.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850316</id>
	<title>Re:Dogs hate cats. Dolphins hate sharks.</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1264065120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Funny, but I ran the same experiment and you owe me 11 replacement sharks.<br>
<br>
As a side note, the squids at them both.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny , but I ran the same experiment and you owe me 11 replacement sharks .
As a side note , the squids at them both .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny, but I ran the same experiment and you owe me 11 replacement sharks.
As a side note, the squids at them both.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30852012</id>
	<title>Re:yeah, but why humanoid robots in the first plac</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1264070400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>We all want to own a slave. We all want to be able to say "get me a beer from the fridge" and have something that doesn't look like a fridge do it. Every time. With no back talk.</i></p><p>On the short income we get to actually keep.</p><p>Servants fit the bill nicely, but they've been priced out of the market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We all want to own a slave .
We all want to be able to say " get me a beer from the fridge " and have something that does n't look like a fridge do it .
Every time .
With no back talk.On the short income we get to actually keep.Servants fit the bill nicely , but they 've been priced out of the market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We all want to own a slave.
We all want to be able to say "get me a beer from the fridge" and have something that doesn't look like a fridge do it.
Every time.
With no back talk.On the short income we get to actually keep.Servants fit the bill nicely, but they've been priced out of the market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30855098</id>
	<title>Obligatory: I'm pretty fed up with 3d anyway</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264084080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uncanny valley doesn't matter. Anime/manga/vn heroines are so much better, how could one possibly settle for real girl?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uncanny valley does n't matter .
Anime/manga/vn heroines are so much better , how could one possibly settle for real girl ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uncanny valley doesn't matter.
Anime/manga/vn heroines are so much better, how could one possibly settle for real girl?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30854066</id>
	<title>Re:Well, it certainly \_CAN\_ matter.</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1264077720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>it may be more nuanced than people originally thought</p></div><p>The only thing that seems slightly silly about the summary claiming that "the uncanny valley doesn't matter" or claiming that it's nuanced than previously thought is that, while reading about it when it was first proposed, I didn't think it was un-nuanced.  It didn't seem to quite be quite clear about anything like "absolute human likeness".
</p><p>The original idea, as I understood it, was kind of vague.  It was more like a general trend, that you could be very far from looking like a realistic person and people would accept it.  In fact, people could often accept it more readily than if it appeared much closer to a "real person".  The theory was that when we were presented with reality, we were fine.  When we were presented with something that was clearly not real, we were fine because we could understand very clearly, even on an intuitive/perceptual level, that we were not dealing with reality.  However, when something became real enough to mostly fool us, the unrealistic features that didn't fool us became much more jarring.
</p><p>The article doesn't seem to indicate that this isn't true.  It mostly gives us some more details about how people may be more sensitive to some unrealistic details rather than others.  It's definitely interesting, but it doesn't diminish the importance of "the uncanny valley".  It just examines some specific details about how the uncanny valley works.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it may be more nuanced than people originally thoughtThe only thing that seems slightly silly about the summary claiming that " the uncanny valley does n't matter " or claiming that it 's nuanced than previously thought is that , while reading about it when it was first proposed , I did n't think it was un-nuanced .
It did n't seem to quite be quite clear about anything like " absolute human likeness " .
The original idea , as I understood it , was kind of vague .
It was more like a general trend , that you could be very far from looking like a realistic person and people would accept it .
In fact , people could often accept it more readily than if it appeared much closer to a " real person " .
The theory was that when we were presented with reality , we were fine .
When we were presented with something that was clearly not real , we were fine because we could understand very clearly , even on an intuitive/perceptual level , that we were not dealing with reality .
However , when something became real enough to mostly fool us , the unrealistic features that did n't fool us became much more jarring .
The article does n't seem to indicate that this is n't true .
It mostly gives us some more details about how people may be more sensitive to some unrealistic details rather than others .
It 's definitely interesting , but it does n't diminish the importance of " the uncanny valley " .
It just examines some specific details about how the uncanny valley works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it may be more nuanced than people originally thoughtThe only thing that seems slightly silly about the summary claiming that "the uncanny valley doesn't matter" or claiming that it's nuanced than previously thought is that, while reading about it when it was first proposed, I didn't think it was un-nuanced.
It didn't seem to quite be quite clear about anything like "absolute human likeness".
The original idea, as I understood it, was kind of vague.
It was more like a general trend, that you could be very far from looking like a realistic person and people would accept it.
In fact, people could often accept it more readily than if it appeared much closer to a "real person".
The theory was that when we were presented with reality, we were fine.
When we were presented with something that was clearly not real, we were fine because we could understand very clearly, even on an intuitive/perceptual level, that we were not dealing with reality.
However, when something became real enough to mostly fool us, the unrealistic features that didn't fool us became much more jarring.
The article doesn't seem to indicate that this isn't true.
It mostly gives us some more details about how people may be more sensitive to some unrealistic details rather than others.
It's definitely interesting, but it doesn't diminish the importance of "the uncanny valley".
It just examines some specific details about how the uncanny valley works.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30852476</id>
	<title>Re:Avatar was a step out of uncanny valley</title>
	<author>Wraithlyn</author>
	<datestamp>1264071840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As another poster pointed out, Cameron never claimed he "invented" mocap.</p><p>He has however, perfected it, via the facial capture stuff he added, to the extent that "performance capture" is now a more apt label than simply motion capture, and can be used large scale.</p><p>Gollum required a small army of animators to complete Serkis's performance (especially Weta Digital's Bay Raitt, who crafted Gollum's facial expressions [http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1554342,00.asp]).</p><p>The detailed expressions on the Na'vi in Avatar, on the other hand, are almost entirely (95\% is the number being thrown around) taken directly from the actor's performances, without requiring extensive intervention from animators.</p><p>That is a breakthrough in filmmaking IMHO, and Cameron deserves kudos for it.  The new 3D tech he was instrumental in developing (or at least championing), and his extensive use of a virtual camera to compose scenes after the fact, are also very impressive.</p><p>I also disagree with your dismissal of why Avatar avoided the "uncanny valley"; the Na'vi seemed like actors in blue makeup, not "so alien you don't even associate them with humans".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As another poster pointed out , Cameron never claimed he " invented " mocap.He has however , perfected it , via the facial capture stuff he added , to the extent that " performance capture " is now a more apt label than simply motion capture , and can be used large scale.Gollum required a small army of animators to complete Serkis 's performance ( especially Weta Digital 's Bay Raitt , who crafted Gollum 's facial expressions [ http : //www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1554342,00.asp ] ) .The detailed expressions on the Na'vi in Avatar , on the other hand , are almost entirely ( 95 \ % is the number being thrown around ) taken directly from the actor 's performances , without requiring extensive intervention from animators.That is a breakthrough in filmmaking IMHO , and Cameron deserves kudos for it .
The new 3D tech he was instrumental in developing ( or at least championing ) , and his extensive use of a virtual camera to compose scenes after the fact , are also very impressive.I also disagree with your dismissal of why Avatar avoided the " uncanny valley " ; the Na'vi seemed like actors in blue makeup , not " so alien you do n't even associate them with humans " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As another poster pointed out, Cameron never claimed he "invented" mocap.He has however, perfected it, via the facial capture stuff he added, to the extent that "performance capture" is now a more apt label than simply motion capture, and can be used large scale.Gollum required a small army of animators to complete Serkis's performance (especially Weta Digital's Bay Raitt, who crafted Gollum's facial expressions [http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1554342,00.asp]).The detailed expressions on the Na'vi in Avatar, on the other hand, are almost entirely (95\% is the number being thrown around) taken directly from the actor's performances, without requiring extensive intervention from animators.That is a breakthrough in filmmaking IMHO, and Cameron deserves kudos for it.
The new 3D tech he was instrumental in developing (or at least championing), and his extensive use of a virtual camera to compose scenes after the fact, are also very impressive.I also disagree with your dismissal of why Avatar avoided the "uncanny valley"; the Na'vi seemed like actors in blue makeup, not "so alien you don't even associate them with humans".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30854316</id>
	<title>Re:yeah, but why humanoid robots in the first plac</title>
	<author>Mr. Freeman</author>
	<datestamp>1264079040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why design it like a human?  Because everything that you or I do is done with devices that were... designed for humans.<br>Stairs: Designed for humans<br>Doorway size: humans<br>Chairs: Humans<br>Desks: Humans<br><br>The list goes on.  Everything from your car to your dishwasher was designed so that it could be operated by you, not by a purpose-built robot.  Thus, when you want a multi-purpose robot you want a robot designed like a human.  These robots are the "personal assistant" robots.  They do (or will in the future) your dishes, make dinner, take your car to the shop, etc.<br>On the other hand, if you want a robot to do one specific thing, like weld car chassis, then you want to design the robot differently to be the most efficient at doing that one specific thing.<br><br>Yes, your humanoid robot is less efficient at loading your dishwasher than a purpose-built dishwashing robot would be, but that dishwashing robot can't also go drive your car to the shop.  The robot that only drives your car can't do anything else because it's part of the car itself.<br><br>So when you say that you wouldn't start with a human form when you want to get useful stuff done you really have to evaluate what exactly you call "useful stuff" and decide just<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/how much/ useful stuff you want to do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why design it like a human ?
Because everything that you or I do is done with devices that were... designed for humans.Stairs : Designed for humansDoorway size : humansChairs : HumansDesks : HumansThe list goes on .
Everything from your car to your dishwasher was designed so that it could be operated by you , not by a purpose-built robot .
Thus , when you want a multi-purpose robot you want a robot designed like a human .
These robots are the " personal assistant " robots .
They do ( or will in the future ) your dishes , make dinner , take your car to the shop , etc.On the other hand , if you want a robot to do one specific thing , like weld car chassis , then you want to design the robot differently to be the most efficient at doing that one specific thing.Yes , your humanoid robot is less efficient at loading your dishwasher than a purpose-built dishwashing robot would be , but that dishwashing robot ca n't also go drive your car to the shop .
The robot that only drives your car ca n't do anything else because it 's part of the car itself.So when you say that you would n't start with a human form when you want to get useful stuff done you really have to evaluate what exactly you call " useful stuff " and decide just /how much/ useful stuff you want to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why design it like a human?
Because everything that you or I do is done with devices that were... designed for humans.Stairs: Designed for humansDoorway size: humansChairs: HumansDesks: HumansThe list goes on.
Everything from your car to your dishwasher was designed so that it could be operated by you, not by a purpose-built robot.
Thus, when you want a multi-purpose robot you want a robot designed like a human.
These robots are the "personal assistant" robots.
They do (or will in the future) your dishes, make dinner, take your car to the shop, etc.On the other hand, if you want a robot to do one specific thing, like weld car chassis, then you want to design the robot differently to be the most efficient at doing that one specific thing.Yes, your humanoid robot is less efficient at loading your dishwasher than a purpose-built dishwashing robot would be, but that dishwashing robot can't also go drive your car to the shop.
The robot that only drives your car can't do anything else because it's part of the car itself.So when you say that you wouldn't start with a human form when you want to get useful stuff done you really have to evaluate what exactly you call "useful stuff" and decide just /how much/ useful stuff you want to do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849670</id>
	<title>Avatar was a step out of uncanny valley</title>
	<author>rolfwind</author>
	<datestamp>1264105620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was the first virtual world which I could see as real, which I didn't have to pretend otherwise because all previous efforts has give-aways that it was fake.  It looked goood (and if you sat through the credits, the masses of names hint towards the work needed to make this so) and that's why it's so successful and a breakthrough, imo.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was the first virtual world which I could see as real , which I did n't have to pretend otherwise because all previous efforts has give-aways that it was fake .
It looked goood ( and if you sat through the credits , the masses of names hint towards the work needed to make this so ) and that 's why it 's so successful and a breakthrough , imo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was the first virtual world which I could see as real, which I didn't have to pretend otherwise because all previous efforts has give-aways that it was fake.
It looked goood (and if you sat through the credits, the masses of names hint towards the work needed to make this so) and that's why it's so successful and a breakthrough, imo.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30858408</id>
	<title>Re:Author missing the point?</title>
	<author>Raedwald</author>
	<datestamp>1264168080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Replying to kill moderation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Replying to kill moderation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Replying to kill moderation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30852466</id>
	<title>Re:yeah, but why humanoid robots in the first plac</title>
	<author>socz</author>
	<datestamp>1264071840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> why build several $5,000 domestic chore robots that need special tools when you can buy one $20,000 humanoid robot that does all of the shores, need no special tools to clean the toilets, do the dishes, and vacuum the floor except the cheap tools humans already use.</p></div><p>
Hopefully, they'll also do the shopping for said tools and supplies and won't go all "no, no, you buy, I no go, you buy..."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>why build several $ 5,000 domestic chore robots that need special tools when you can buy one $ 20,000 humanoid robot that does all of the shores , need no special tools to clean the toilets , do the dishes , and vacuum the floor except the cheap tools humans already use .
Hopefully , they 'll also do the shopping for said tools and supplies and wo n't go all " no , no , you buy , I no go , you buy... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext> why build several $5,000 domestic chore robots that need special tools when you can buy one $20,000 humanoid robot that does all of the shores, need no special tools to clean the toilets, do the dishes, and vacuum the floor except the cheap tools humans already use.
Hopefully, they'll also do the shopping for said tools and supplies and won't go all "no, no, you buy, I no go, you buy..."
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30851374</id>
	<title>Re:Avatar was a step out of uncanny valley</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1264068540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"James Cameron needs to stop saying how he invented mocap, its stupid. "</p><p>
&nbsp; <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aao0YSITuxc" title="youtube.com">O rly?</a> [youtube.com]</p><p>In this interview he says he's using an off-the shelf body motion capture rig, but the innovation was in the helmet-cam facial recognition system and software and the goal of 'zero artist touchups' on the facial rendering.</p><p>Seems significant to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" James Cameron needs to stop saying how he invented mocap , its stupid .
"   O rly ?
[ youtube.com ] In this interview he says he 's using an off-the shelf body motion capture rig , but the innovation was in the helmet-cam facial recognition system and software and the goal of 'zero artist touchups ' on the facial rendering.Seems significant to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"James Cameron needs to stop saying how he invented mocap, its stupid.
"
  O rly?
[youtube.com]In this interview he says he's using an off-the shelf body motion capture rig, but the innovation was in the helmet-cam facial recognition system and software and the goal of 'zero artist touchups' on the facial rendering.Seems significant to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849496</id>
	<title>yeah, but why humanoid robots in the first place?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264104900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's weird that some people have a fascination with humanoid robots in the first place.  seems like most Japanese robot efforts (at least those that make the press here) are in that vein.  sure, there's a golden place in the future for replicants and sex slaves, but to me those seem like fairly narrow niches.  if I'm designing robots with the goal of getting useful stuff done, I certainly wouldn't start with a humanoid layout, with all respect to evolution<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>I admit it, all the Japanese robot coverage I see is either kawai-oriented or thinly-veiled sex-slave oriented (or both).  no doubt that only reflects my taste in paper an online media...</p><p>there's no Uncanny Valley for Roombas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's weird that some people have a fascination with humanoid robots in the first place .
seems like most Japanese robot efforts ( at least those that make the press here ) are in that vein .
sure , there 's a golden place in the future for replicants and sex slaves , but to me those seem like fairly narrow niches .
if I 'm designing robots with the goal of getting useful stuff done , I certainly would n't start with a humanoid layout , with all respect to evolution ; ) I admit it , all the Japanese robot coverage I see is either kawai-oriented or thinly-veiled sex-slave oriented ( or both ) .
no doubt that only reflects my taste in paper an online media...there 's no Uncanny Valley for Roombas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's weird that some people have a fascination with humanoid robots in the first place.
seems like most Japanese robot efforts (at least those that make the press here) are in that vein.
sure, there's a golden place in the future for replicants and sex slaves, but to me those seem like fairly narrow niches.
if I'm designing robots with the goal of getting useful stuff done, I certainly wouldn't start with a humanoid layout, with all respect to evolution ;)I admit it, all the Japanese robot coverage I see is either kawai-oriented or thinly-veiled sex-slave oriented (or both).
no doubt that only reflects my taste in paper an online media...there's no Uncanny Valley for Roombas.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30853418</id>
	<title>Re:evolved communication protocols</title>
	<author>mdielmann</author>
	<datestamp>1264075140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Violations of these behaviors and evolved protocols can really upset us. For example, a scene in Terminator II shows the evil robot of the movie (which can take anyone's form that it kills) has earlier (unknown to the audience) taken over the form of a woman talking on the phone to her son. The audience senses something is wrong, the dog is barking hectically outside and the woman is trying suspiciously to milk the son for information on his location. She gets the name of the dog wrong. It's only then that we know she's the killer robot. Right after the call ends, we find the robot also killed the husband of the woman while casually talking on the phone. Think about that. Someone who can chat on the phone without even a trace of emotion or extertion while killing a person at the same time.</p></div><p>Wow, way to totally butcher the movie. First, the evil robot doesn't need to kill a person - it's just more convenient.  Next, unknown to the audience?  It's clearly portrayed in the movies that dogs always freak out about the robots - the barking is a clue. And killing people without emotion?  It's a robot!  It does everything without emotion!<br>What anything in that has to do with the uncanny valley is also in doubt because much of the time the "robot" is portrayed by humans, with fleeting, obvious, CG in between.  I think you might be mistaking sympathizing with the good guys and fear/animus/revulsion towards the bad guy with the uncanny valley.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Violations of these behaviors and evolved protocols can really upset us .
For example , a scene in Terminator II shows the evil robot of the movie ( which can take anyone 's form that it kills ) has earlier ( unknown to the audience ) taken over the form of a woman talking on the phone to her son .
The audience senses something is wrong , the dog is barking hectically outside and the woman is trying suspiciously to milk the son for information on his location .
She gets the name of the dog wrong .
It 's only then that we know she 's the killer robot .
Right after the call ends , we find the robot also killed the husband of the woman while casually talking on the phone .
Think about that .
Someone who can chat on the phone without even a trace of emotion or extertion while killing a person at the same time.Wow , way to totally butcher the movie .
First , the evil robot does n't need to kill a person - it 's just more convenient .
Next , unknown to the audience ?
It 's clearly portrayed in the movies that dogs always freak out about the robots - the barking is a clue .
And killing people without emotion ?
It 's a robot !
It does everything without emotion ! What anything in that has to do with the uncanny valley is also in doubt because much of the time the " robot " is portrayed by humans , with fleeting , obvious , CG in between .
I think you might be mistaking sympathizing with the good guys and fear/animus/revulsion towards the bad guy with the uncanny valley .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Violations of these behaviors and evolved protocols can really upset us.
For example, a scene in Terminator II shows the evil robot of the movie (which can take anyone's form that it kills) has earlier (unknown to the audience) taken over the form of a woman talking on the phone to her son.
The audience senses something is wrong, the dog is barking hectically outside and the woman is trying suspiciously to milk the son for information on his location.
She gets the name of the dog wrong.
It's only then that we know she's the killer robot.
Right after the call ends, we find the robot also killed the husband of the woman while casually talking on the phone.
Think about that.
Someone who can chat on the phone without even a trace of emotion or extertion while killing a person at the same time.Wow, way to totally butcher the movie.
First, the evil robot doesn't need to kill a person - it's just more convenient.
Next, unknown to the audience?
It's clearly portrayed in the movies that dogs always freak out about the robots - the barking is a clue.
And killing people without emotion?
It's a robot!
It does everything without emotion!What anything in that has to do with the uncanny valley is also in doubt because much of the time the "robot" is portrayed by humans, with fleeting, obvious, CG in between.
I think you might be mistaking sympathizing with the good guys and fear/animus/revulsion towards the bad guy with the uncanny valley.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30851364</id>
	<title>Pixar</title>
	<author>Latinhypercube</author>
	<datestamp>1264068480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is a reason why Pixar's characters have been so successful and why their characters are always caricatures.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a reason why Pixar 's characters have been so successful and why their characters are always caricatures .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a reason why Pixar's characters have been so successful and why their characters are always caricatures.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850010</id>
	<title>Re:Avatar was a step out of uncanny valley</title>
	<author>Deadstick</author>
	<datestamp>1264107060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perhaps there would be an uncanny valley if you knew what a ten-foot blue alien was <i>supposed</i> to look like.<p>
rj</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps there would be an uncanny valley if you knew what a ten-foot blue alien was supposed to look like .
rj</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps there would be an uncanny valley if you knew what a ten-foot blue alien was supposed to look like.
rj</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850638</id>
	<title>Re:yeah, but why humanoid robots in the first plac</title>
	<author>Polumna</author>
	<datestamp>1264066320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your idea has been stolen by the <a href="http://www.duke.edu/~jwc13/beerlauncher.html" title="duke.edu" rel="nofollow">past!</a> [duke.edu]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your idea has been stolen by the past !
[ duke.edu ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your idea has been stolen by the past!
[duke.edu]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30858756</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>ElectricTurtle</author>
	<datestamp>1264171980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Quite bluntly, I think there's something wrong with you. You're trying to apply apply standards of human treatment and/or civil rights to machines that look human. What's next, should we pity the animatronics in Pirates of the Caribbean at Disneyland? Framed in another ethical context, what about non-humaniform automations? If you make a car 'intelligent' enough to drive itself (which is entirely possible in a society that can create a humaniform machine to take the physical place of a human to drive a car), how is it any different from a robot doing it? Hell, in that sense, the car <i> <b>is</b></i>  a robot. And it's not going to 'talk back' either, or have needs or feelings. The only difference is that it's still shaped like a car and not a person. So what? If you attach so much importance to the form of something, rather than the essence of what it is, does, and is for, you have problems. You're projecting emotional states and conditions onto inanimate objects because of what they look like, like a child bonding with stuffed animals. Get help.<br> <br>

This is not to say that in some far future there may be a point where civil rights will be appropriate for very high level AI-driven machines (and <i> <b>that</b></i>  regardless of what they are shaped like). If a machine is self-aware, capable of selecting goals for itself for its own reasons that are not hard-coded by a creator, something like a Data from Star Trek, then yes, a machine like that should be respected as analogous to a human. However, if it's just something designed to perform tasks, and doesn't have any ability aside from what it's told to do like machines and low level AI today, there is no need for civil rights, because there will be no independent/individual goals/happiness/perspective to protect anymore than you would protect your dishwashing machine.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quite bluntly , I think there 's something wrong with you .
You 're trying to apply apply standards of human treatment and/or civil rights to machines that look human .
What 's next , should we pity the animatronics in Pirates of the Caribbean at Disneyland ?
Framed in another ethical context , what about non-humaniform automations ?
If you make a car 'intelligent ' enough to drive itself ( which is entirely possible in a society that can create a humaniform machine to take the physical place of a human to drive a car ) , how is it any different from a robot doing it ?
Hell , in that sense , the car is a robot .
And it 's not going to 'talk back ' either , or have needs or feelings .
The only difference is that it 's still shaped like a car and not a person .
So what ?
If you attach so much importance to the form of something , rather than the essence of what it is , does , and is for , you have problems .
You 're projecting emotional states and conditions onto inanimate objects because of what they look like , like a child bonding with stuffed animals .
Get help .
This is not to say that in some far future there may be a point where civil rights will be appropriate for very high level AI-driven machines ( and that regardless of what they are shaped like ) .
If a machine is self-aware , capable of selecting goals for itself for its own reasons that are not hard-coded by a creator , something like a Data from Star Trek , then yes , a machine like that should be respected as analogous to a human .
However , if it 's just something designed to perform tasks , and does n't have any ability aside from what it 's told to do like machines and low level AI today , there is no need for civil rights , because there will be no independent/individual goals/happiness/perspective to protect anymore than you would protect your dishwashing machine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quite bluntly, I think there's something wrong with you.
You're trying to apply apply standards of human treatment and/or civil rights to machines that look human.
What's next, should we pity the animatronics in Pirates of the Caribbean at Disneyland?
Framed in another ethical context, what about non-humaniform automations?
If you make a car 'intelligent' enough to drive itself (which is entirely possible in a society that can create a humaniform machine to take the physical place of a human to drive a car), how is it any different from a robot doing it?
Hell, in that sense, the car  is  a robot.
And it's not going to 'talk back' either, or have needs or feelings.
The only difference is that it's still shaped like a car and not a person.
So what?
If you attach so much importance to the form of something, rather than the essence of what it is, does, and is for, you have problems.
You're projecting emotional states and conditions onto inanimate objects because of what they look like, like a child bonding with stuffed animals.
Get help.
This is not to say that in some far future there may be a point where civil rights will be appropriate for very high level AI-driven machines (and  that  regardless of what they are shaped like).
If a machine is self-aware, capable of selecting goals for itself for its own reasons that are not hard-coded by a creator, something like a Data from Star Trek, then yes, a machine like that should be respected as analogous to a human.
However, if it's just something designed to perform tasks, and doesn't have any ability aside from what it's told to do like machines and low level AI today, there is no need for civil rights, because there will be no independent/individual goals/happiness/perspective to protect anymore than you would protect your dishwashing machine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850146</id>
	<title>2 Words: Doll F**kers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264064460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, I have a suspicion that the author is trying to make having uh, romantic relations with robots socially acceptable. Also, don't Google Doll Fuckers you sick perverts!</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , I have a suspicion that the author is trying to make having uh , romantic relations with robots socially acceptable .
Also , do n't Google Doll Fuckers you sick perverts !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, I have a suspicion that the author is trying to make having uh, romantic relations with robots socially acceptable.
Also, don't Google Doll Fuckers you sick perverts!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849796</id>
	<title>Uncanny valley exists, and does matter, so there.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264106160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>What I said in the Popular Mechanics comments:
<br> <br>
Apparently in all his research on the Uncanny Valley the author missed or ignored the oft-remarked reason why the phenomenon *is* important: robots are expensive, and if people don't like them in their *first* impression, it's not worth the cost. 'Social' robots are not going to be seen in homes first, that's too expensive. The first market for social robots will be in some form of customer relations where replacing hourly employees makes business sense, but NOT if that means customers leave for whoever still has real people.
<br> <br>
So yes, people can adapt to robots, duh, we're rational animals. However, if somebody is expecting a person, they get a robot, *and* they feel uncomfortable about it, even for a few minutes, that might be enough of a catalyst to consciously OR unconsciously cause them to look for services not provided by robots, ultimately damaging the company that bought the robot to fill the role.
<br> <br>
Also, you allude to studies that show that the uncanny valley may not be 'real' for women but may be so for men. After all, Mori himself was male, maybe he what he thought applied to everybody only applied to his male experience. That doesn't mean the uncanny valley doesn't exist, it just means it isn't within the parameters originally believed to be understood. Basically by citing the study, you admit that it has been scientifically shown to exist, just in a more limited sense. Hardly discrediting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What I said in the Popular Mechanics comments : Apparently in all his research on the Uncanny Valley the author missed or ignored the oft-remarked reason why the phenomenon * is * important : robots are expensive , and if people do n't like them in their * first * impression , it 's not worth the cost .
'Social ' robots are not going to be seen in homes first , that 's too expensive .
The first market for social robots will be in some form of customer relations where replacing hourly employees makes business sense , but NOT if that means customers leave for whoever still has real people .
So yes , people can adapt to robots , duh , we 're rational animals .
However , if somebody is expecting a person , they get a robot , * and * they feel uncomfortable about it , even for a few minutes , that might be enough of a catalyst to consciously OR unconsciously cause them to look for services not provided by robots , ultimately damaging the company that bought the robot to fill the role .
Also , you allude to studies that show that the uncanny valley may not be 'real ' for women but may be so for men .
After all , Mori himself was male , maybe he what he thought applied to everybody only applied to his male experience .
That does n't mean the uncanny valley does n't exist , it just means it is n't within the parameters originally believed to be understood .
Basically by citing the study , you admit that it has been scientifically shown to exist , just in a more limited sense .
Hardly discrediting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I said in the Popular Mechanics comments:
 
Apparently in all his research on the Uncanny Valley the author missed or ignored the oft-remarked reason why the phenomenon *is* important: robots are expensive, and if people don't like them in their *first* impression, it's not worth the cost.
'Social' robots are not going to be seen in homes first, that's too expensive.
The first market for social robots will be in some form of customer relations where replacing hourly employees makes business sense, but NOT if that means customers leave for whoever still has real people.
So yes, people can adapt to robots, duh, we're rational animals.
However, if somebody is expecting a person, they get a robot, *and* they feel uncomfortable about it, even for a few minutes, that might be enough of a catalyst to consciously OR unconsciously cause them to look for services not provided by robots, ultimately damaging the company that bought the robot to fill the role.
Also, you allude to studies that show that the uncanny valley may not be 'real' for women but may be so for men.
After all, Mori himself was male, maybe he what he thought applied to everybody only applied to his male experience.
That doesn't mean the uncanny valley doesn't exist, it just means it isn't within the parameters originally believed to be understood.
Basically by citing the study, you admit that it has been scientifically shown to exist, just in a more limited sense.
Hardly discrediting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850914</id>
	<title>Why?</title>
	<author>mosb1000</author>
	<datestamp>1264067220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Humanoid robots terrify me to no end.  At first, I was simply bothered by the fact that people were trying to develop this technology.  I couldn't understand what new functionality they were trying to develop, and I didn't see why they would simply try to duplicate the existing functionality of human beings (since there are already billions of us around).<br><br>Now that I've thought about it, I think the new "functionality" they want to add is compliance.  They want to say to something, resembling a person, "do this" and have them do it without talking back.  Basically, they want someone to serve them without ever having to consider that person's needs or feelings.  They want someone to go and take car of their mother or their children for them, so that they don't have to.  They want someone who will have sex with them for no reason other than their desire for sex.<br><br>So some day, the hope is, we will be surrounded by human-looking robots who will cater to our every whim and never give us any trouble.  I don't think that's good for us, and I question the mental stability of someone who would want to live that way.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Humanoid robots terrify me to no end .
At first , I was simply bothered by the fact that people were trying to develop this technology .
I could n't understand what new functionality they were trying to develop , and I did n't see why they would simply try to duplicate the existing functionality of human beings ( since there are already billions of us around ) .Now that I 've thought about it , I think the new " functionality " they want to add is compliance .
They want to say to something , resembling a person , " do this " and have them do it without talking back .
Basically , they want someone to serve them without ever having to consider that person 's needs or feelings .
They want someone to go and take car of their mother or their children for them , so that they do n't have to .
They want someone who will have sex with them for no reason other than their desire for sex.So some day , the hope is , we will be surrounded by human-looking robots who will cater to our every whim and never give us any trouble .
I do n't think that 's good for us , and I question the mental stability of someone who would want to live that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Humanoid robots terrify me to no end.
At first, I was simply bothered by the fact that people were trying to develop this technology.
I couldn't understand what new functionality they were trying to develop, and I didn't see why they would simply try to duplicate the existing functionality of human beings (since there are already billions of us around).Now that I've thought about it, I think the new "functionality" they want to add is compliance.
They want to say to something, resembling a person, "do this" and have them do it without talking back.
Basically, they want someone to serve them without ever having to consider that person's needs or feelings.
They want someone to go and take car of their mother or their children for them, so that they don't have to.
They want someone who will have sex with them for no reason other than their desire for sex.So some day, the hope is, we will be surrounded by human-looking robots who will cater to our every whim and never give us any trouble.
I don't think that's good for us, and I question the mental stability of someone who would want to live that way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30857624</id>
	<title>Re:Dogs hate cats. Dolphins hate sharks.</title>
	<author>VShael</author>
	<datestamp>1264156860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I thought dogs just generally chased, attacked, and ate just about anything i.e. squirrels, rabbits, cars, postal employees, spherical objects, non-spherical objects, dirt, rocks...</i></p><p>Dogs from the pound? Sure. They're borderline mentally defective.</p><p>Pure-bred dogs? They're smart. If you've never interacted with one, the first time you do will blow your mind.<br>They can do things that make you think you've stepped into a Disney movie, and any second now, the dog will start talking to you.</p><p>Mind you, if it does? You're in a different kind of movie...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought dogs just generally chased , attacked , and ate just about anything i.e .
squirrels , rabbits , cars , postal employees , spherical objects , non-spherical objects , dirt , rocks...Dogs from the pound ?
Sure. They 're borderline mentally defective.Pure-bred dogs ?
They 're smart .
If you 've never interacted with one , the first time you do will blow your mind.They can do things that make you think you 've stepped into a Disney movie , and any second now , the dog will start talking to you.Mind you , if it does ?
You 're in a different kind of movie.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought dogs just generally chased, attacked, and ate just about anything i.e.
squirrels, rabbits, cars, postal employees, spherical objects, non-spherical objects, dirt, rocks...Dogs from the pound?
Sure. They're borderline mentally defective.Pure-bred dogs?
They're smart.
If you've never interacted with one, the first time you do will blow your mind.They can do things that make you think you've stepped into a Disney movie, and any second now, the dog will start talking to you.Mind you, if it does?
You're in a different kind of movie...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849486</id>
	<title>fp</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264104840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>insect politics</htmltext>
<tokenext>insect politics</tokentext>
<sentencetext>insect politics</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849812</id>
	<title>Re:Dogs hate cats. Dolphins hate sharks.</title>
	<author>spottedkangaroo</author>
	<datestamp>1264106220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just who are these "many biologists?"  I'd really like to know so I can go read more about that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just who are these " many biologists ?
" I 'd really like to know so I can go read more about that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just who are these "many biologists?
"  I'd really like to know so I can go read more about that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849622</id>
	<title>Why the Uncanny Valley Doesn't Really Matter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264105440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Whoa sexy robot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whoa sexy robot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whoa sexy robot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849780</id>
	<title>Author missing the point?</title>
	<author>PylonHead</author>
	<datestamp>1264106100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wasn't impressed with the article.</p><p>He calls the Uncanny Valley "a groundless thought experiment", when it's really a simple description of a phenomenon that I (and presumably many other people) have experienced.</p><p>He goes on to say that people aren't frightened by humanoid robots.   My experience with the uncanny has never frightened me.  It's more of a vague repulsion and an emotional disinterest.</p><p>He then goes on to talk about a series of robots that aren't nearly human-like enough to trigger the uncanny valley phenomenon.  Honestly the phenomenon seems much more relevant to the computer graphics world than it does to robotics at this moment in time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Was n't impressed with the article.He calls the Uncanny Valley " a groundless thought experiment " , when it 's really a simple description of a phenomenon that I ( and presumably many other people ) have experienced.He goes on to say that people are n't frightened by humanoid robots .
My experience with the uncanny has never frightened me .
It 's more of a vague repulsion and an emotional disinterest.He then goes on to talk about a series of robots that are n't nearly human-like enough to trigger the uncanny valley phenomenon .
Honestly the phenomenon seems much more relevant to the computer graphics world than it does to robotics at this moment in time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wasn't impressed with the article.He calls the Uncanny Valley "a groundless thought experiment", when it's really a simple description of a phenomenon that I (and presumably many other people) have experienced.He goes on to say that people aren't frightened by humanoid robots.
My experience with the uncanny has never frightened me.
It's more of a vague repulsion and an emotional disinterest.He then goes on to talk about a series of robots that aren't nearly human-like enough to trigger the uncanny valley phenomenon.
Honestly the phenomenon seems much more relevant to the computer graphics world than it does to robotics at this moment in time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849834</id>
	<title>Oh it matters all right...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264106340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which would you rather talk to on the phone? Horrible robot voice or Real live human voice?</p><p>Now imagine instead of just the voice it's the whole face, body, movement, etc. NO THANKS.</p><p>It's odd though, I think I could somehow handle talking to "Robbie the Robot" better than I could these creepy rubber dolls (like the one in TFA). Creepy as hell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which would you rather talk to on the phone ?
Horrible robot voice or Real live human voice ? Now imagine instead of just the voice it 's the whole face , body , movement , etc .
NO THANKS.It 's odd though , I think I could somehow handle talking to " Robbie the Robot " better than I could these creepy rubber dolls ( like the one in TFA ) .
Creepy as hell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which would you rather talk to on the phone?
Horrible robot voice or Real live human voice?Now imagine instead of just the voice it's the whole face, body, movement, etc.
NO THANKS.It's odd though, I think I could somehow handle talking to "Robbie the Robot" better than I could these creepy rubber dolls (like the one in TFA).
Creepy as hell.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30851248</id>
	<title>mod 0p</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264068180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">Practic\al purposes, a full-time GnAA OUTER SPACE THE watershed essay,</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Practic \ al purposes , a full-time GnAA OUTER SPACE THE watershed essay , [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Practic\al purposes, a full-time GnAA OUTER SPACE THE watershed essay, [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849710</id>
	<title>when lewis and clark</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1264105800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>went on their famous expedition, there was a black guy in their group, york</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/York\_(explorer)" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/York\_(explorer)</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>the native americans would stand in slack jaw amazement at york, as if he were possessed of magic. they never saw a black man before. york would further dumbfound them by taking out and reinserting his false teeth</p><p>meanwhile, consider the cantina scene in star wars: aliens of extreme forms, and humans mingling in with them as if no big deal</p><p>both the cantina scene and york's experience are the truth: our amazement at first is profound and very real at seeing new ethnicities/ life forms. but it also wears off very quick</p><p>we can get used to interacting with anything. the uncanny valley is real, but its also very temporary</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>went on their famous expedition , there was a black guy in their group , yorkhttp : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/York \ _ ( explorer ) [ wikipedia.org ] the native americans would stand in slack jaw amazement at york , as if he were possessed of magic .
they never saw a black man before .
york would further dumbfound them by taking out and reinserting his false teethmeanwhile , consider the cantina scene in star wars : aliens of extreme forms , and humans mingling in with them as if no big dealboth the cantina scene and york 's experience are the truth : our amazement at first is profound and very real at seeing new ethnicities/ life forms .
but it also wears off very quickwe can get used to interacting with anything .
the uncanny valley is real , but its also very temporary</tokentext>
<sentencetext>went on their famous expedition, there was a black guy in their group, yorkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/York\_(explorer) [wikipedia.org]the native americans would stand in slack jaw amazement at york, as if he were possessed of magic.
they never saw a black man before.
york would further dumbfound them by taking out and reinserting his false teethmeanwhile, consider the cantina scene in star wars: aliens of extreme forms, and humans mingling in with them as if no big dealboth the cantina scene and york's experience are the truth: our amazement at first is profound and very real at seeing new ethnicities/ life forms.
but it also wears off very quickwe can get used to interacting with anything.
the uncanny valley is real, but its also very temporary</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849874</id>
	<title>Re:yeah, but why humanoid robots in the first plac</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264106520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Asimov's robots were nearly all humaniform, and the reason is simple and explained in the stories -- we have a lot of tools that have been designed to fit human hands and feet and eyes and ears. Wheeled robots can't cope with stairs, so legs are the logical choice (although it could be said that three or four might be better than two). Lets see your Roomba clean the stairs! Now, had you a humaniform robot you would have no need for a roomba, as the humaniform robot could operate your existing Hoover, as well as your dishwasher, lawnmower, etc.</p><p>At least one Asimov robot wasn't humaniform. The short story "Sally" had vehicles outfitted with positronic brains.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Asimov 's robots were nearly all humaniform , and the reason is simple and explained in the stories -- we have a lot of tools that have been designed to fit human hands and feet and eyes and ears .
Wheeled robots ca n't cope with stairs , so legs are the logical choice ( although it could be said that three or four might be better than two ) .
Lets see your Roomba clean the stairs !
Now , had you a humaniform robot you would have no need for a roomba , as the humaniform robot could operate your existing Hoover , as well as your dishwasher , lawnmower , etc.At least one Asimov robot was n't humaniform .
The short story " Sally " had vehicles outfitted with positronic brains .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Asimov's robots were nearly all humaniform, and the reason is simple and explained in the stories -- we have a lot of tools that have been designed to fit human hands and feet and eyes and ears.
Wheeled robots can't cope with stairs, so legs are the logical choice (although it could be said that three or four might be better than two).
Lets see your Roomba clean the stairs!
Now, had you a humaniform robot you would have no need for a roomba, as the humaniform robot could operate your existing Hoover, as well as your dishwasher, lawnmower, etc.At least one Asimov robot wasn't humaniform.
The short story "Sally" had vehicles outfitted with positronic brains.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30851474</id>
	<title>Re:Avatar was a step out of uncanny valley</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1264068840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm also pissed off (as a phd in graphics research) that everyone thinks its breakthrough. Gollum in LOTR was a breakthrough, theres no new tech in this movie. James Cameron needs to stop saying how he invented mocap, its stupid. You'll find that most of the amazing "breakthroughs" of the last decade you didnt actually notice because the CG was perfect and more importantly subtle.</p></div><p>Avatar was groundbreaking technology. Gollum was freakin' AMAZING. I might have been more impressed with the work done on Jar-Jar if not for him being a hatefully stupid character in conception and execution and despising everyone involved in his creation. Gollum was so freakin' wild because he was so convincing. You were totally sold on the idea he was real. Environmental interaction, lighting, acting, it was all perfect. And so much artistry went into that. I've seen effects in big budget movies since the Rings that were not even half as good.</p><p>As far as Avatar goes, Cameron had to create another freakin' world. Even more work had to go into that than with Rings. As far as movies go LOTR had the better plot and did a better job of bringing the idea to the screen. Avatar's only sin was for having such a commonplace plot to back such groundbreaking filmmaking.</p><p>Your point about whether we can even recognize the CGI is important. People are always bragging about how they can spot the CGI. "Yeah, that Balrog, totally CGI." No shit. Everyone knows it has to be an effect. The stuff we miss is like the stuff done in that Tom Hanks plane crash movie where the tides were adjusted on the island or in Forest Gump where only a fifth of the stadium was filled and that crowd was mapped to the other 4/5ths to make it look like a full house. Lieutenant Dan didn't really lose his legs, his actor was wearing bluescreen stockings? No shit. But what'll really blow people away is when we find out an actor died halfway through the filming of a movie and the director uses CGI and a stand-in to complete his performance. Facemapping technology is here. Show someone that movie, tell them one of the actors was swapped out for CGI halfway through and ask them which one they thought it was.</p><p>I'm wondering if the Joker will be brought back for the third batman movie. I've heard some very, very good impressions of the joker voice from there. Get someone of similar build to do the joker's mannerisms and map a new face onto him. I bet they could pull it off.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If you create an entirely made up world you can put anything in it and have it "fit", because you have accepted the fantasy.</p></div><p>Not so easy. It still has to be convincing. LOTR's crew did a lot of research making sure they understood the physics of the creatures they were presenting. What would the bones be like in the mumakil, how would they balance, what would happen if they fell. How does a fell beast fly? What sort of wingspan would it need? How would it look in the air? The same kind of focus went into Avatar. The human eye can pick out stuff that doesn't look right. That's usually the telltale of bad CGI, reflections are off or things aren't moving the way they should if physics were in play.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm also pissed off ( as a phd in graphics research ) that everyone thinks its breakthrough .
Gollum in LOTR was a breakthrough , theres no new tech in this movie .
James Cameron needs to stop saying how he invented mocap , its stupid .
You 'll find that most of the amazing " breakthroughs " of the last decade you didnt actually notice because the CG was perfect and more importantly subtle.Avatar was groundbreaking technology .
Gollum was freakin ' AMAZING .
I might have been more impressed with the work done on Jar-Jar if not for him being a hatefully stupid character in conception and execution and despising everyone involved in his creation .
Gollum was so freakin ' wild because he was so convincing .
You were totally sold on the idea he was real .
Environmental interaction , lighting , acting , it was all perfect .
And so much artistry went into that .
I 've seen effects in big budget movies since the Rings that were not even half as good.As far as Avatar goes , Cameron had to create another freakin ' world .
Even more work had to go into that than with Rings .
As far as movies go LOTR had the better plot and did a better job of bringing the idea to the screen .
Avatar 's only sin was for having such a commonplace plot to back such groundbreaking filmmaking.Your point about whether we can even recognize the CGI is important .
People are always bragging about how they can spot the CGI .
" Yeah , that Balrog , totally CGI .
" No shit .
Everyone knows it has to be an effect .
The stuff we miss is like the stuff done in that Tom Hanks plane crash movie where the tides were adjusted on the island or in Forest Gump where only a fifth of the stadium was filled and that crowd was mapped to the other 4/5ths to make it look like a full house .
Lieutenant Dan did n't really lose his legs , his actor was wearing bluescreen stockings ?
No shit .
But what 'll really blow people away is when we find out an actor died halfway through the filming of a movie and the director uses CGI and a stand-in to complete his performance .
Facemapping technology is here .
Show someone that movie , tell them one of the actors was swapped out for CGI halfway through and ask them which one they thought it was.I 'm wondering if the Joker will be brought back for the third batman movie .
I 've heard some very , very good impressions of the joker voice from there .
Get someone of similar build to do the joker 's mannerisms and map a new face onto him .
I bet they could pull it off.If you create an entirely made up world you can put anything in it and have it " fit " , because you have accepted the fantasy.Not so easy .
It still has to be convincing .
LOTR 's crew did a lot of research making sure they understood the physics of the creatures they were presenting .
What would the bones be like in the mumakil , how would they balance , what would happen if they fell .
How does a fell beast fly ?
What sort of wingspan would it need ?
How would it look in the air ?
The same kind of focus went into Avatar .
The human eye can pick out stuff that does n't look right .
That 's usually the telltale of bad CGI , reflections are off or things are n't moving the way they should if physics were in play .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm also pissed off (as a phd in graphics research) that everyone thinks its breakthrough.
Gollum in LOTR was a breakthrough, theres no new tech in this movie.
James Cameron needs to stop saying how he invented mocap, its stupid.
You'll find that most of the amazing "breakthroughs" of the last decade you didnt actually notice because the CG was perfect and more importantly subtle.Avatar was groundbreaking technology.
Gollum was freakin' AMAZING.
I might have been more impressed with the work done on Jar-Jar if not for him being a hatefully stupid character in conception and execution and despising everyone involved in his creation.
Gollum was so freakin' wild because he was so convincing.
You were totally sold on the idea he was real.
Environmental interaction, lighting, acting, it was all perfect.
And so much artistry went into that.
I've seen effects in big budget movies since the Rings that were not even half as good.As far as Avatar goes, Cameron had to create another freakin' world.
Even more work had to go into that than with Rings.
As far as movies go LOTR had the better plot and did a better job of bringing the idea to the screen.
Avatar's only sin was for having such a commonplace plot to back such groundbreaking filmmaking.Your point about whether we can even recognize the CGI is important.
People are always bragging about how they can spot the CGI.
"Yeah, that Balrog, totally CGI.
" No shit.
Everyone knows it has to be an effect.
The stuff we miss is like the stuff done in that Tom Hanks plane crash movie where the tides were adjusted on the island or in Forest Gump where only a fifth of the stadium was filled and that crowd was mapped to the other 4/5ths to make it look like a full house.
Lieutenant Dan didn't really lose his legs, his actor was wearing bluescreen stockings?
No shit.
But what'll really blow people away is when we find out an actor died halfway through the filming of a movie and the director uses CGI and a stand-in to complete his performance.
Facemapping technology is here.
Show someone that movie, tell them one of the actors was swapped out for CGI halfway through and ask them which one they thought it was.I'm wondering if the Joker will be brought back for the third batman movie.
I've heard some very, very good impressions of the joker voice from there.
Get someone of similar build to do the joker's mannerisms and map a new face onto him.
I bet they could pull it off.If you create an entirely made up world you can put anything in it and have it "fit", because you have accepted the fantasy.Not so easy.
It still has to be convincing.
LOTR's crew did a lot of research making sure they understood the physics of the creatures they were presenting.
What would the bones be like in the mumakil, how would they balance, what would happen if they fell.
How does a fell beast fly?
What sort of wingspan would it need?
How would it look in the air?
The same kind of focus went into Avatar.
The human eye can pick out stuff that doesn't look right.
That's usually the telltale of bad CGI, reflections are off or things aren't moving the way they should if physics were in play.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850042</id>
	<title>Who else doesn't care?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264107180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Am I the only person that has never been bothered by this "uncanny valley"? So it looks sort of like a person but doesn't actually. So what? That has never disturbed me. I've never understood why things that look almost but not quite human bother people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I the only person that has never been bothered by this " uncanny valley " ?
So it looks sort of like a person but does n't actually .
So what ?
That has never disturbed me .
I 've never understood why things that look almost but not quite human bother people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I the only person that has never been bothered by this "uncanny valley"?
So it looks sort of like a person but doesn't actually.
So what?
That has never disturbed me.
I've never understood why things that look almost but not quite human bother people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30852930</id>
	<title>Re:yeah, but why humanoid robots in the first plac</title>
	<author>kalirion</author>
	<datestamp>1264073340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Heh, reminds me of the short story "Q.U.R." by Anthony Boucher.  Humanoid robots becoming depressed and breaking down because they were only used for narrow, repetitive job functions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Heh , reminds me of the short story " Q.U.R .
" by Anthony Boucher .
Humanoid robots becoming depressed and breaking down because they were only used for narrow , repetitive job functions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heh, reminds me of the short story "Q.U.R.
" by Anthony Boucher.
Humanoid robots becoming depressed and breaking down because they were only used for narrow, repetitive job functions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30851386</id>
	<title>Re:yeah, but why humanoid robots in the first plac</title>
	<author>b4k3d b34nz</author>
	<datestamp>1264068600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A primary reason that humanity is so successful is because we are general-purpose, but also because we have the ability to use tools. Robots can be designed to cut out the middle man and become the tool itself, or they can be more general use and still require tools or swappable arms/interfaces.</p><p>So think about it, do humans REALLY interface with the items we build? If so, why are there eventually 2 versions of these created items: "standard" and "ergonomic"? It's because the standard ones never are actually designed for humans to a T, and ergonomic versions attempt to rectify it. Also, humans are so different from each other in terms of size and agility that most of our interfaces do not exactly match even the average human being. Robots don't have to suffer from this problem, although they surely will have to handle deviation in the environment.</p><p>Humanoid robots are potentially successful in certain areas like teaching--although Disney's "Crush" the Turtle exhibit seems to work quite well for a lot of people--but until we get to the point where biomimicry is successful to the point where robots are commonly sexualized (plausable acceptability), we may as well continue creating robots that are fitted to a smaller number of uses in specific niches.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A primary reason that humanity is so successful is because we are general-purpose , but also because we have the ability to use tools .
Robots can be designed to cut out the middle man and become the tool itself , or they can be more general use and still require tools or swappable arms/interfaces.So think about it , do humans REALLY interface with the items we build ?
If so , why are there eventually 2 versions of these created items : " standard " and " ergonomic " ?
It 's because the standard ones never are actually designed for humans to a T , and ergonomic versions attempt to rectify it .
Also , humans are so different from each other in terms of size and agility that most of our interfaces do not exactly match even the average human being .
Robots do n't have to suffer from this problem , although they surely will have to handle deviation in the environment.Humanoid robots are potentially successful in certain areas like teaching--although Disney 's " Crush " the Turtle exhibit seems to work quite well for a lot of people--but until we get to the point where biomimicry is successful to the point where robots are commonly sexualized ( plausable acceptability ) , we may as well continue creating robots that are fitted to a smaller number of uses in specific niches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A primary reason that humanity is so successful is because we are general-purpose, but also because we have the ability to use tools.
Robots can be designed to cut out the middle man and become the tool itself, or they can be more general use and still require tools or swappable arms/interfaces.So think about it, do humans REALLY interface with the items we build?
If so, why are there eventually 2 versions of these created items: "standard" and "ergonomic"?
It's because the standard ones never are actually designed for humans to a T, and ergonomic versions attempt to rectify it.
Also, humans are so different from each other in terms of size and agility that most of our interfaces do not exactly match even the average human being.
Robots don't have to suffer from this problem, although they surely will have to handle deviation in the environment.Humanoid robots are potentially successful in certain areas like teaching--although Disney's "Crush" the Turtle exhibit seems to work quite well for a lot of people--but until we get to the point where biomimicry is successful to the point where robots are commonly sexualized (plausable acceptability), we may as well continue creating robots that are fitted to a smaller number of uses in specific niches.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849630</id>
	<title>Well, it certainly \_CAN\_ matter.</title>
	<author>bmajik</author>
	<datestamp>1264105440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TFA says that<br>- it may be more nuanced than people originally thought [i.e. the "absolute level of human-likeness" may not be the problem, but mismatched levels [great skin, awful eyes don't go together and are jarring]<br>- may have gender bias<br>- seems to depend on you viewing something remotely in 2d vs interacting with something real in the same room [the latter didn't seem to engender the same creepyness in those tested]</p><p>Since I don't live in japan nor do I visit robotics labs, I don't have much occasion to interact with near-humanoid robots.  So my UV experiences are limited to movies and video games.</p><p>I remember seeing the Final Fantasy: Spirits Within movie in the theater and just minutes into the movie I was convinced I was looking at real humans.  Or rather, there was nothing in the film that made me dissociate with the characters; they were as "real" to me as watching actors.  I kept trying to "zoom out" of the movie/picture and try to critically evaluate the job they did rendering the characters, but I kept defaulting to treating them as humans and getting sucked back into the movie.  Mission accomplished on their part, i guess.</p><p>I think the UV effect is definitely apparent in 2D matter -- as a fan of anime I am more inclined to "accept" characters that are absolutely impossible.. both physically and emotionally.. but which do not attempt to persuade me they are more than they are.  Yet when video game makers get something slightly wrong it \_is\_ a jarring experience.  I've seen video game cutscenes where there are clearly a lot of polygons and textures and art time involved...but something just seems off and instead of you being wowed [or ideally, \_not wowed\_] you are left feeling disappointed.  You know everyone worked hard to try and make the scene but they absolutely did not pull it off.. and the game experience is worse as a result.  Mistakes that land your artwork into the "UV" category turn people into videogame/art critics instead of people enjoying an interactive experience.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TFA says that- it may be more nuanced than people originally thought [ i.e .
the " absolute level of human-likeness " may not be the problem , but mismatched levels [ great skin , awful eyes do n't go together and are jarring ] - may have gender bias- seems to depend on you viewing something remotely in 2d vs interacting with something real in the same room [ the latter did n't seem to engender the same creepyness in those tested ] Since I do n't live in japan nor do I visit robotics labs , I do n't have much occasion to interact with near-humanoid robots .
So my UV experiences are limited to movies and video games.I remember seeing the Final Fantasy : Spirits Within movie in the theater and just minutes into the movie I was convinced I was looking at real humans .
Or rather , there was nothing in the film that made me dissociate with the characters ; they were as " real " to me as watching actors .
I kept trying to " zoom out " of the movie/picture and try to critically evaluate the job they did rendering the characters , but I kept defaulting to treating them as humans and getting sucked back into the movie .
Mission accomplished on their part , i guess.I think the UV effect is definitely apparent in 2D matter -- as a fan of anime I am more inclined to " accept " characters that are absolutely impossible.. both physically and emotionally.. but which do not attempt to persuade me they are more than they are .
Yet when video game makers get something slightly wrong it \ _is \ _ a jarring experience .
I 've seen video game cutscenes where there are clearly a lot of polygons and textures and art time involved...but something just seems off and instead of you being wowed [ or ideally , \ _not wowed \ _ ] you are left feeling disappointed .
You know everyone worked hard to try and make the scene but they absolutely did not pull it off.. and the game experience is worse as a result .
Mistakes that land your artwork into the " UV " category turn people into videogame/art critics instead of people enjoying an interactive experience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFA says that- it may be more nuanced than people originally thought [i.e.
the "absolute level of human-likeness" may not be the problem, but mismatched levels [great skin, awful eyes don't go together and are jarring]- may have gender bias- seems to depend on you viewing something remotely in 2d vs interacting with something real in the same room [the latter didn't seem to engender the same creepyness in those tested]Since I don't live in japan nor do I visit robotics labs, I don't have much occasion to interact with near-humanoid robots.
So my UV experiences are limited to movies and video games.I remember seeing the Final Fantasy: Spirits Within movie in the theater and just minutes into the movie I was convinced I was looking at real humans.
Or rather, there was nothing in the film that made me dissociate with the characters; they were as "real" to me as watching actors.
I kept trying to "zoom out" of the movie/picture and try to critically evaluate the job they did rendering the characters, but I kept defaulting to treating them as humans and getting sucked back into the movie.
Mission accomplished on their part, i guess.I think the UV effect is definitely apparent in 2D matter -- as a fan of anime I am more inclined to "accept" characters that are absolutely impossible.. both physically and emotionally.. but which do not attempt to persuade me they are more than they are.
Yet when video game makers get something slightly wrong it \_is\_ a jarring experience.
I've seen video game cutscenes where there are clearly a lot of polygons and textures and art time involved...but something just seems off and instead of you being wowed [or ideally, \_not wowed\_] you are left feeling disappointed.
You know everyone worked hard to try and make the scene but they absolutely did not pull it off.. and the game experience is worse as a result.
Mistakes that land your artwork into the "UV" category turn people into videogame/art critics instead of people enjoying an interactive experience.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849598</id>
	<title>So?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264105320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Regardless of the uncanny valley, I don't really see the point in making robots humanoid in the first place. There's only a handful of tasks such a machine would be optimal for, and just having a human do it will still be the better choice for quite a while.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Regardless of the uncanny valley , I do n't really see the point in making robots humanoid in the first place .
There 's only a handful of tasks such a machine would be optimal for , and just having a human do it will still be the better choice for quite a while .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Regardless of the uncanny valley, I don't really see the point in making robots humanoid in the first place.
There's only a handful of tasks such a machine would be optimal for, and just having a human do it will still be the better choice for quite a while.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850378</id>
	<title>Re:yeah, but why humanoid robots in the first plac</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264065300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But why not just build the fridge into the robot?  Or perhaps some sort of beer cannon?</htmltext>
<tokenext>But why not just build the fridge into the robot ?
Or perhaps some sort of beer cannon ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But why not just build the fridge into the robot?
Or perhaps some sort of beer cannon?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30853574</id>
	<title>Re:yeah, but why humanoid robots in the first plac</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264075680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Main Entry: robot<br>Function: noun<br>Etymology: Czech, from robota compulsory labor; akin to Old High German arabeit trouble, Latin orbus orphaned &mdash; more at orphan<br>Date: 1923</i></p><p><i>1 a : a machine that looks like a human being and performs various complex acts (as walking or talking) of a human being; also : a similar but fictional machine whose lack of capacity for human emotions is often emphasized b : an efficient insensitive person who functions automatically<br>2 : a device that automatically performs complicated often repetitive tasks<br>3 : a mechanism guided by automatic controls</i></p><p>Definition 2 and 3 oriented robots exist for decades. Making machines that look human is an art still being perfected.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Main Entry : robotFunction : nounEtymology : Czech , from robota compulsory labor ; akin to Old High German arabeit trouble , Latin orbus orphaned    more at orphanDate : 19231 a : a machine that looks like a human being and performs various complex acts ( as walking or talking ) of a human being ; also : a similar but fictional machine whose lack of capacity for human emotions is often emphasized b : an efficient insensitive person who functions automatically2 : a device that automatically performs complicated often repetitive tasks3 : a mechanism guided by automatic controlsDefinition 2 and 3 oriented robots exist for decades .
Making machines that look human is an art still being perfected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Main Entry: robotFunction: nounEtymology: Czech, from robota compulsory labor; akin to Old High German arabeit trouble, Latin orbus orphaned — more at orphanDate: 19231 a : a machine that looks like a human being and performs various complex acts (as walking or talking) of a human being; also : a similar but fictional machine whose lack of capacity for human emotions is often emphasized b : an efficient insensitive person who functions automatically2 : a device that automatically performs complicated often repetitive tasks3 : a mechanism guided by automatic controlsDefinition 2 and 3 oriented robots exist for decades.
Making machines that look human is an art still being perfected.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30851890</id>
	<title>Re:Dogs hate cats. Dolphins hate sharks.</title>
	<author>ucblockhead</author>
	<datestamp>1264070100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suspect a more logical reason for dolphins attacking sharks is the penchant for sharks to try to eat things like dolphins.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect a more logical reason for dolphins attacking sharks is the penchant for sharks to try to eat things like dolphins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect a more logical reason for dolphins attacking sharks is the penchant for sharks to try to eat things like dolphins.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850158</id>
	<title>Re:Avatar was a step out of uncanny valley</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1264064520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>One weird thing about Avatar, I felt the same way as you, but when I remembered back to the movie, in my mind the live action scenes were remembered as cartoons.  That seemed really weird to me, but I mentioned it to my brother and he said the same thing happened to him.  I am not sure if this is my brain's reaction to knowing the whole thing can't be real, and being confused by it, or what.  Either way the graphics were impressive enough that my brain was very confused by it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One weird thing about Avatar , I felt the same way as you , but when I remembered back to the movie , in my mind the live action scenes were remembered as cartoons .
That seemed really weird to me , but I mentioned it to my brother and he said the same thing happened to him .
I am not sure if this is my brain 's reaction to knowing the whole thing ca n't be real , and being confused by it , or what .
Either way the graphics were impressive enough that my brain was very confused by it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One weird thing about Avatar, I felt the same way as you, but when I remembered back to the movie, in my mind the live action scenes were remembered as cartoons.
That seemed really weird to me, but I mentioned it to my brother and he said the same thing happened to him.
I am not sure if this is my brain's reaction to knowing the whole thing can't be real, and being confused by it, or what.
Either way the graphics were impressive enough that my brain was very confused by it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30853514</id>
	<title>Re:Avatar was a step out of uncanny valley</title>
	<author>gizmonic</author>
	<datestamp>1264075500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No. The reason you didnt feel the uncanny valley was because it wasnt real. It was so far from real that your brain didnt find the twisted smurf creatures disturbing.</p></div><p>Actually, there *was* a part of the movie with the uncanny valley feeling, at least for me.  The part near the end when the humans are laying under the tree.  They definitely gave off uncanny vibes.  At least to me.  The blue people, sure, they can look like whatever, they're not human.  They aren't uncanny because they only comparison we have is to themselves.  But the humans, well, they didn't quite make it far enough to make it out of the valley in those scenes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
The reason you didnt feel the uncanny valley was because it wasnt real .
It was so far from real that your brain didnt find the twisted smurf creatures disturbing.Actually , there * was * a part of the movie with the uncanny valley feeling , at least for me .
The part near the end when the humans are laying under the tree .
They definitely gave off uncanny vibes .
At least to me .
The blue people , sure , they can look like whatever , they 're not human .
They are n't uncanny because they only comparison we have is to themselves .
But the humans , well , they did n't quite make it far enough to make it out of the valley in those scenes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
The reason you didnt feel the uncanny valley was because it wasnt real.
It was so far from real that your brain didnt find the twisted smurf creatures disturbing.Actually, there *was* a part of the movie with the uncanny valley feeling, at least for me.
The part near the end when the humans are laying under the tree.
They definitely gave off uncanny vibes.
At least to me.
The blue people, sure, they can look like whatever, they're not human.
They aren't uncanny because they only comparison we have is to themselves.
But the humans, well, they didn't quite make it far enough to make it out of the valley in those scenes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30851392</id>
	<title>Yup, he ALMOST got it</title>
	<author>SmallFurryCreature</author>
	<datestamp>1264068600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He only briefly mentions the Polar Express movie that had a really big uncanny valley problem.
</p><p>If you have seen the movie, you know what it is, it looks at once so real and at the same time is a Bugs Bunny cartoon. The two just don't match.
</p><p>There is a reason movies like Madagascar, Wall-E, Up etc despite being drop dead gorgous use clear cartoony looks ESPECIALLY for their characters. And while it is acceptable for the plane in Madagascar 2 to bounce like cartoon plane because it is clear that no matter how accurately it is rendered it is NOT a real aircraft. But the train in Polar Express DOES look real and real trains do not behave like that.
</p><p>It is the superman problem. Spiderman can swing from wall to wall because it slightly makes sense, sense enough perhaps. Superman being able to lift an Island doesn't. Stopping a train. That has nothing to do with strength anymore, but with conversion of energy. He may be strong enough, but we know the ground isn't.
</p><p>The uncanny valley is NOT something not looking right, but us knowing that the real thing looks or behaves different. It is why walking is SO hard to do in any animation. Most animation showing walking has a problem with slipping, it looks immidiatly wrong to us.
</p><p>A robot, and no robot so far looks anything like a real human, just doesn't look real enough to trigger the feeling that it is wrong.
</p><p>The uncanny valley is not restricted to animation or future robots. Ordinary humans got it as well, watch someone with a glass eye or scarring that is not obvious anymore but still large. Burn victim with a lot of corrective surgery whose face is close but at the same time a million miles removed. A burn victim with just a huge nasty scar might be shocking, but that is soon passed, but that face that is almost normal but isn't, that gets the constant stares.
</p><p>The uncanny valley is not a theory or a measurement, it is simply the observation that people accept a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) as a face but a 99\% realistic rendering is instantly picked as fake NOT for missing a pixel but because the eyes are at an unnatural angle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He only briefly mentions the Polar Express movie that had a really big uncanny valley problem .
If you have seen the movie , you know what it is , it looks at once so real and at the same time is a Bugs Bunny cartoon .
The two just do n't match .
There is a reason movies like Madagascar , Wall-E , Up etc despite being drop dead gorgous use clear cartoony looks ESPECIALLY for their characters .
And while it is acceptable for the plane in Madagascar 2 to bounce like cartoon plane because it is clear that no matter how accurately it is rendered it is NOT a real aircraft .
But the train in Polar Express DOES look real and real trains do not behave like that .
It is the superman problem .
Spiderman can swing from wall to wall because it slightly makes sense , sense enough perhaps .
Superman being able to lift an Island does n't .
Stopping a train .
That has nothing to do with strength anymore , but with conversion of energy .
He may be strong enough , but we know the ground is n't .
The uncanny valley is NOT something not looking right , but us knowing that the real thing looks or behaves different .
It is why walking is SO hard to do in any animation .
Most animation showing walking has a problem with slipping , it looks immidiatly wrong to us .
A robot , and no robot so far looks anything like a real human , just does n't look real enough to trigger the feeling that it is wrong .
The uncanny valley is not restricted to animation or future robots .
Ordinary humans got it as well , watch someone with a glass eye or scarring that is not obvious anymore but still large .
Burn victim with a lot of corrective surgery whose face is close but at the same time a million miles removed .
A burn victim with just a huge nasty scar might be shocking , but that is soon passed , but that face that is almost normal but is n't , that gets the constant stares .
The uncanny valley is not a theory or a measurement , it is simply the observation that people accept a : ) as a face but a 99 \ % realistic rendering is instantly picked as fake NOT for missing a pixel but because the eyes are at an unnatural angle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He only briefly mentions the Polar Express movie that had a really big uncanny valley problem.
If you have seen the movie, you know what it is, it looks at once so real and at the same time is a Bugs Bunny cartoon.
The two just don't match.
There is a reason movies like Madagascar, Wall-E, Up etc despite being drop dead gorgous use clear cartoony looks ESPECIALLY for their characters.
And while it is acceptable for the plane in Madagascar 2 to bounce like cartoon plane because it is clear that no matter how accurately it is rendered it is NOT a real aircraft.
But the train in Polar Express DOES look real and real trains do not behave like that.
It is the superman problem.
Spiderman can swing from wall to wall because it slightly makes sense, sense enough perhaps.
Superman being able to lift an Island doesn't.
Stopping a train.
That has nothing to do with strength anymore, but with conversion of energy.
He may be strong enough, but we know the ground isn't.
The uncanny valley is NOT something not looking right, but us knowing that the real thing looks or behaves different.
It is why walking is SO hard to do in any animation.
Most animation showing walking has a problem with slipping, it looks immidiatly wrong to us.
A robot, and no robot so far looks anything like a real human, just doesn't look real enough to trigger the feeling that it is wrong.
The uncanny valley is not restricted to animation or future robots.
Ordinary humans got it as well, watch someone with a glass eye or scarring that is not obvious anymore but still large.
Burn victim with a lot of corrective surgery whose face is close but at the same time a million miles removed.
A burn victim with just a huge nasty scar might be shocking, but that is soon passed, but that face that is almost normal but isn't, that gets the constant stares.
The uncanny valley is not a theory or a measurement, it is simply the observation that people accept a :) as a face but a 99\% realistic rendering is instantly picked as fake NOT for missing a pixel but because the eyes are at an unnatural angle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849896</id>
	<title>Re:Dogs hate cats. Dolphins hate sharks.</title>
	<author>Rhacman</author>
	<datestamp>1264106640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought dogs just generally chased, attacked, and ate just about anything i.e. squirrels, rabbits, cars, postal employees, spherical objects, non-spherical objects, dirt, rocks...  As for sharks, I'm under the impression that their perception of the world can be classified by "to be eaten" and "to be ignored" wheras dolphins are simply reacting to their presence on the former list.  That said, I could be swayed if some sources were provided.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought dogs just generally chased , attacked , and ate just about anything i.e .
squirrels , rabbits , cars , postal employees , spherical objects , non-spherical objects , dirt , rocks... As for sharks , I 'm under the impression that their perception of the world can be classified by " to be eaten " and " to be ignored " wheras dolphins are simply reacting to their presence on the former list .
That said , I could be swayed if some sources were provided .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought dogs just generally chased, attacked, and ate just about anything i.e.
squirrels, rabbits, cars, postal employees, spherical objects, non-spherical objects, dirt, rocks...  As for sharks, I'm under the impression that their perception of the world can be classified by "to be eaten" and "to be ignored" wheras dolphins are simply reacting to their presence on the former list.
That said, I could be swayed if some sources were provided.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30852686</id>
	<title>Re:yeah, but why humanoid robots in the first plac</title>
	<author>GameMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1264072560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With the exception of the niches/fetishes you mentioned yourself, the most immediate reason I can see for having such interest in a humanoid robot would be flexibility of function.  We, as a race, have spent much of our existence working to modify our environment to fit our humanoid form factor.  Doors, hallways, chairs, vehicles, tools, etc. are all designed to work, specifically, with the human body shape.  One of the problems with mass adoption of non-humanoid robots for general tasks is that they require us to modify the environment with an infrastructure custom tailored to their capabilities.  With a fully human-form robot, all the world is already designed to work with it and the rest is all software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With the exception of the niches/fetishes you mentioned yourself , the most immediate reason I can see for having such interest in a humanoid robot would be flexibility of function .
We , as a race , have spent much of our existence working to modify our environment to fit our humanoid form factor .
Doors , hallways , chairs , vehicles , tools , etc .
are all designed to work , specifically , with the human body shape .
One of the problems with mass adoption of non-humanoid robots for general tasks is that they require us to modify the environment with an infrastructure custom tailored to their capabilities .
With a fully human-form robot , all the world is already designed to work with it and the rest is all software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the exception of the niches/fetishes you mentioned yourself, the most immediate reason I can see for having such interest in a humanoid robot would be flexibility of function.
We, as a race, have spent much of our existence working to modify our environment to fit our humanoid form factor.
Doors, hallways, chairs, vehicles, tools, etc.
are all designed to work, specifically, with the human body shape.
One of the problems with mass adoption of non-humanoid robots for general tasks is that they require us to modify the environment with an infrastructure custom tailored to their capabilities.
With a fully human-form robot, all the world is already designed to work with it and the rest is all software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850484</id>
	<title>Re:yeah, but why humanoid robots in the first plac</title>
	<author>Zotdogg</author>
	<datestamp>1264065720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The best answer I've heard to this is that our (human) world\civilization has been built around our bodies and the easiest way to have machines most easily interact with that world is to design them as humanoid objects with as many of the same faculties as possible.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The best answer I 've heard to this is that our ( human ) world \ civilization has been built around our bodies and the easiest way to have machines most easily interact with that world is to design them as humanoid objects with as many of the same faculties as possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The best answer I've heard to this is that our (human) world\civilization has been built around our bodies and the easiest way to have machines most easily interact with that world is to design them as humanoid objects with as many of the same faculties as possible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849558</id>
	<title>Why the Uncanny Valley Doesn't Really Matter</title>
	<author>avandesande</author>
	<datestamp>1264105200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's worry about it when robots that fall into this scenario actually exist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's worry about it when robots that fall into this scenario actually exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's worry about it when robots that fall into this scenario actually exist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850794</id>
	<title>Re:Uncanny valley exists, and does matter, so ther</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1264066800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Human contact has been replaced by machines lots of places like bank clerks who has been almost fully replaced by online banking and cash machines, or how about ticket machines or vending machines? I have a dishwasher and washing machine, none of those are built the way I'd wash dishes or do laundry. The point is not that machines suck at being useful, it's that they suck at being humans. I'd rather in fact not have a clippy interface to my machine if I can help it. Why does everyone seem to think a humanoid robot would be such a great solution? Would you like to piggyback on a humanoid robot to work every day? Do you honestly think it's good design to command a robot to use a remote control to tune your TV when you could command the TV to tune itself?</p><p>Don't get me wrong, eventually we will need some sort of general robot but my home could be a lot more intelligent than it is. There's no universal "bus" that things expose themselves to, and I don't mean building a special house full of special tools that are all built to work together. I mean something that'll be pretty much as basic as electricity and everything announces itself and lets me turn on and off lamps, turn up and down the heating, tune the TV, monitor the oven (maybe not set that one), check the status of my washing machine all in one dashboard right here, without getting my ass off the chair. That would at least be a start...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Human contact has been replaced by machines lots of places like bank clerks who has been almost fully replaced by online banking and cash machines , or how about ticket machines or vending machines ?
I have a dishwasher and washing machine , none of those are built the way I 'd wash dishes or do laundry .
The point is not that machines suck at being useful , it 's that they suck at being humans .
I 'd rather in fact not have a clippy interface to my machine if I can help it .
Why does everyone seem to think a humanoid robot would be such a great solution ?
Would you like to piggyback on a humanoid robot to work every day ?
Do you honestly think it 's good design to command a robot to use a remote control to tune your TV when you could command the TV to tune itself ? Do n't get me wrong , eventually we will need some sort of general robot but my home could be a lot more intelligent than it is .
There 's no universal " bus " that things expose themselves to , and I do n't mean building a special house full of special tools that are all built to work together .
I mean something that 'll be pretty much as basic as electricity and everything announces itself and lets me turn on and off lamps , turn up and down the heating , tune the TV , monitor the oven ( maybe not set that one ) , check the status of my washing machine all in one dashboard right here , without getting my ass off the chair .
That would at least be a start.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Human contact has been replaced by machines lots of places like bank clerks who has been almost fully replaced by online banking and cash machines, or how about ticket machines or vending machines?
I have a dishwasher and washing machine, none of those are built the way I'd wash dishes or do laundry.
The point is not that machines suck at being useful, it's that they suck at being humans.
I'd rather in fact not have a clippy interface to my machine if I can help it.
Why does everyone seem to think a humanoid robot would be such a great solution?
Would you like to piggyback on a humanoid robot to work every day?
Do you honestly think it's good design to command a robot to use a remote control to tune your TV when you could command the TV to tune itself?Don't get me wrong, eventually we will need some sort of general robot but my home could be a lot more intelligent than it is.
There's no universal "bus" that things expose themselves to, and I don't mean building a special house full of special tools that are all built to work together.
I mean something that'll be pretty much as basic as electricity and everything announces itself and lets me turn on and off lamps, turn up and down the heating, tune the TV, monitor the oven (maybe not set that one), check the status of my washing machine all in one dashboard right here, without getting my ass off the chair.
That would at least be a start...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30855638</id>
	<title>Re:yeah, but why humanoid robots in the first plac</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1264088520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But why not just build the fridge into the robot?  Or perhaps some sort of beer cannon?</p></div><p>I think you should submit that idea to mythbusters.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But why not just build the fridge into the robot ?
Or perhaps some sort of beer cannon ? I think you should submit that idea to mythbusters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But why not just build the fridge into the robot?
Or perhaps some sort of beer cannon?I think you should submit that idea to mythbusters.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30851174</id>
	<title>WRONG! It does matter!</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1264067940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stuff looks really creepy because of the uncanny valley.<br>I do not want to buy stuff that looks really creepy, when I do not expect it to be. (Exception: Horror games/movies.)<br>I assume that this is true for nearly everybody.<br>If people don&rsquo;t buy it, there is no profit in it.<br>If there is no profit in something, no company will produce it.</p><p>There&rsquo;s how it matters.<br>Simple as that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stuff looks really creepy because of the uncanny valley.I do not want to buy stuff that looks really creepy , when I do not expect it to be .
( Exception : Horror games/movies .
) I assume that this is true for nearly everybody.If people don    t buy it , there is no profit in it.If there is no profit in something , no company will produce it.There    s how it matters.Simple as that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stuff looks really creepy because of the uncanny valley.I do not want to buy stuff that looks really creepy, when I do not expect it to be.
(Exception: Horror games/movies.
)I assume that this is true for nearly everybody.If people don’t buy it, there is no profit in it.If there is no profit in something, no company will produce it.There’s how it matters.Simple as that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30854028</id>
	<title>Re:Dogs hate cats. Dolphins hate sharks.</title>
	<author>Junior J. Junior III</author>
	<datestamp>1264077480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>Are sharks and dolphins friendly after becoming acquained in a controlled environment? I'll leave that as an experiment up to the user.</p></div></blockquote><p>you owe me 11 replacement dolphins</p></div><p>Why not just make 10 replacement dolphins larger?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are sharks and dolphins friendly after becoming acquained in a controlled environment ?
I 'll leave that as an experiment up to the user.you owe me 11 replacement dolphinsWhy not just make 10 replacement dolphins larger ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are sharks and dolphins friendly after becoming acquained in a controlled environment?
I'll leave that as an experiment up to the user.you owe me 11 replacement dolphinsWhy not just make 10 replacement dolphins larger?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30852328</id>
	<title>Re:Dogs hate cats. Dolphins hate sharks.</title>
	<author>Requiem18th</author>
	<datestamp>1264071360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see that animal traffickers are trimming their dozens when selling to researchers...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see that animal traffickers are trimming their dozens when selling to researchers.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see that animal traffickers are trimming their dozens when selling to researchers...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30851128</id>
	<title>Re:evolved communication protocols</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264067820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>We are scared of people who can lie and kill without the deed showing in their behavior and that fear is readily milked in many movies about murderous robots and calm psychopaths. I believe this is part of the uncanny valley. We've evolved over time to share a common nonverbal system of communication. Anything which can exploit this system, be it beings that don't look quite right or can deceive us completely and effortlessly, triggers a warning in us.</i></p><p>Back when it was a standard part of anatomy coursework, I had to stand in on a human dissection.  This is apparently not done anymore because it's gotten too expensive and most folks just can't deal with it.</p><p>During this dissection half the class did not attend. Within the first minute, three more had left. A few minutes later it was just four of us and the instructor. What struck me about this experience was that I felt absolutely nothing. Nada. Zilch. Whereas my classmates were going on about how viewing the body gave them the willies, it caused as much reaction in me as watching a top spinning. I.e., it's interesting at first , but beyond that, really boring.</p><p>The thing is, though I wouldn't kill anyone, I don't feel anything when I hear about death. If someone committed a heinous crime, I can't understand why they are not executed immediately once their guilt is confirmed. I don't know if this makes me a psychopath, but that's how I am.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We are scared of people who can lie and kill without the deed showing in their behavior and that fear is readily milked in many movies about murderous robots and calm psychopaths .
I believe this is part of the uncanny valley .
We 've evolved over time to share a common nonverbal system of communication .
Anything which can exploit this system , be it beings that do n't look quite right or can deceive us completely and effortlessly , triggers a warning in us.Back when it was a standard part of anatomy coursework , I had to stand in on a human dissection .
This is apparently not done anymore because it 's gotten too expensive and most folks just ca n't deal with it.During this dissection half the class did not attend .
Within the first minute , three more had left .
A few minutes later it was just four of us and the instructor .
What struck me about this experience was that I felt absolutely nothing .
Nada. Zilch .
Whereas my classmates were going on about how viewing the body gave them the willies , it caused as much reaction in me as watching a top spinning .
I.e. , it 's interesting at first , but beyond that , really boring.The thing is , though I would n't kill anyone , I do n't feel anything when I hear about death .
If someone committed a heinous crime , I ca n't understand why they are not executed immediately once their guilt is confirmed .
I do n't know if this makes me a psychopath , but that 's how I am .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We are scared of people who can lie and kill without the deed showing in their behavior and that fear is readily milked in many movies about murderous robots and calm psychopaths.
I believe this is part of the uncanny valley.
We've evolved over time to share a common nonverbal system of communication.
Anything which can exploit this system, be it beings that don't look quite right or can deceive us completely and effortlessly, triggers a warning in us.Back when it was a standard part of anatomy coursework, I had to stand in on a human dissection.
This is apparently not done anymore because it's gotten too expensive and most folks just can't deal with it.During this dissection half the class did not attend.
Within the first minute, three more had left.
A few minutes later it was just four of us and the instructor.
What struck me about this experience was that I felt absolutely nothing.
Nada. Zilch.
Whereas my classmates were going on about how viewing the body gave them the willies, it caused as much reaction in me as watching a top spinning.
I.e., it's interesting at first , but beyond that, really boring.The thing is, though I wouldn't kill anyone, I don't feel anything when I hear about death.
If someone committed a heinous crime, I can't understand why they are not executed immediately once their guilt is confirmed.
I don't know if this makes me a psychopath, but that's how I am.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30855212</id>
	<title>Re:yeah, but why humanoid robots in the first plac</title>
	<author>similar\_name</author>
	<datestamp>1264084860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> I certainly wouldn't start with a humanoid layout</p></div><p>
It does give a robot instant access to all of our tools, modes of transportation, and infrastructure.  Robots that are backwards compatible with their makers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I certainly would n't start with a humanoid layout It does give a robot instant access to all of our tools , modes of transportation , and infrastructure .
Robots that are backwards compatible with their makers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I certainly wouldn't start with a humanoid layout
It does give a robot instant access to all of our tools, modes of transportation, and infrastructure.
Robots that are backwards compatible with their makers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849754</id>
	<title>Re:yeah, but why humanoid robots in the first plac</title>
	<author>Scrameustache</author>
	<datestamp>1264105980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think it's weird that some people have a fascination with humanoid robots in the first place.</p></div><p>Everything we have is designed to work with our humanoid bodies, so if we want to make a device that interfaces with those things, it will work better if it shares the humanoid design.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's weird that some people have a fascination with humanoid robots in the first place.Everything we have is designed to work with our humanoid bodies , so if we want to make a device that interfaces with those things , it will work better if it shares the humanoid design .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's weird that some people have a fascination with humanoid robots in the first place.Everything we have is designed to work with our humanoid bodies, so if we want to make a device that interfaces with those things, it will work better if it shares the humanoid design.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30851304</id>
	<title>Re:Dogs hate cats. Dolphins hate sharks.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264068360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not a valid experiment if you put the lasers on the dolphins.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not a valid experiment if you put the lasers on the dolphins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not a valid experiment if you put the lasers on the dolphins.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850182</id>
	<title>evolved communication protocols</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1264064640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think a key problem here is simply that humanity has evolved elaborate behaviors and telltales for communication even without intent. For example, in a store there are distinct differences in the behavior of someone looking for something versus someone walking purposefully to a destination. Irritation is easily transmitted. What this means is that for the typical human, there are limits to how well they can deceive another human. I think that's one of the causes of the uncanny valley. If you're in the valley, then the behavioral cues either cannot be interpreted or even worse are merely a skin that can be readily changed.<br> <br>

Violations of these behaviors and evolved protocols can really upset us. For example, a scene in Terminator II shows the evil robot of the movie (which can take anyone's form that it kills) has earlier (unknown to the audience) taken over the form of a woman talking on the phone to her son. The audience senses something is wrong, the dog is barking hectically outside and the woman is trying suspiciously to milk the son for information on his location. She gets the name of the dog wrong. It's only then that we know she's the killer robot. Right after the call ends, we find the robot also killed the husband of the woman while casually talking on the phone. Think about that. Someone who can chat on the phone without even a trace of emotion or extertion while killing a person at the same time. Bladerunner explores this to great extent (the opening scene is a great example). Silence of the Lambs is in part about a hideous serial killer who shows no remorse and reveals of himself only what he wishes.<br> <br>

We are scared of people who can lie and kill without the deed showing in their behavior and that fear is readily milked in many movies about murderous robots and calm psychopaths. I believe this is part of the uncanny valley. We've evolved over time to share a common nonverbal system of communication. Anything which can exploit this system, be it beings that don't look quite right or can deceive us completely and effortlessly, triggers a warning in us.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think a key problem here is simply that humanity has evolved elaborate behaviors and telltales for communication even without intent .
For example , in a store there are distinct differences in the behavior of someone looking for something versus someone walking purposefully to a destination .
Irritation is easily transmitted .
What this means is that for the typical human , there are limits to how well they can deceive another human .
I think that 's one of the causes of the uncanny valley .
If you 're in the valley , then the behavioral cues either can not be interpreted or even worse are merely a skin that can be readily changed .
Violations of these behaviors and evolved protocols can really upset us .
For example , a scene in Terminator II shows the evil robot of the movie ( which can take anyone 's form that it kills ) has earlier ( unknown to the audience ) taken over the form of a woman talking on the phone to her son .
The audience senses something is wrong , the dog is barking hectically outside and the woman is trying suspiciously to milk the son for information on his location .
She gets the name of the dog wrong .
It 's only then that we know she 's the killer robot .
Right after the call ends , we find the robot also killed the husband of the woman while casually talking on the phone .
Think about that .
Someone who can chat on the phone without even a trace of emotion or extertion while killing a person at the same time .
Bladerunner explores this to great extent ( the opening scene is a great example ) .
Silence of the Lambs is in part about a hideous serial killer who shows no remorse and reveals of himself only what he wishes .
We are scared of people who can lie and kill without the deed showing in their behavior and that fear is readily milked in many movies about murderous robots and calm psychopaths .
I believe this is part of the uncanny valley .
We 've evolved over time to share a common nonverbal system of communication .
Anything which can exploit this system , be it beings that do n't look quite right or can deceive us completely and effortlessly , triggers a warning in us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think a key problem here is simply that humanity has evolved elaborate behaviors and telltales for communication even without intent.
For example, in a store there are distinct differences in the behavior of someone looking for something versus someone walking purposefully to a destination.
Irritation is easily transmitted.
What this means is that for the typical human, there are limits to how well they can deceive another human.
I think that's one of the causes of the uncanny valley.
If you're in the valley, then the behavioral cues either cannot be interpreted or even worse are merely a skin that can be readily changed.
Violations of these behaviors and evolved protocols can really upset us.
For example, a scene in Terminator II shows the evil robot of the movie (which can take anyone's form that it kills) has earlier (unknown to the audience) taken over the form of a woman talking on the phone to her son.
The audience senses something is wrong, the dog is barking hectically outside and the woman is trying suspiciously to milk the son for information on his location.
She gets the name of the dog wrong.
It's only then that we know she's the killer robot.
Right after the call ends, we find the robot also killed the husband of the woman while casually talking on the phone.
Think about that.
Someone who can chat on the phone without even a trace of emotion or extertion while killing a person at the same time.
Bladerunner explores this to great extent (the opening scene is a great example).
Silence of the Lambs is in part about a hideous serial killer who shows no remorse and reveals of himself only what he wishes.
We are scared of people who can lie and kill without the deed showing in their behavior and that fear is readily milked in many movies about murderous robots and calm psychopaths.
I believe this is part of the uncanny valley.
We've evolved over time to share a common nonverbal system of communication.
Anything which can exploit this system, be it beings that don't look quite right or can deceive us completely and effortlessly, triggers a warning in us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1717234_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1717234_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30851474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1717234_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30853574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1717234_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1717234_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30856742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1717234_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30853248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1717234_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30858756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1717234_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30851814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1717234_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30858408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1717234_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30857442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1717234_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1717234_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30852686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1717234_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30852930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1717234_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30852800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1717234_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30854944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1717234_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1717234_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1717234_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30851374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1717234_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1717234_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30857698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1717234_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30851304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1717234_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30855638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1717234_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1717234_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30855378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1717234_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30854028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1717234_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30852328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1717234_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1717234_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30855498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1717234_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1717234_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30851386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1717234_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1717234_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30854316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1717234_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1717234_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30851578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1717234_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1717234_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30853944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1717234_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1717234_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30853418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1717234_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1717234_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30853514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1717234_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30854948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1717234_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30852476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1717234_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30852466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1717234_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30851392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1717234_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30852012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1717234_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30852946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1717234_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30854066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1717234_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1717234_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1717234_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30851190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1717234_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30851128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1717234_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1717234_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1717234_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30857624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1717234_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30855212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1717234_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30855574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1717234_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30851890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1717234_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30855584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1717234_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1717234_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1717234_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1717234_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1717234_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30851302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1717234.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30855212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850484
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30853944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30855378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30854316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849674
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30855574
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30852466
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30851190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850174
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850378
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30855638
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850618
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850676
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850638
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30855584
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30852012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30852930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30853574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30855498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30852686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849662
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849754
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30851386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849874
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30852946
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30857698
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30851578
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1717234.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30852800
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1717234.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30856742
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1717234.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850998
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1717234.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849486
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1717234.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850482
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1717234.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850158
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30854944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849988
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30853514
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30851374
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30852476
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30851474
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1717234.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30857442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30851392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30858408
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1717234.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850182
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30853418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30851128
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1717234.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30851890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30854948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849726
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30851302
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30854028
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850316
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30851304
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30852328
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849896
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30857624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849812
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1717234.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30853248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30854066
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30851814
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1717234.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849622
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1717234.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849558
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1717234.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849834
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1717234.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30858756
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1717234.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849598
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30850476
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1717234.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1717234.30849724
</commentlist>
</conversation>
