<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_24_1821248</id>
	<title>Designing the Computer UIs In Movies</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1264362060000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://alxndrslashdotgmailcom/" rel="nofollow">xandroid</a> points out an NPR interview with Mark Coleran, who
<i>"...designs the fancy-but-fake <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122874292">graphics that flash across computers in the movies</a>. He has worked on a laundry list of blockbusters: The Bourne Identity, The Bourne Ultimatum, Children of Men, Mission Impossible III, and many more. He says a lot of the inspiration for computer screens comes from video games."</i> The main point of these fake movie UIs is different than that of real UIs: to tell a story very quickly, not to reveal and enable function.</htmltext>
<tokenext>xandroid points out an NPR interview with Mark Coleran , who " ...designs the fancy-but-fake graphics that flash across computers in the movies .
He has worked on a laundry list of blockbusters : The Bourne Identity , The Bourne Ultimatum , Children of Men , Mission Impossible III , and many more .
He says a lot of the inspiration for computer screens comes from video games .
" The main point of these fake movie UIs is different than that of real UIs : to tell a story very quickly , not to reveal and enable function .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>xandroid points out an NPR interview with Mark Coleran, who
"...designs the fancy-but-fake graphics that flash across computers in the movies.
He has worked on a laundry list of blockbusters: The Bourne Identity, The Bourne Ultimatum, Children of Men, Mission Impossible III, and many more.
He says a lot of the inspiration for computer screens comes from video games.
" The main point of these fake movie UIs is different than that of real UIs: to tell a story very quickly, not to reveal and enable function.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882928</id>
	<title>Re:This wouldn't be a problem except...</title>
	<author>elmartinos</author>
	<datestamp>1264332240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.nuk3.com/gallery/comedy/1456/CSI-Enhance-Numberplate.html" title="nuk3.com">ENHANCE the number plate!</a> [nuk3.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ENHANCE the number plate !
[ nuk3.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ENHANCE the number plate!
[nuk3.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881448</id>
	<title>People who think fake UIs are real.</title>
	<author>w0mprat</author>
	<datestamp>1264323600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a IT guy I hate being asked by a lay person "Do you understand what he's doing on that screen?" when we're watching some movie or TV show with a completely fake UI on some computer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a IT guy I hate being asked by a lay person " Do you understand what he 's doing on that screen ?
" when we 're watching some movie or TV show with a completely fake UI on some computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a IT guy I hate being asked by a lay person "Do you understand what he's doing on that screen?
" when we're watching some movie or TV show with a completely fake UI on some computer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881580</id>
	<title>Re:This wouldn't be a problem except...</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1264324320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So because some people are stupid and can't distinguish fantasy from reality we should stop with the fantasy?</p><p>You're all for banning violent video games too, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So because some people are stupid and ca n't distinguish fantasy from reality we should stop with the fantasy ? You 're all for banning violent video games too , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So because some people are stupid and can't distinguish fantasy from reality we should stop with the fantasy?You're all for banning violent video games too, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30884322</id>
	<title>Re:This wouldn't be a problem except...</title>
	<author>Toonol</author>
	<datestamp>1264341600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And now she thinks that you aren't <i>really</i> that good with computers, because you couldn't even do a simple task like that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And now she thinks that you are n't really that good with computers , because you could n't even do a simple task like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And now she thinks that you aren't really that good with computers, because you couldn't even do a simple task like that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882594</id>
	<title>Re:Clever girl</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264330140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Life isn't a soap opera. Life isn't a love story. Life isn't about looking like Brad Pitt. Life isn't an action movie. You aren't Vin Diesel.</i> </p><p>But at the same time life also <b>is</b> each and every one of those things.  Just because art and life aren't identical doesn't mean that they are totally disconnected.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Life is n't a soap opera .
Life is n't a love story .
Life is n't about looking like Brad Pitt .
Life is n't an action movie .
You are n't Vin Diesel .
But at the same time life also is each and every one of those things .
Just because art and life are n't identical does n't mean that they are totally disconnected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Life isn't a soap opera.
Life isn't a love story.
Life isn't about looking like Brad Pitt.
Life isn't an action movie.
You aren't Vin Diesel.
But at the same time life also is each and every one of those things.
Just because art and life aren't identical doesn't mean that they are totally disconnected.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883590</id>
	<title>Re:Clever girl</title>
	<author>BluBrick</author>
	<datestamp>1264336680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You aren't Vin Diesel.</p></div><p> <i>I'm</i> Vin Diesel - and so is my wife!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are n't Vin Diesel .
I 'm Vin Diesel - and so is my wife !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You aren't Vin Diesel.
I'm Vin Diesel - and so is my wife!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883682</id>
	<title>Re:Just keep him away from any real UI!</title>
	<author>TrekkieGod</author>
	<datestamp>1264337160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This for the ones who think Movie-OS interfaces are cool and slick looking: They're not efficient, they're not sensible, they are not intuitive and most of all, they're not useable.</p></div><p>I sometimes fall on this camp.  Not always, (if I had to use a program that beeped every time the cursor blinked, I would go insane), but often.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>1) They're slow. Cue CSI fingerprint patching program. The program displays every single failed compare in quick flash forward display. Pulling the whole dataset from the database and rendering it takes time. This time is wasted. You would not want your program to do that.</p></div><p>Who says it's displaying <b>every single failed compare</b>?  Displaying some is a cool way of letting you know that it's working, and not stuck.  It's the equivalent of a progress bar.  More often than not you come into a situation where you <b>could</b> accurately update the progress bar thousands of times a second.  However, doing that slows down the program, so you don't report it that often, even if you have enough information to.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>2) Hard to reach buttons. Unfortunately, Knight Rider is the only example that comes to my mind right now, but it's true for far too many movies. Buttons located overhead, out of reach, sometimes requiring the user/pilot to stop doing whatever he is doing right now, move his hands and punch a minuscle button somewhere awkward. Yes, it looks cool, but it's about as sensible as putting the gear stick behind the driver's seat.</p></div><p>I don't know about your knight rider example in particular, but if it's a button that's not intended to be used every 2 minutes, it should be hard to reach.  You don't want to accidentally hit KITT's jet booster (I assume it has one)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>3) 100" see through displays. Again CSI (but it's made its way into various other movies by now). Yes, we all want bigger displays. Bigger is better. But there's a limit to better. Especially if, as in CSI, the additional space is not used to present more information but just to display the information in larger font or to fill it with more pointless gimmicky pictures. The angle your eye can see sharp in and can easily catch is very tiny. The diameter of the screen has to be viewable by moving your eyes alone and without strain, or it can just as well be accessible by scrolling.</p></div><p>I don't watch CSI, but unless it's the computer monitor, if whole frigging wall can be a screen, it should be.  The computer monitor is something you need to have awareness of the entire screen the entire time, so I agree with you that too big can be awkward.  Display monitors meant for presentations to multiple people are a different story.  You're only going to be staring at it for two hours max while someone is giving you a presentation.  Turning your head isn't really that bad for a short period of time.  You do it naturally when you walk down the street to get a view of your surroundings, and I doubt you even notice it.  That said, proper use of the real estate is important, so I half-agree with you.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>4) Lifted-hands interface. Lacking a better term I dubbed it that: An interface that does not allow your hand to rest but requires you to lift them and reach. First of all, it's inaccurate. You are moving your hand from your shoulder instead of your wrist, which does limit your accuracy quite a bit. It's straining and tiring. Especially when you're supposed to hit tiny icons, this is magnitudes worse than traditional input.</p></div><p>Agreed that it shouldn't be the main form of interface with the computer, like in Minority Report.  That would tire the hell out of me.  However, in Avatar, they had a cool UI, where a dude just dragged his hand from the screen his working on, to his PADD like tablet computer.  It was a very intuitive way of saying, "I want the data on this screen right now transferred to my portable computer here."  It's not something you'd do often enough to tire you, and it's fast and intuitive.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>5) Touch input. While we're at it. Touch input becomes so popular in cellphones that EVERYTHING has to be touch input now. In case you didn't notice: It's popular because you have the input device in your palm. Now put it upright like a computer screen and tell me how convenient, comfortable or accurate it is. Not to mention that you're covering the info you try to access with your fingers, which means that you will have to lift your hand to see what you're doing. It's comfortable for quick input, but not for constant use.</p></div><p>Part of your objection here is just the same as your objection in 4.  Obviously you don't want to be working all the time with your hands raised.  The other part is valid, you don't want to constantly have to lift your hand to see what you're doing.  So I agree with you here.  Comfortable for quick input, like the interfaces in #4, but it shouldn't be your main interface.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This for the ones who think Movie-OS interfaces are cool and slick looking : They 're not efficient , they 're not sensible , they are not intuitive and most of all , they 're not useable.I sometimes fall on this camp .
Not always , ( if I had to use a program that beeped every time the cursor blinked , I would go insane ) , but often.1 ) They 're slow .
Cue CSI fingerprint patching program .
The program displays every single failed compare in quick flash forward display .
Pulling the whole dataset from the database and rendering it takes time .
This time is wasted .
You would not want your program to do that.Who says it 's displaying every single failed compare ?
Displaying some is a cool way of letting you know that it 's working , and not stuck .
It 's the equivalent of a progress bar .
More often than not you come into a situation where you could accurately update the progress bar thousands of times a second .
However , doing that slows down the program , so you do n't report it that often , even if you have enough information to.2 ) Hard to reach buttons .
Unfortunately , Knight Rider is the only example that comes to my mind right now , but it 's true for far too many movies .
Buttons located overhead , out of reach , sometimes requiring the user/pilot to stop doing whatever he is doing right now , move his hands and punch a minuscle button somewhere awkward .
Yes , it looks cool , but it 's about as sensible as putting the gear stick behind the driver 's seat.I do n't know about your knight rider example in particular , but if it 's a button that 's not intended to be used every 2 minutes , it should be hard to reach .
You do n't want to accidentally hit KITT 's jet booster ( I assume it has one ) 3 ) 100 " see through displays .
Again CSI ( but it 's made its way into various other movies by now ) .
Yes , we all want bigger displays .
Bigger is better .
But there 's a limit to better .
Especially if , as in CSI , the additional space is not used to present more information but just to display the information in larger font or to fill it with more pointless gimmicky pictures .
The angle your eye can see sharp in and can easily catch is very tiny .
The diameter of the screen has to be viewable by moving your eyes alone and without strain , or it can just as well be accessible by scrolling.I do n't watch CSI , but unless it 's the computer monitor , if whole frigging wall can be a screen , it should be .
The computer monitor is something you need to have awareness of the entire screen the entire time , so I agree with you that too big can be awkward .
Display monitors meant for presentations to multiple people are a different story .
You 're only going to be staring at it for two hours max while someone is giving you a presentation .
Turning your head is n't really that bad for a short period of time .
You do it naturally when you walk down the street to get a view of your surroundings , and I doubt you even notice it .
That said , proper use of the real estate is important , so I half-agree with you.4 ) Lifted-hands interface .
Lacking a better term I dubbed it that : An interface that does not allow your hand to rest but requires you to lift them and reach .
First of all , it 's inaccurate .
You are moving your hand from your shoulder instead of your wrist , which does limit your accuracy quite a bit .
It 's straining and tiring .
Especially when you 're supposed to hit tiny icons , this is magnitudes worse than traditional input.Agreed that it should n't be the main form of interface with the computer , like in Minority Report .
That would tire the hell out of me .
However , in Avatar , they had a cool UI , where a dude just dragged his hand from the screen his working on , to his PADD like tablet computer .
It was a very intuitive way of saying , " I want the data on this screen right now transferred to my portable computer here .
" It 's not something you 'd do often enough to tire you , and it 's fast and intuitive.5 ) Touch input .
While we 're at it .
Touch input becomes so popular in cellphones that EVERYTHING has to be touch input now .
In case you did n't notice : It 's popular because you have the input device in your palm .
Now put it upright like a computer screen and tell me how convenient , comfortable or accurate it is .
Not to mention that you 're covering the info you try to access with your fingers , which means that you will have to lift your hand to see what you 're doing .
It 's comfortable for quick input , but not for constant use.Part of your objection here is just the same as your objection in 4 .
Obviously you do n't want to be working all the time with your hands raised .
The other part is valid , you do n't want to constantly have to lift your hand to see what you 're doing .
So I agree with you here .
Comfortable for quick input , like the interfaces in # 4 , but it should n't be your main interface .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This for the ones who think Movie-OS interfaces are cool and slick looking: They're not efficient, they're not sensible, they are not intuitive and most of all, they're not useable.I sometimes fall on this camp.
Not always, (if I had to use a program that beeped every time the cursor blinked, I would go insane), but often.1) They're slow.
Cue CSI fingerprint patching program.
The program displays every single failed compare in quick flash forward display.
Pulling the whole dataset from the database and rendering it takes time.
This time is wasted.
You would not want your program to do that.Who says it's displaying every single failed compare?
Displaying some is a cool way of letting you know that it's working, and not stuck.
It's the equivalent of a progress bar.
More often than not you come into a situation where you could accurately update the progress bar thousands of times a second.
However, doing that slows down the program, so you don't report it that often, even if you have enough information to.2) Hard to reach buttons.
Unfortunately, Knight Rider is the only example that comes to my mind right now, but it's true for far too many movies.
Buttons located overhead, out of reach, sometimes requiring the user/pilot to stop doing whatever he is doing right now, move his hands and punch a minuscle button somewhere awkward.
Yes, it looks cool, but it's about as sensible as putting the gear stick behind the driver's seat.I don't know about your knight rider example in particular, but if it's a button that's not intended to be used every 2 minutes, it should be hard to reach.
You don't want to accidentally hit KITT's jet booster (I assume it has one)3) 100" see through displays.
Again CSI (but it's made its way into various other movies by now).
Yes, we all want bigger displays.
Bigger is better.
But there's a limit to better.
Especially if, as in CSI, the additional space is not used to present more information but just to display the information in larger font or to fill it with more pointless gimmicky pictures.
The angle your eye can see sharp in and can easily catch is very tiny.
The diameter of the screen has to be viewable by moving your eyes alone and without strain, or it can just as well be accessible by scrolling.I don't watch CSI, but unless it's the computer monitor, if whole frigging wall can be a screen, it should be.
The computer monitor is something you need to have awareness of the entire screen the entire time, so I agree with you that too big can be awkward.
Display monitors meant for presentations to multiple people are a different story.
You're only going to be staring at it for two hours max while someone is giving you a presentation.
Turning your head isn't really that bad for a short period of time.
You do it naturally when you walk down the street to get a view of your surroundings, and I doubt you even notice it.
That said, proper use of the real estate is important, so I half-agree with you.4) Lifted-hands interface.
Lacking a better term I dubbed it that: An interface that does not allow your hand to rest but requires you to lift them and reach.
First of all, it's inaccurate.
You are moving your hand from your shoulder instead of your wrist, which does limit your accuracy quite a bit.
It's straining and tiring.
Especially when you're supposed to hit tiny icons, this is magnitudes worse than traditional input.Agreed that it shouldn't be the main form of interface with the computer, like in Minority Report.
That would tire the hell out of me.
However, in Avatar, they had a cool UI, where a dude just dragged his hand from the screen his working on, to his PADD like tablet computer.
It was a very intuitive way of saying, "I want the data on this screen right now transferred to my portable computer here.
"  It's not something you'd do often enough to tire you, and it's fast and intuitive.5) Touch input.
While we're at it.
Touch input becomes so popular in cellphones that EVERYTHING has to be touch input now.
In case you didn't notice: It's popular because you have the input device in your palm.
Now put it upright like a computer screen and tell me how convenient, comfortable or accurate it is.
Not to mention that you're covering the info you try to access with your fingers, which means that you will have to lift your hand to see what you're doing.
It's comfortable for quick input, but not for constant use.Part of your objection here is just the same as your objection in 4.
Obviously you don't want to be working all the time with your hands raised.
The other part is valid, you don't want to constantly have to lift your hand to see what you're doing.
So I agree with you here.
Comfortable for quick input, like the interfaces in #4, but it shouldn't be your main interface.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882396</id>
	<title>Re:An example of realistic UI</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264329240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I distinctly remember in Antitrust, some guy opening scrolling quickly past by pages and pages of code he's seeing for the first time, and exclaiming "wow, great compression algorithm"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I distinctly remember in Antitrust , some guy opening scrolling quickly past by pages and pages of code he 's seeing for the first time , and exclaiming " wow , great compression algorithm "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I distinctly remember in Antitrust, some guy opening scrolling quickly past by pages and pages of code he's seeing for the first time, and exclaiming "wow, great compression algorithm"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883058</id>
	<title>Re:It's as simple as Ninnle!</title>
	<author>Sperbels</author>
	<datestamp>1264333200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think I remember reading somewhere that all the video screens in Star Trek TNG were written with Visual Basic.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think I remember reading somewhere that all the video screens in Star Trek TNG were written with Visual Basic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think I remember reading somewhere that all the video screens in Star Trek TNG were written with Visual Basic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882314</id>
	<title>Matrix, SSH, nmap, etc.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264328820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Well I rather see some fancy things in movies. Movies generally never show exact true life anyway in any area. Why should they in computer.</p></div><p>Personally I liked how the character of Trinity used nmap to find a host with a vulnerable version of SSH (along with the SSHv1 CRC32 vulnerability). Nmap has actually been in a few movies:</p><p>http://nmap.org/movies.html</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well I rather see some fancy things in movies .
Movies generally never show exact true life anyway in any area .
Why should they in computer.Personally I liked how the character of Trinity used nmap to find a host with a vulnerable version of SSH ( along with the SSHv1 CRC32 vulnerability ) .
Nmap has actually been in a few movies : http : //nmap.org/movies.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well I rather see some fancy things in movies.
Movies generally never show exact true life anyway in any area.
Why should they in computer.Personally I liked how the character of Trinity used nmap to find a host with a vulnerable version of SSH (along with the SSHv1 CRC32 vulnerability).
Nmap has actually been in a few movies:http://nmap.org/movies.html
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881750</id>
	<title>Wrong UI on computer of use</title>
	<author>ctmurray</author>
	<datestamp>1264325280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It annoys me when they sit down to a PC and the close up is clearly a Mac OS. (Sometimes the opposite happens, but not as often). I recall this in "The Net" and in the American version of "La Femme Nakita" called "Point of No Return" with Bridget Fonda. I would prefer a "made up UI".</htmltext>
<tokenext>It annoys me when they sit down to a PC and the close up is clearly a Mac OS .
( Sometimes the opposite happens , but not as often ) .
I recall this in " The Net " and in the American version of " La Femme Nakita " called " Point of No Return " with Bridget Fonda .
I would prefer a " made up UI " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It annoys me when they sit down to a PC and the close up is clearly a Mac OS.
(Sometimes the opposite happens, but not as often).
I recall this in "The Net" and in the American version of "La Femme Nakita" called "Point of No Return" with Bridget Fonda.
I would prefer a "made up UI".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881954</id>
	<title>Blame Hollywood (well the Directors, at least)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264326660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, I do this $hit for Hollywood, too. Just did a couple of fake websites this past week. It really is the directors who want this stuff, and despite wanting everything else to be realistic: the acting, the sets, the costumes, somehow the computers on screen are as fake as we can make them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I do this $ hit for Hollywood , too .
Just did a couple of fake websites this past week .
It really is the directors who want this stuff , and despite wanting everything else to be realistic : the acting , the sets , the costumes , somehow the computers on screen are as fake as we can make them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I do this $hit for Hollywood, too.
Just did a couple of fake websites this past week.
It really is the directors who want this stuff, and despite wanting everything else to be realistic: the acting, the sets, the costumes, somehow the computers on screen are as fake as we can make them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881446</id>
	<title>Re:Not to blame</title>
	<author>lyinhart</author>
	<datestamp>1264323600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>He's not the guy to blame for people's misconceptions regarding computers. He's just doing his job and making stuff look pretty. Blaming him would be like blaming some make up guy for making Hollywood starlets set an impossibly high bar for beauty. Or script writers for giving people misconceptions about how life works. Rather, it's the failing of the educational system for not adequately educating people regarding technology, which still remains a set of magic boxes for the lay man.</htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's not the guy to blame for people 's misconceptions regarding computers .
He 's just doing his job and making stuff look pretty .
Blaming him would be like blaming some make up guy for making Hollywood starlets set an impossibly high bar for beauty .
Or script writers for giving people misconceptions about how life works .
Rather , it 's the failing of the educational system for not adequately educating people regarding technology , which still remains a set of magic boxes for the lay man .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's not the guy to blame for people's misconceptions regarding computers.
He's just doing his job and making stuff look pretty.
Blaming him would be like blaming some make up guy for making Hollywood starlets set an impossibly high bar for beauty.
Or script writers for giving people misconceptions about how life works.
Rather, it's the failing of the educational system for not adequately educating people regarding technology, which still remains a set of magic boxes for the lay man.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882234</id>
	<title>Re:LCARS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264328280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>True.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>True .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881898</id>
	<title>Coolest Movie UI</title>
	<author>140Mandak262Jamuna</author>
	<datestamp>1264326180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The hero's position look remarkably like that of a belly gunner of a B-17. The UI should consist of two grids of 4 squares by 4 squares projected and rotated about. And the enemy imperial fighters should appear in a jerky 2D cartoons seen in space invader. The gun barrels firing laser should recoil like 15inch naval guns firing one ton projectiles. That is the coolest UI evar!</htmltext>
<tokenext>The hero 's position look remarkably like that of a belly gunner of a B-17 .
The UI should consist of two grids of 4 squares by 4 squares projected and rotated about .
And the enemy imperial fighters should appear in a jerky 2D cartoons seen in space invader .
The gun barrels firing laser should recoil like 15inch naval guns firing one ton projectiles .
That is the coolest UI evar !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The hero's position look remarkably like that of a belly gunner of a B-17.
The UI should consist of two grids of 4 squares by 4 squares projected and rotated about.
And the enemy imperial fighters should appear in a jerky 2D cartoons seen in space invader.
The gun barrels firing laser should recoil like 15inch naval guns firing one ton projectiles.
That is the coolest UI evar!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30885834</id>
	<title>Re:Hackers vs. Sneakers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264352880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I imagine how tough if would be to make a scene interesting if they showed Kevin Mitnik typing into a korn shell.</p></div><p>If they wanted realism, they would have Kevin Mitnik call someone else, and convince them to type into bash shell.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I imagine how tough if would be to make a scene interesting if they showed Kevin Mitnik typing into a korn shell.If they wanted realism , they would have Kevin Mitnik call someone else , and convince them to type into bash shell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I imagine how tough if would be to make a scene interesting if they showed Kevin Mitnik typing into a korn shell.If they wanted realism, they would have Kevin Mitnik call someone else, and convince them to type into bash shell.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882166</id>
	<title>Not as bad a directed security camera's</title>
	<author>SmallFurryCreature</author>
	<datestamp>1264327860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am sure you have seen it, when the characters watch a security video of something you saw earlier and apparently security camera's are on dolly's, move about and cut automatic to new shots for the most exciting action...
</p><p>Although my worsed still is Jurassic Park, a time line underneath a live conversation...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am sure you have seen it , when the characters watch a security video of something you saw earlier and apparently security camera 's are on dolly 's , move about and cut automatic to new shots for the most exciting action.. . Although my worsed still is Jurassic Park , a time line underneath a live conversation.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am sure you have seen it, when the characters watch a security video of something you saw earlier and apparently security camera's are on dolly's, move about and cut automatic to new shots for the most exciting action...
Although my worsed still is Jurassic Park, a time line underneath a live conversation...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30899506</id>
	<title>Re:People who think fake UIs are real.</title>
	<author>psithurism</author>
	<datestamp>1264434000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As a IT guy I hate being asked by a lay person "Do you understand what he's doing on that screen?" when we're watching some movie or TV show with a completely fake UI on some computer.</p></div><p>I love that question.</p><p>Especially after watching swordfish, I like to start every answer with "She's using a multi-headed hydra to...bs...bs...I have to do it all the time."</p><p>Which they follow with, "Wow, your so smart" if they ever want their computer fixed again.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a IT guy I hate being asked by a lay person " Do you understand what he 's doing on that screen ?
" when we 're watching some movie or TV show with a completely fake UI on some computer.I love that question.Especially after watching swordfish , I like to start every answer with " She 's using a multi-headed hydra to...bs...bs...I have to do it all the time .
" Which they follow with , " Wow , your so smart " if they ever want their computer fixed again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a IT guy I hate being asked by a lay person "Do you understand what he's doing on that screen?
" when we're watching some movie or TV show with a completely fake UI on some computer.I love that question.Especially after watching swordfish, I like to start every answer with "She's using a multi-headed hydra to...bs...bs...I have to do it all the time.
"Which they follow with, "Wow, your so smart" if they ever want their computer fixed again.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30886960</id>
	<title>Bourne Identity</title>
	<author>Chris Brewer</author>
	<datestamp>1264450800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So this person is responsible for the Windows NT Start Menu plastered up over Marie's fancy rap sheet</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So this person is responsible for the Windows NT Start Menu plastered up over Marie 's fancy rap sheet</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So this person is responsible for the Windows NT Start Menu plastered up over Marie's fancy rap sheet</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881702</id>
	<title>Re:Not to blame</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264324980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Guilty or not, he's on on my hit-list, right below the pope.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Guilty or not , he 's on on my hit-list , right below the pope .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guilty or not, he's on on my hit-list, right below the pope.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882636</id>
	<title>Re:An example of realistic UI</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264330380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The movie Antitrust was pretty realistic and accurate"</p><p>Words I never expected to be uttered.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The movie Antitrust was pretty realistic and accurate " Words I never expected to be uttered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The movie Antitrust was pretty realistic and accurate"Words I never expected to be uttered.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30884184</id>
	<title>Re:Matrix, SSH, nmap, etc.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264340580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The dorama 'Bloody Monday' depicted a hacker that used nothing but the command line to enter real life hacker stuff, yet with a larger-than-life speed. As in, like, You've got ten seconds to hack into that remote computer, or this bomb around that person's neck will go off! Interestingly enough, instead of slapping a fancy UI on top of it all, they visualized the hacking effort for the unwashed masses by overlaying the fast-scrolling text with a falcon flying through empty corridors, and every gateway blocking his way by doors and locks shutting down before him. <br> <br>That was very much allright with me, showing The Real Thing [TM] while still looking slick.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The dorama 'Bloody Monday ' depicted a hacker that used nothing but the command line to enter real life hacker stuff , yet with a larger-than-life speed .
As in , like , You 've got ten seconds to hack into that remote computer , or this bomb around that person 's neck will go off !
Interestingly enough , instead of slapping a fancy UI on top of it all , they visualized the hacking effort for the unwashed masses by overlaying the fast-scrolling text with a falcon flying through empty corridors , and every gateway blocking his way by doors and locks shutting down before him .
That was very much allright with me , showing The Real Thing [ TM ] while still looking slick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The dorama 'Bloody Monday' depicted a hacker that used nothing but the command line to enter real life hacker stuff, yet with a larger-than-life speed.
As in, like, You've got ten seconds to hack into that remote computer, or this bomb around that person's neck will go off!
Interestingly enough, instead of slapping a fancy UI on top of it all, they visualized the hacking effort for the unwashed masses by overlaying the fast-scrolling text with a falcon flying through empty corridors, and every gateway blocking his way by doors and locks shutting down before him.
That was very much allright with me, showing The Real Thing [TM] while still looking slick.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882690</id>
	<title>Re:Avatar was cool...</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1264330740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I liked the one scene in Avatar where a scientist slides a finger across a 3D display to a mobile device to transfer over the viewable data.  Now that's mobile computing.  I can see that technology being developed.  If any company can develop that technology, it'll probably be Apple.</p></div><p>Heavily influenced by Minority Report. I liked those interfaces too. I did wonder why they needed human air traffic controllers in 2154 and why the switchgear inside their aircraft was almost exactly the same as ours. I expect that movie to be hilarious 2154. Very old fashioned.</p><p>I think it is an example of how our desktop environments are failing us though. My eeepc and my hp laptop both run ubuntu 8.10 with gnome. When both are connected to my wifi I should be able to slide my mouse off the left side of the HP screen onto the eeepc, and drag files as I go.</p><p>Seriously, why not?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I liked the one scene in Avatar where a scientist slides a finger across a 3D display to a mobile device to transfer over the viewable data .
Now that 's mobile computing .
I can see that technology being developed .
If any company can develop that technology , it 'll probably be Apple.Heavily influenced by Minority Report .
I liked those interfaces too .
I did wonder why they needed human air traffic controllers in 2154 and why the switchgear inside their aircraft was almost exactly the same as ours .
I expect that movie to be hilarious 2154 .
Very old fashioned.I think it is an example of how our desktop environments are failing us though .
My eeepc and my hp laptop both run ubuntu 8.10 with gnome .
When both are connected to my wifi I should be able to slide my mouse off the left side of the HP screen onto the eeepc , and drag files as I go.Seriously , why not ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I liked the one scene in Avatar where a scientist slides a finger across a 3D display to a mobile device to transfer over the viewable data.
Now that's mobile computing.
I can see that technology being developed.
If any company can develop that technology, it'll probably be Apple.Heavily influenced by Minority Report.
I liked those interfaces too.
I did wonder why they needed human air traffic controllers in 2154 and why the switchgear inside their aircraft was almost exactly the same as ours.
I expect that movie to be hilarious 2154.
Very old fashioned.I think it is an example of how our desktop environments are failing us though.
My eeepc and my hp laptop both run ubuntu 8.10 with gnome.
When both are connected to my wifi I should be able to slide my mouse off the left side of the HP screen onto the eeepc, and drag files as I go.Seriously, why not?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882358</id>
	<title>Re:"Narrative Causality"...</title>
	<author>Smallpond</author>
	<datestamp>1264329060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In a movie, everything that happens, every character who exists, all accidents of fate, and so forth, is there by design, in order to advance the plot.</p></div><p>Then why are there all those characters who smoke cigarettes and drink Coca Cola?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In a movie , everything that happens , every character who exists , all accidents of fate , and so forth , is there by design , in order to advance the plot.Then why are there all those characters who smoke cigarettes and drink Coca Cola ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a movie, everything that happens, every character who exists, all accidents of fate, and so forth, is there by design, in order to advance the plot.Then why are there all those characters who smoke cigarettes and drink Coca Cola?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883074</id>
	<title>It's not just computers, it's everything</title>
	<author>gabebillings</author>
	<datestamp>1264333380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you watch TV or movies, you see this with virtually any subject you could imagine.  What it boils down to is that generally the people making the content need to dumb down everything to what Joe Average expects to see.  If you've got greater-than-average knowledge of any field, chances are when you see people doing it on TV they're fucking something up.</p><p>We've already heard countless examples of computer GUIs.  How about medicine?  I was a paramedic, and my wife is an ER doc, and both of us cringe every time we see someone onscreen get a giant needle stabbed into their chest.  Ever since Uma got the treatment in Pulp Fiction (maybe there were earlier ones, but that's the first time I remember seeing it) this is a great little dramatic moment that they love to stick into films and TV shows.  In real life drugs go into a vein and even if the heart isn't going you can circulate with a little CPR.  Jamming giant needles into the heart is just silly.</p><p>And while we're on the subject, all the CPR I see onscreen is shit.  The last time I was certified was 2005 so I might be out of date, but last I checked we were at 30:2 compression/breath ratio at a rate of about 100 compressions per minute.  Our memory aid was that we could compress to the tune of Queen's 'Another One Bites the Dust' (funny, I know) and that would get us pretty close.  On TV it's way too slow, not to mention pretty rare that 30 seconds of CPR will magically revive someone without the addition of a defibrillator and lots of drugs.</p><p>I don't know dick about car repair, but I know what to do if I'm in a movie.  I ask the hot chick on the side of the road to pop the hood, I stick my head in there, jiggle a few wires, then say, "Try it now."  Then it'll start right up.  Or possibly blow up, depending on the movie.  Oh, and if you need to hotwire a car, you just yank that bundle of wires out from under the dash and tap a couple of them together until it sparks.</p><p>How about firearms?  Again, I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure when you shoot someone with a 9mm it won't knock them off their feet and throw their body 10 feet backwards through a plate glass window.  But it sure looks nifty.</p><p>General electronics?  It doesn't really matter what you're doing here; defusing a bomb, fixing a broken radio, breaking into a vault, etc.  You just open up whatever device you're dealing with, connect a few jumpers with alligator clips on the end, clip another wire with a set of cutters and poof, you're golden.  Just don't cut the green wire.  Or was it the blue wire?</p><p>I'm sure most people could come up with similar things they see all the time, these are just a few of the ones that I notice.  I probably gloss over lots more simply because for those subjects, I am the Joe Average and whatever they're doing looks totally plausible to me even though someone somewhere is gnashing their teeth over it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you watch TV or movies , you see this with virtually any subject you could imagine .
What it boils down to is that generally the people making the content need to dumb down everything to what Joe Average expects to see .
If you 've got greater-than-average knowledge of any field , chances are when you see people doing it on TV they 're fucking something up.We 've already heard countless examples of computer GUIs .
How about medicine ?
I was a paramedic , and my wife is an ER doc , and both of us cringe every time we see someone onscreen get a giant needle stabbed into their chest .
Ever since Uma got the treatment in Pulp Fiction ( maybe there were earlier ones , but that 's the first time I remember seeing it ) this is a great little dramatic moment that they love to stick into films and TV shows .
In real life drugs go into a vein and even if the heart is n't going you can circulate with a little CPR .
Jamming giant needles into the heart is just silly.And while we 're on the subject , all the CPR I see onscreen is shit .
The last time I was certified was 2005 so I might be out of date , but last I checked we were at 30 : 2 compression/breath ratio at a rate of about 100 compressions per minute .
Our memory aid was that we could compress to the tune of Queen 's 'Another One Bites the Dust ' ( funny , I know ) and that would get us pretty close .
On TV it 's way too slow , not to mention pretty rare that 30 seconds of CPR will magically revive someone without the addition of a defibrillator and lots of drugs.I do n't know dick about car repair , but I know what to do if I 'm in a movie .
I ask the hot chick on the side of the road to pop the hood , I stick my head in there , jiggle a few wires , then say , " Try it now .
" Then it 'll start right up .
Or possibly blow up , depending on the movie .
Oh , and if you need to hotwire a car , you just yank that bundle of wires out from under the dash and tap a couple of them together until it sparks.How about firearms ?
Again , I 'm no expert , but I 'm pretty sure when you shoot someone with a 9mm it wo n't knock them off their feet and throw their body 10 feet backwards through a plate glass window .
But it sure looks nifty.General electronics ?
It does n't really matter what you 're doing here ; defusing a bomb , fixing a broken radio , breaking into a vault , etc .
You just open up whatever device you 're dealing with , connect a few jumpers with alligator clips on the end , clip another wire with a set of cutters and poof , you 're golden .
Just do n't cut the green wire .
Or was it the blue wire ? I 'm sure most people could come up with similar things they see all the time , these are just a few of the ones that I notice .
I probably gloss over lots more simply because for those subjects , I am the Joe Average and whatever they 're doing looks totally plausible to me even though someone somewhere is gnashing their teeth over it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you watch TV or movies, you see this with virtually any subject you could imagine.
What it boils down to is that generally the people making the content need to dumb down everything to what Joe Average expects to see.
If you've got greater-than-average knowledge of any field, chances are when you see people doing it on TV they're fucking something up.We've already heard countless examples of computer GUIs.
How about medicine?
I was a paramedic, and my wife is an ER doc, and both of us cringe every time we see someone onscreen get a giant needle stabbed into their chest.
Ever since Uma got the treatment in Pulp Fiction (maybe there were earlier ones, but that's the first time I remember seeing it) this is a great little dramatic moment that they love to stick into films and TV shows.
In real life drugs go into a vein and even if the heart isn't going you can circulate with a little CPR.
Jamming giant needles into the heart is just silly.And while we're on the subject, all the CPR I see onscreen is shit.
The last time I was certified was 2005 so I might be out of date, but last I checked we were at 30:2 compression/breath ratio at a rate of about 100 compressions per minute.
Our memory aid was that we could compress to the tune of Queen's 'Another One Bites the Dust' (funny, I know) and that would get us pretty close.
On TV it's way too slow, not to mention pretty rare that 30 seconds of CPR will magically revive someone without the addition of a defibrillator and lots of drugs.I don't know dick about car repair, but I know what to do if I'm in a movie.
I ask the hot chick on the side of the road to pop the hood, I stick my head in there, jiggle a few wires, then say, "Try it now.
"  Then it'll start right up.
Or possibly blow up, depending on the movie.
Oh, and if you need to hotwire a car, you just yank that bundle of wires out from under the dash and tap a couple of them together until it sparks.How about firearms?
Again, I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure when you shoot someone with a 9mm it won't knock them off their feet and throw their body 10 feet backwards through a plate glass window.
But it sure looks nifty.General electronics?
It doesn't really matter what you're doing here; defusing a bomb, fixing a broken radio, breaking into a vault, etc.
You just open up whatever device you're dealing with, connect a few jumpers with alligator clips on the end, clip another wire with a set of cutters and poof, you're golden.
Just don't cut the green wire.
Or was it the blue wire?I'm sure most people could come up with similar things they see all the time, these are just a few of the ones that I notice.
I probably gloss over lots more simply because for those subjects, I am the Joe Average and whatever they're doing looks totally plausible to me even though someone somewhere is gnashing their teeth over it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881450</id>
	<title>Re:This wouldn't be a problem except...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264323600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally, I'd say this is more of a problem with the inability of people to seperate reality from fantasy than any fault on the part of Mark Coleran and similar people. Aren't these people the same people who tell their children that they shouldn't believe everything they see on TV?</p><p>Besides, this guy has done one major thing, if nothing else. Apparently he, or others in his line of work are the ones to thank for the brilliant game that is Uplink coming into existence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I 'd say this is more of a problem with the inability of people to seperate reality from fantasy than any fault on the part of Mark Coleran and similar people .
Are n't these people the same people who tell their children that they should n't believe everything they see on TV ? Besides , this guy has done one major thing , if nothing else .
Apparently he , or others in his line of work are the ones to thank for the brilliant game that is Uplink coming into existence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I'd say this is more of a problem with the inability of people to seperate reality from fantasy than any fault on the part of Mark Coleran and similar people.
Aren't these people the same people who tell their children that they shouldn't believe everything they see on TV?Besides, this guy has done one major thing, if nothing else.
Apparently he, or others in his line of work are the ones to thank for the brilliant game that is Uplink coming into existence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30890738</id>
	<title>Re:so hes the guy to blame</title>
	<author>GameboyRMH</author>
	<datestamp>1264437660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's funny that every handheld game, from the original Game Boy to the PSP, still makes 80s video game beep-boop noises. It was the same with consoles until recently, maybe handhelds will come around soon?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's funny that every handheld game , from the original Game Boy to the PSP , still makes 80s video game beep-boop noises .
It was the same with consoles until recently , maybe handhelds will come around soon ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's funny that every handheld game, from the original Game Boy to the PSP, still makes 80s video game beep-boop noises.
It was the same with consoles until recently, maybe handhelds will come around soon?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882644</id>
	<title>Re:Just keep him away from any real UI!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264330440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>4) Lifted-hands interface. Lacking a better term I dubbed it that: An interface that does not allow your hand to rest but requires you to lift them and reach. First of all, it's inaccurate. You are moving your hand from your shoulder instead of your wrist, which does limit your accuracy quite a bit. It's straining and tiring. Especially when you're supposed to hit tiny icons, this is magnitudes worse than traditional input.</i></p><p>Your wrists shouldn't rest on the keyboard when you touch type.  Your arms should not rest on anything when you touch type.  And what you said about wrists over shoulders is wrong.  Musicians are trained to use their fingers and shoulder to play many instruments, including the double viol, and piano (from what I have seen and heard second hand).  Flexing your wrists to manipulate a tool is <i>stupid</i>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>4 ) Lifted-hands interface .
Lacking a better term I dubbed it that : An interface that does not allow your hand to rest but requires you to lift them and reach .
First of all , it 's inaccurate .
You are moving your hand from your shoulder instead of your wrist , which does limit your accuracy quite a bit .
It 's straining and tiring .
Especially when you 're supposed to hit tiny icons , this is magnitudes worse than traditional input.Your wrists should n't rest on the keyboard when you touch type .
Your arms should not rest on anything when you touch type .
And what you said about wrists over shoulders is wrong .
Musicians are trained to use their fingers and shoulder to play many instruments , including the double viol , and piano ( from what I have seen and heard second hand ) .
Flexing your wrists to manipulate a tool is stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>4) Lifted-hands interface.
Lacking a better term I dubbed it that: An interface that does not allow your hand to rest but requires you to lift them and reach.
First of all, it's inaccurate.
You are moving your hand from your shoulder instead of your wrist, which does limit your accuracy quite a bit.
It's straining and tiring.
Especially when you're supposed to hit tiny icons, this is magnitudes worse than traditional input.Your wrists shouldn't rest on the keyboard when you touch type.
Your arms should not rest on anything when you touch type.
And what you said about wrists over shoulders is wrong.
Musicians are trained to use their fingers and shoulder to play many instruments, including the double viol, and piano (from what I have seen and heard second hand).
Flexing your wrists to manipulate a tool is stupid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881474</id>
	<title>Hackers vs. Sneakers</title>
	<author>CranberryKing</author>
	<datestamp>1264323780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I imagine how tough if would be to make a scene interesting if they showed Kevin Mitnik typing into a korn shell.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I imagine how tough if would be to make a scene interesting if they showed Kevin Mitnik typing into a korn shell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I imagine how tough if would be to make a scene interesting if they showed Kevin Mitnik typing into a korn shell.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883116</id>
	<title>Re:Not to blame</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1264333740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Blaming him would be like blaming some make up guy for making Hollywood starlets set an impossibly high bar for beauty.</p></div> </blockquote><p>I still wanna sue movies for giving me unremovable fantasies about 3-breasted green babes.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Blaming him would be like blaming some make up guy for making Hollywood starlets set an impossibly high bar for beauty .
I still wan na sue movies for giving me unremovable fantasies about 3-breasted green babes .
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blaming him would be like blaming some make up guy for making Hollywood starlets set an impossibly high bar for beauty.
I still wanna sue movies for giving me unremovable fantasies about 3-breasted green babes.
   
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30884314</id>
	<title>Re:This wouldn't be a problem except...</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1264341540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You should have mailed it back all blown up, with a picture of an alien pasted onto it, revealed in the reflection of its eyeball. That's what always happened in The X Files, at least.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should have mailed it back all blown up , with a picture of an alien pasted onto it , revealed in the reflection of its eyeball .
That 's what always happened in The X Files , at least .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should have mailed it back all blown up, with a picture of an alien pasted onto it, revealed in the reflection of its eyeball.
That's what always happened in The X Files, at least.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881278</id>
	<title>Story?</title>
	<author>negRo\_slim</author>
	<datestamp>1264365960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The main point of these fake movie UIs is different than that of real UIs: to tell a story very quickly, not to reveal and enable function.</p></div><p>And what story is that? That computers in the future are shiny and pretty if not outright magical?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The main point of these fake movie UIs is different than that of real UIs : to tell a story very quickly , not to reveal and enable function.And what story is that ?
That computers in the future are shiny and pretty if not outright magical ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The main point of these fake movie UIs is different than that of real UIs: to tell a story very quickly, not to reveal and enable function.And what story is that?
That computers in the future are shiny and pretty if not outright magical?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30891104</id>
	<title>Re:Clever girl</title>
	<author>Tug3</author>
	<datestamp>1264438920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Talk for your self, son!

</p><p>My life <b>is</b> The action movie, I <b>do</b> have The Girl, and I <b>do</b> look better and am tougher than Bradd Pitt and Vin Diesle put together!

</p><p>You can have the soap though...

</p><p>...and an other thing. My name is <i>Chuck Norris</i>!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Talk for your self , son !
My life is The action movie , I do have The Girl , and I do look better and am tougher than Bradd Pitt and Vin Diesle put together !
You can have the soap though.. . ...and an other thing .
My name is Chuck Norris !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Talk for your self, son!
My life is The action movie, I do have The Girl, and I do look better and am tougher than Bradd Pitt and Vin Diesle put together!
You can have the soap though...

...and an other thing.
My name is Chuck Norris!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882272</id>
	<title>Re:Clever girl</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264328580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You aren't Vin Diesel.</p></div><p>
Unless he's on slashdot. Are you reading this, Vin?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are n't Vin Diesel .
Unless he 's on slashdot .
Are you reading this , Vin ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You aren't Vin Diesel.
Unless he's on slashdot.
Are you reading this, Vin?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30886932</id>
	<title>Re:Clever girl</title>
	<author>fractoid</author>
	<datestamp>1264450440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm not sure I understand what you're referring to . .<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.enhance.</p></div><p>Cordelia: Look! Right there, zoom in on that.
<br>Xander: It's a videotape.
<br>Cordelia: So? They do it on television all the time.
<br>Xander: Not with a regular VCR they don't.
<br>[...]
<br>Oz: What's that? Pause it.
<br>Xander: Guys! It's just a normal VCR. It doesn't... Oh wait, uh, it can do pause.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure I understand what you 're referring to .
. .enhance.Cordelia : Look !
Right there , zoom in on that .
Xander : It 's a videotape .
Cordelia : So ?
They do it on television all the time .
Xander : Not with a regular VCR they do n't .
[ ... ] Oz : What 's that ?
Pause it .
Xander : Guys !
It 's just a normal VCR .
It does n't... Oh wait , uh , it can do pause .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure I understand what you're referring to .
. .enhance.Cordelia: Look!
Right there, zoom in on that.
Xander: It's a videotape.
Cordelia: So?
They do it on television all the time.
Xander: Not with a regular VCR they don't.
[...]
Oz: What's that?
Pause it.
Xander: Guys!
It's just a normal VCR.
It doesn't... Oh wait, uh, it can do pause.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882970</id>
	<title>Movie interfaces should be taught...</title>
	<author>GuerreroDelInterfaz</author>
	<datestamp>1264332480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...as examples of what to avoid...</p><p>--<br>El Guerrero del Interfaz</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...as examples of what to avoid...--El Guerrero del Interfaz</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...as examples of what to avoid...--El Guerrero del Interfaz</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881288</id>
	<title>This wouldn't be a problem except...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264366020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>This wouldn't be a problem but it is part of a general tendency in Hollywood to favor looks cool and quickly understandable over accurate. This is understandable. But, it does lead to serious problems. This has lead for example to the general problem(called the CSI effect <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSI\_effect" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSI\_effect</a> [wikipedia.org] after the television show) that juries now often have ideas about what forensic scientists can do that have little to do with reality. This also happens simply with less knowledgable people interacting with computers. And the subject of this interview is apparently to blame. I have had some experience helping older people with computers where they seem genuinely confused about what computers can do, or what you can use computers to do. And when they have major misconceptions the misconceptions inevitably are of a form that one would get from seeing a TV show or movie.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This would n't be a problem but it is part of a general tendency in Hollywood to favor looks cool and quickly understandable over accurate .
This is understandable .
But , it does lead to serious problems .
This has lead for example to the general problem ( called the CSI effect http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSI \ _effect [ wikipedia.org ] after the television show ) that juries now often have ideas about what forensic scientists can do that have little to do with reality .
This also happens simply with less knowledgable people interacting with computers .
And the subject of this interview is apparently to blame .
I have had some experience helping older people with computers where they seem genuinely confused about what computers can do , or what you can use computers to do .
And when they have major misconceptions the misconceptions inevitably are of a form that one would get from seeing a TV show or movie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This wouldn't be a problem but it is part of a general tendency in Hollywood to favor looks cool and quickly understandable over accurate.
This is understandable.
But, it does lead to serious problems.
This has lead for example to the general problem(called the CSI effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSI\_effect [wikipedia.org] after the television show) that juries now often have ideas about what forensic scientists can do that have little to do with reality.
This also happens simply with less knowledgable people interacting with computers.
And the subject of this interview is apparently to blame.
I have had some experience helping older people with computers where they seem genuinely confused about what computers can do, or what you can use computers to do.
And when they have major misconceptions the misconceptions inevitably are of a form that one would get from seeing a TV show or movie.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882200</id>
	<title>Re:An example of realistic UI</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264328100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Too bad the plot was completely unrealistic. What a piece of crap that movie was. But, hey, realistic computer screens. Yippee!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Too bad the plot was completely unrealistic .
What a piece of crap that movie was .
But , hey , realistic computer screens .
Yippee !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too bad the plot was completely unrealistic.
What a piece of crap that movie was.
But, hey, realistic computer screens.
Yippee!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883214</id>
	<title>24's Pine Appearance</title>
	<author>antdude</author>
	<datestamp>1264334400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I saw old <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine\_(e-mail\_client)" title="wikipedia.org">Pine</a> [wikipedia.org] v4.44 on <a href="http://fox.com/24" title="fox.com">24</a> [fox.com] a few seasons ago. I took a few <a href="http://deflexion.com/2006/03/pine-in-fortune-magazine-and-on-tv" title="deflexion.com">HD screen captures</a> [deflexion.com] to share in <a href="http://groups.google.com/group/comp.mail.pine/browse\_thread/thread/81bfe60f7300713c/3455142094ca9958" title="google.com">my newsgroup/usenet thread</a> [google.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I saw old Pine [ wikipedia.org ] v4.44 on 24 [ fox.com ] a few seasons ago .
I took a few HD screen captures [ deflexion.com ] to share in my newsgroup/usenet thread [ google.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I saw old Pine [wikipedia.org] v4.44 on 24 [fox.com] a few seasons ago.
I took a few HD screen captures [deflexion.com] to share in my newsgroup/usenet thread [google.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30887108</id>
	<title>Re:Clever girl</title>
	<author>VortexCortex</author>
	<datestamp>1264452600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember seeing that 3D file system on the screen in Jurassic Park: "It's a Unix System!, I know this!"<br>I just shook my head thinking, "It's acutally <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fsn" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">IRIX</a> [wikipedia.org]."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember seeing that 3D file system on the screen in Jurassic Park : " It 's a Unix System ! , I know this !
" I just shook my head thinking , " It 's acutally IRIX [ wikipedia.org ] .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember seeing that 3D file system on the screen in Jurassic Park: "It's a Unix System!, I know this!
"I just shook my head thinking, "It's acutally IRIX [wikipedia.org].
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883458</id>
	<title>Aliens</title>
	<author>Mike610544</author>
	<datestamp>1264335960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The sentry gun control in Aliens was pretty good: <a href="http://designbivouac.typepad.com/designbivouac/2005/06/aliens\_sentry\_g.html" title="typepad.com">picture.</a> [typepad.com] It looks like you'd control it like a BIOS setup. It's possible to convey relevant information to the viewer while keeping it plausible. I'd imagine most filmmakers just aren't concerned with that level of detail (maybe they should be; it seems to be working for James Cameron.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>The sentry gun control in Aliens was pretty good : picture .
[ typepad.com ] It looks like you 'd control it like a BIOS setup .
It 's possible to convey relevant information to the viewer while keeping it plausible .
I 'd imagine most filmmakers just are n't concerned with that level of detail ( maybe they should be ; it seems to be working for James Cameron .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The sentry gun control in Aliens was pretty good: picture.
[typepad.com] It looks like you'd control it like a BIOS setup.
It's possible to convey relevant information to the viewer while keeping it plausible.
I'd imagine most filmmakers just aren't concerned with that level of detail (maybe they should be; it seems to be working for James Cameron.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30888290</id>
	<title>Re:Clever girl</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1264424040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I AM Vin Diesel, you insensitive clod! And I look BETTER than Frat Pitt!</p><p>Vin Diesel</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I AM Vin Diesel , you insensitive clod !
And I look BETTER than Frat Pitt ! Vin Diesel</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I AM Vin Diesel, you insensitive clod!
And I look BETTER than Frat Pitt!Vin Diesel</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881298</id>
	<title>so hes the guy to blame</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264366080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>so hes the guy to blame for everyone thinking computer ui work is easy.</p><p>i would actually like to have some of the uis from movies to play around with and get a feel for.</p><p>downloading his mockups from the dvd and getting to play may even bring about an advancement of further ideas and maybe even improve computing for all of us<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>maybe i'm just the eternal optimist<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>so hes the guy to blame for everyone thinking computer ui work is easy.i would actually like to have some of the uis from movies to play around with and get a feel for.downloading his mockups from the dvd and getting to play may even bring about an advancement of further ideas and maybe even improve computing for all of us : ) maybe i 'm just the eternal optimist : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so hes the guy to blame for everyone thinking computer ui work is easy.i would actually like to have some of the uis from movies to play around with and get a feel for.downloading his mockups from the dvd and getting to play may even bring about an advancement of further ideas and maybe even improve computing for all of us :)maybe i'm just the eternal optimist :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30884256</id>
	<title>Re:An example of realistic UI</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1264341180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I am sure there are other examples of good UI, but indeed they are a minority.</p></div><p>One of the Tom Cruise-infested <em>Mission: Impossible</em> movies featured a mixture of real and false; they had wanky apps, but they were floating on top of something that looked like Motif (which could have been fvwm or whatever.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am sure there are other examples of good UI , but indeed they are a minority.One of the Tom Cruise-infested Mission : Impossible movies featured a mixture of real and false ; they had wanky apps , but they were floating on top of something that looked like Motif ( which could have been fvwm or whatever .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am sure there are other examples of good UI, but indeed they are a minority.One of the Tom Cruise-infested Mission: Impossible movies featured a mixture of real and false; they had wanky apps, but they were floating on top of something that looked like Motif (which could have been fvwm or whatever.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30886748</id>
	<title>Visual Basic</title>
	<author>grimw</author>
	<datestamp>1264362240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'll create a GUI interface in Visual Basic to track his IP address!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll create a GUI interface in Visual Basic to track his IP address !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll create a GUI interface in Visual Basic to track his IP address!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882536</id>
	<title>Zealous for credit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264329840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I heard his NPR interview and the guy is overly eager to take credit for microsoft's "surface" when in fact microsoft bought the 1996(!) patent for the technology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I heard his NPR interview and the guy is overly eager to take credit for microsoft 's " surface " when in fact microsoft bought the 1996 ( !
) patent for the technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I heard his NPR interview and the guy is overly eager to take credit for microsoft's "surface" when in fact microsoft bought the 1996(!
) patent for the technology.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30885380</id>
	<title>Re:"Narrative Causality"...</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1264349460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>So what would be the problem with showing an actual ssh "access denied" or "someone is doing something nasty" message? I'm sure the actors are going to be able to tell you what's going on,</i> </p><p>It takes too long and your dialogue is reduced to unintelligible techno-babble. It's fan service for the geek and there is not much money to made in that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what would be the problem with showing an actual ssh " access denied " or " someone is doing something nasty " message ?
I 'm sure the actors are going to be able to tell you what 's going on , It takes too long and your dialogue is reduced to unintelligible techno-babble .
It 's fan service for the geek and there is not much money to made in that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what would be the problem with showing an actual ssh "access denied" or "someone is doing something nasty" message?
I'm sure the actors are going to be able to tell you what's going on, It takes too long and your dialogue is reduced to unintelligible techno-babble.
It's fan service for the geek and there is not much money to made in that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882310</id>
	<title>Re:It's as simple as Ninnle!</title>
	<author>Soul-Burn666</author>
	<datestamp>1264328760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, the 3D GUI in Jurassic Park did exist.<br>Although the official page is already down, you can check the internet archive version <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070409024417/http://www.sgi.com/fun/freeware/3d\_navigator.html" title="archive.org">here</a> [archive.org]. (Also seems down at the moment, quite sad though).<br>It was an experimental file system navigator called FSN, written by Silicon Graphics. Who else would try to push 3D even where it's not that useful?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , the 3D GUI in Jurassic Park did exist.Although the official page is already down , you can check the internet archive version here [ archive.org ] .
( Also seems down at the moment , quite sad though ) .It was an experimental file system navigator called FSN , written by Silicon Graphics .
Who else would try to push 3D even where it 's not that useful ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, the 3D GUI in Jurassic Park did exist.Although the official page is already down, you can check the internet archive version here [archive.org].
(Also seems down at the moment, quite sad though).It was an experimental file system navigator called FSN, written by Silicon Graphics.
Who else would try to push 3D even where it's not that useful?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882958</id>
	<title>Re:"Narrative Causality"...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264332420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Then why are there all those characters who smoke cigarettes and drink Coca Cola?</p></div><p>Actually, that helps to fund the movie.  Coke probably pays good money to keep the characters from drinking Pepsi instead.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then why are there all those characters who smoke cigarettes and drink Coca Cola ? Actually , that helps to fund the movie .
Coke probably pays good money to keep the characters from drinking Pepsi instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then why are there all those characters who smoke cigarettes and drink Coca Cola?Actually, that helps to fund the movie.
Coke probably pays good money to keep the characters from drinking Pepsi instead.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30886768</id>
	<title>Re:This wouldn't be a problem except...</title>
	<author>pinkushun</author>
	<datestamp>1264362420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MY screens looks like those in the movies, folding proteins and analyzing DNA is pleasurable daily fun... I run Linux by the way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MY screens looks like those in the movies , folding proteins and analyzing DNA is pleasurable daily fun... I run Linux by the way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MY screens looks like those in the movies, folding proteins and analyzing DNA is pleasurable daily fun... I run Linux by the way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30885608</id>
	<title>Re:Never push the big red button</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1264351320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, you make a valid point here. But you have to admit that in most cases it makes pretty little sense which controls are easy and which ones are hard to reach.</p><p>My favorite of all times would, again, be Knight Rider (my university prof even cited it as a really crappy way to implement a user interface). Remember? Turbo Boost being right next to the steering wheel, while a phone call with Devon required him to punch some buttons above his head?</p><p>Things like the one you cite from ST:TOS should actually implement a safety switch with a cover. Simple protection and hard to press accidently. The one who should be court martialled for this is the guy responsible for the design, not Kirk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , you make a valid point here .
But you have to admit that in most cases it makes pretty little sense which controls are easy and which ones are hard to reach.My favorite of all times would , again , be Knight Rider ( my university prof even cited it as a really crappy way to implement a user interface ) .
Remember ? Turbo Boost being right next to the steering wheel , while a phone call with Devon required him to punch some buttons above his head ? Things like the one you cite from ST : TOS should actually implement a safety switch with a cover .
Simple protection and hard to press accidently .
The one who should be court martialled for this is the guy responsible for the design , not Kirk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, you make a valid point here.
But you have to admit that in most cases it makes pretty little sense which controls are easy and which ones are hard to reach.My favorite of all times would, again, be Knight Rider (my university prof even cited it as a really crappy way to implement a user interface).
Remember? Turbo Boost being right next to the steering wheel, while a phone call with Devon required him to punch some buttons above his head?Things like the one you cite from ST:TOS should actually implement a safety switch with a cover.
Simple protection and hard to press accidently.
The one who should be court martialled for this is the guy responsible for the design, not Kirk.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30885830</id>
	<title>Re:People who think fake UIs are real.</title>
	<author>Xanlexian</author>
	<datestamp>1264352820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or on a similar note -- after seeing the IP address of 385.442.13.724 flash across the screen, being asked by a fellow watcher, "Hey!  Do you know where that address goes?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or on a similar note -- after seeing the IP address of 385.442.13.724 flash across the screen , being asked by a fellow watcher , " Hey !
Do you know where that address goes ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or on a similar note -- after seeing the IP address of 385.442.13.724 flash across the screen, being asked by a fellow watcher, "Hey!
Do you know where that address goes?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882828</id>
	<title>Alien</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264331640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most realistic UI I've seen in a movie is the computer navigation system from Alien. Nothing fancy. That's how it would really be and everyone knows it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most realistic UI I 've seen in a movie is the computer navigation system from Alien .
Nothing fancy .
That 's how it would really be and everyone knows it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most realistic UI I've seen in a movie is the computer navigation system from Alien.
Nothing fancy.
That's how it would really be and everyone knows it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30885524</id>
	<title>Re:Clever girl</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264350720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes.</p><p>(I had to reply because I rolled a 2 on my anonymity check.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .
( I had to reply because I rolled a 2 on my anonymity check .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.
(I had to reply because I rolled a 2 on my anonymity check.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30886500</id>
	<title>Re:"Narrative Causality"...</title>
	<author>Kral\_Blbec</author>
	<datestamp>1264359000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are assuming that people can read "access denied" in under 2 seconds. From my experience, if it is on a computer screen (real or in a movie) people read and understand at half their normal levels. "Any key" anybody?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are assuming that people can read " access denied " in under 2 seconds .
From my experience , if it is on a computer screen ( real or in a movie ) people read and understand at half their normal levels .
" Any key " anybody ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are assuming that people can read "access denied" in under 2 seconds.
From my experience, if it is on a computer screen (real or in a movie) people read and understand at half their normal levels.
"Any key" anybody?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30885808</id>
	<title>I wonder where they get the dialog myself...</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1264352700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"For weeks i've been investigating the cabby killer murders with a certain morbid fascination....</p><p>This is in real time!<br>........'I'll create a GUI interface using Visual Basic, see if I can track an IP address'"</p></div>
</blockquote><blockquote><div><p>Harry Kim: Computer, install a recursive algorithm!</p></div></blockquote><blockquote><div><p>Swordfish: I dropped a logic bomb through the trapdoor.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" For weeks i 've been investigating the cabby killer murders with a certain morbid fascination....This is in real time ! ....... .
'I 'll create a GUI interface using Visual Basic , see if I can track an IP address ' " Harry Kim : Computer , install a recursive algorithm ! Swordfish : I dropped a logic bomb through the trapdoor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"For weeks i've been investigating the cabby killer murders with a certain morbid fascination....This is in real time!........
'I'll create a GUI interface using Visual Basic, see if I can track an IP address'"
Harry Kim: Computer, install a recursive algorithm!Swordfish: I dropped a logic bomb through the trapdoor.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882264</id>
	<title>Point 5</title>
	<author>SmallFurryCreature</author>
	<datestamp>1264328460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reach to your screen to close this window: Oops, data obscured.
</p><p>Solution? Put the controls BELOW the data.
</p><p>Different inputs require different UI designs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reach to your screen to close this window : Oops , data obscured .
Solution ? Put the controls BELOW the data .
Different inputs require different UI designs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reach to your screen to close this window: Oops, data obscured.
Solution? Put the controls BELOW the data.
Different inputs require different UI designs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883188</id>
	<title>HOS baby</title>
	<author>Monoman</author>
	<datestamp>1264334220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's the HOS<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Hollywood Operating System.  I can't take credit for the term.  A friend told me about it many years ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the HOS ... Hollywood Operating System .
I ca n't take credit for the term .
A friend told me about it many years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the HOS ... Hollywood Operating System.
I can't take credit for the term.
A friend told me about it many years ago.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881722</id>
	<title>An example of realistic UI</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264325160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The movie Antitrust was pretty realistic and accurate. The computer interface that was shown was Gnome. Even the lines of code that were displayed had been borrowed from Open source projects. Maybe that is because the producers listen to professional consultant (among which there was de Icaza). I am sure there are other examples of good UI, but indeed they are a minority.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The movie Antitrust was pretty realistic and accurate .
The computer interface that was shown was Gnome .
Even the lines of code that were displayed had been borrowed from Open source projects .
Maybe that is because the producers listen to professional consultant ( among which there was de Icaza ) .
I am sure there are other examples of good UI , but indeed they are a minority .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The movie Antitrust was pretty realistic and accurate.
The computer interface that was shown was Gnome.
Even the lines of code that were displayed had been borrowed from Open source projects.
Maybe that is because the producers listen to professional consultant (among which there was de Icaza).
I am sure there are other examples of good UI, but indeed they are a minority.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881630</id>
	<title>But but but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264324500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I *WANT* a display that works like the ones in the movies.  Fast updates, screen wipes, keyboard and mouse functionality fully integrated, projection capability, contextually and dramatically appropriate sound effects.  And of course, spark effects as appropriate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I * WANT * a display that works like the ones in the movies .
Fast updates , screen wipes , keyboard and mouse functionality fully integrated , projection capability , contextually and dramatically appropriate sound effects .
And of course , spark effects as appropriate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I *WANT* a display that works like the ones in the movies.
Fast updates, screen wipes, keyboard and mouse functionality fully integrated, projection capability, contextually and dramatically appropriate sound effects.
And of course, spark effects as appropriate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883482</id>
	<title>APPLE ][</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1264336080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quite a number of movies and TV shows use Apple ][ assembler dumps for various computer-related activities;  I imagine the intent in those cases is to present something which looks both cryptic and meaningful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quite a number of movies and TV shows use Apple ] [ assembler dumps for various computer-related activities ; I imagine the intent in those cases is to present something which looks both cryptic and meaningful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quite a number of movies and TV shows use Apple ][ assembler dumps for various computer-related activities;  I imagine the intent in those cases is to present something which looks both cryptic and meaningful.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881348</id>
	<title>How It Really Is, JS Bach</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264366260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As the world of mobile apps continues to gain importance in our lives, the space will continue to be ruled by tech newbies who are probably genuinely clueless. We saw this sort of trend play out in the mid-90s, as online apps began to hit pay dirt. Before leaping into the online space, one entrepreneur was employed as a fish monger. Others were worse! The problem with the high-tech industry is that anyone can hit a home run, even if they don't know how the game works.</p><p>It's important to note, right off the bat, that successful mobile apps aren't anything like their desktop counterparts. The killer apps are obvious: GPS-based turn-by-turn driving directions, the contact directory combined with a phone module, and the voice-activated mobile search engine. The rest of the apps are secondary--this list includes the photo album, restaurant guide (Zagat, et. al.), camera, music player/audio streamer, calculator, news/book reader, and Web browser.</p><p>Research group Gartner says that the mobile app business will soon hit over $6 billion in annual sales. Really? Selling what, exactly? It seems to me that, in the first two years of the smartphone explosion, all of the apps you'll ever possibly need are already available, and most of them are either free or very cheap. Games might account for some of this, sure. I can understand the desire to play various cool games on the phone. Of course, a smartphone tends to have a battery life of around four hours of heavy use before the thing drops dead.</p><p>Various useful databases may offer some sort of subscription to help users stay on top of changing information. Again Zagat comes to mind. But if this system proves too expensive, people will turn to free sites like Yelp for their reviews. Therein lies the rub. Once free Websites begin to optimize themselves for smartphones (perhaps with a special URL), a lot of the apps will end up becoming buttons on a screen that merely load up the free app from a Website. All sorts of games ideal for small screens could easily become Web apps optimized for such devices.</p><p>This is exactly the reason that there won't be a lot smartphone platforms in the future. The Web guys (and the app coders) will settle on one or two platforms to sell apps for. These two platforms will be the iPhone and Android OSes. I just can't see it evolving any other way. Condolences to Palm, RIM, and Symbian.</p><p>Beyond little games, the real action will be in adjunct apps--programs like special readers for The New York Times, written to optimize your reading experience. Bloomberg and other stock services already have apps that keep you apprised of your portfolio and business news feeds in real-time. I expect to see a lot of adjunct apps from everyone with a Web presence who wants to service users who will rely more and more on their phones to access content and services.</p><p>The concept that most Internet activity will occur on mobile devices appeared in the media over a decade ago. As is typical with such premature predictions, many people got agitated when the bonanza didn't occur within a year or two. The prediction is finally coming to pass, thanks to the smartphone. Once people own one, they can't stay off the Internet.</p><p>Money will be made in the app scene. Somehow. Everyone loads up on apps. As soon as I got my Nexus One, I put 30-plus apps on the thing. But ask your friends to point out paid apps that they bought and found useful. You'll be lucky to find one or two.</p><p>The PC software market has been studied to death. A few years ago it was determined that very few users ever bought much more than Microsoft Office and a game or two. If you're reading this column, realize that you're probably the exception to this rule. Most users aren't computer magazine readers. Most users tend to be pretty clueless. If they're using the phone as their primary computer, it's probably worse.</p><p>In other words, don't expect a gravy train coding apps for these phones. Right now the novelty and the fact that experts are using the phones helps a lot. The scarcity of great apps helps too. But I think the market is going to get real grim, real fast. So, who wants to help me go code the Dvorak Smartphone Utilities? Anyone?  Bueller?  Bueller?</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As the world of mobile apps continues to gain importance in our lives , the space will continue to be ruled by tech newbies who are probably genuinely clueless .
We saw this sort of trend play out in the mid-90s , as online apps began to hit pay dirt .
Before leaping into the online space , one entrepreneur was employed as a fish monger .
Others were worse !
The problem with the high-tech industry is that anyone can hit a home run , even if they do n't know how the game works.It 's important to note , right off the bat , that successful mobile apps are n't anything like their desktop counterparts .
The killer apps are obvious : GPS-based turn-by-turn driving directions , the contact directory combined with a phone module , and the voice-activated mobile search engine .
The rest of the apps are secondary--this list includes the photo album , restaurant guide ( Zagat , et .
al. ) , camera , music player/audio streamer , calculator , news/book reader , and Web browser.Research group Gartner says that the mobile app business will soon hit over $ 6 billion in annual sales .
Really ? Selling what , exactly ?
It seems to me that , in the first two years of the smartphone explosion , all of the apps you 'll ever possibly need are already available , and most of them are either free or very cheap .
Games might account for some of this , sure .
I can understand the desire to play various cool games on the phone .
Of course , a smartphone tends to have a battery life of around four hours of heavy use before the thing drops dead.Various useful databases may offer some sort of subscription to help users stay on top of changing information .
Again Zagat comes to mind .
But if this system proves too expensive , people will turn to free sites like Yelp for their reviews .
Therein lies the rub .
Once free Websites begin to optimize themselves for smartphones ( perhaps with a special URL ) , a lot of the apps will end up becoming buttons on a screen that merely load up the free app from a Website .
All sorts of games ideal for small screens could easily become Web apps optimized for such devices.This is exactly the reason that there wo n't be a lot smartphone platforms in the future .
The Web guys ( and the app coders ) will settle on one or two platforms to sell apps for .
These two platforms will be the iPhone and Android OSes .
I just ca n't see it evolving any other way .
Condolences to Palm , RIM , and Symbian.Beyond little games , the real action will be in adjunct apps--programs like special readers for The New York Times , written to optimize your reading experience .
Bloomberg and other stock services already have apps that keep you apprised of your portfolio and business news feeds in real-time .
I expect to see a lot of adjunct apps from everyone with a Web presence who wants to service users who will rely more and more on their phones to access content and services.The concept that most Internet activity will occur on mobile devices appeared in the media over a decade ago .
As is typical with such premature predictions , many people got agitated when the bonanza did n't occur within a year or two .
The prediction is finally coming to pass , thanks to the smartphone .
Once people own one , they ca n't stay off the Internet.Money will be made in the app scene .
Somehow. Everyone loads up on apps .
As soon as I got my Nexus One , I put 30-plus apps on the thing .
But ask your friends to point out paid apps that they bought and found useful .
You 'll be lucky to find one or two.The PC software market has been studied to death .
A few years ago it was determined that very few users ever bought much more than Microsoft Office and a game or two .
If you 're reading this column , realize that you 're probably the exception to this rule .
Most users are n't computer magazine readers .
Most users tend to be pretty clueless .
If they 're using the phone as their primary computer , it 's probably worse.In other words , do n't expect a gravy train coding apps for these phones .
Right now the novelty and the fact that experts are using the phones helps a lot .
The scarcity of great apps helps too .
But I think the market is going to get real grim , real fast .
So , who wants to help me go code the Dvorak Smartphone Utilities ?
Anyone ? Bueller ?
Bueller ?  </tokentext>
<sentencetext>As the world of mobile apps continues to gain importance in our lives, the space will continue to be ruled by tech newbies who are probably genuinely clueless.
We saw this sort of trend play out in the mid-90s, as online apps began to hit pay dirt.
Before leaping into the online space, one entrepreneur was employed as a fish monger.
Others were worse!
The problem with the high-tech industry is that anyone can hit a home run, even if they don't know how the game works.It's important to note, right off the bat, that successful mobile apps aren't anything like their desktop counterparts.
The killer apps are obvious: GPS-based turn-by-turn driving directions, the contact directory combined with a phone module, and the voice-activated mobile search engine.
The rest of the apps are secondary--this list includes the photo album, restaurant guide (Zagat, et.
al.), camera, music player/audio streamer, calculator, news/book reader, and Web browser.Research group Gartner says that the mobile app business will soon hit over $6 billion in annual sales.
Really? Selling what, exactly?
It seems to me that, in the first two years of the smartphone explosion, all of the apps you'll ever possibly need are already available, and most of them are either free or very cheap.
Games might account for some of this, sure.
I can understand the desire to play various cool games on the phone.
Of course, a smartphone tends to have a battery life of around four hours of heavy use before the thing drops dead.Various useful databases may offer some sort of subscription to help users stay on top of changing information.
Again Zagat comes to mind.
But if this system proves too expensive, people will turn to free sites like Yelp for their reviews.
Therein lies the rub.
Once free Websites begin to optimize themselves for smartphones (perhaps with a special URL), a lot of the apps will end up becoming buttons on a screen that merely load up the free app from a Website.
All sorts of games ideal for small screens could easily become Web apps optimized for such devices.This is exactly the reason that there won't be a lot smartphone platforms in the future.
The Web guys (and the app coders) will settle on one or two platforms to sell apps for.
These two platforms will be the iPhone and Android OSes.
I just can't see it evolving any other way.
Condolences to Palm, RIM, and Symbian.Beyond little games, the real action will be in adjunct apps--programs like special readers for The New York Times, written to optimize your reading experience.
Bloomberg and other stock services already have apps that keep you apprised of your portfolio and business news feeds in real-time.
I expect to see a lot of adjunct apps from everyone with a Web presence who wants to service users who will rely more and more on their phones to access content and services.The concept that most Internet activity will occur on mobile devices appeared in the media over a decade ago.
As is typical with such premature predictions, many people got agitated when the bonanza didn't occur within a year or two.
The prediction is finally coming to pass, thanks to the smartphone.
Once people own one, they can't stay off the Internet.Money will be made in the app scene.
Somehow. Everyone loads up on apps.
As soon as I got my Nexus One, I put 30-plus apps on the thing.
But ask your friends to point out paid apps that they bought and found useful.
You'll be lucky to find one or two.The PC software market has been studied to death.
A few years ago it was determined that very few users ever bought much more than Microsoft Office and a game or two.
If you're reading this column, realize that you're probably the exception to this rule.
Most users aren't computer magazine readers.
Most users tend to be pretty clueless.
If they're using the phone as their primary computer, it's probably worse.In other words, don't expect a gravy train coding apps for these phones.
Right now the novelty and the fact that experts are using the phones helps a lot.
The scarcity of great apps helps too.
But I think the market is going to get real grim, real fast.
So, who wants to help me go code the Dvorak Smartphone Utilities?
Anyone?  Bueller?
Bueller?
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30890540</id>
	<title>Re:"Narrative Causality"...</title>
	<author>Trinn</author>
	<datestamp>1264436940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Take a look for a moment at game UIs, where part of the point of the product in question is to stand as a piece of art.  These UIs also often stand (or fail miserably) at being a piece of art as well, because that's part of the function of the overall thing.  They may even sacrifice function for form now and then, and if they get the tradeoff right, they sell more copies not less b/c it looks and *feels* cooler.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Take a look for a moment at game UIs , where part of the point of the product in question is to stand as a piece of art .
These UIs also often stand ( or fail miserably ) at being a piece of art as well , because that 's part of the function of the overall thing .
They may even sacrifice function for form now and then , and if they get the tradeoff right , they sell more copies not less b/c it looks and * feels * cooler .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take a look for a moment at game UIs, where part of the point of the product in question is to stand as a piece of art.
These UIs also often stand (or fail miserably) at being a piece of art as well, because that's part of the function of the overall thing.
They may even sacrifice function for form now and then, and if they get the tradeoff right, they sell more copies not less b/c it looks and *feels* cooler.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30885228</id>
	<title>It's all about the story.</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1264347900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>They use a car that is appropriate to the scene. They should do the same thing for ovens, sandwiches, furniture, and computers.</i> </p><p>In Wall-E, the Autopilot has to work the controls manually. He can't communicate with Go-4 by a secure wireless link.</p><p>Why?</p><p>Because the audience needs to know that he is breaking the rules. They need to know that he was never wholly trusted.</p><p>But they can't read his mind.</p><p>Eve and Wall-E in turn are trusted because they can't disguise what they feel.</p><p>Exposition is dull.</p><p>If you can drive the story forward with simple visual and audio clues and do it in seconds you are ahead of the game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They use a car that is appropriate to the scene .
They should do the same thing for ovens , sandwiches , furniture , and computers .
In Wall-E , the Autopilot has to work the controls manually .
He ca n't communicate with Go-4 by a secure wireless link.Why ? Because the audience needs to know that he is breaking the rules .
They need to know that he was never wholly trusted.But they ca n't read his mind.Eve and Wall-E in turn are trusted because they ca n't disguise what they feel.Exposition is dull.If you can drive the story forward with simple visual and audio clues and do it in seconds you are ahead of the game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They use a car that is appropriate to the scene.
They should do the same thing for ovens, sandwiches, furniture, and computers.
In Wall-E, the Autopilot has to work the controls manually.
He can't communicate with Go-4 by a secure wireless link.Why?Because the audience needs to know that he is breaking the rules.
They need to know that he was never wholly trusted.But they can't read his mind.Eve and Wall-E in turn are trusted because they can't disguise what they feel.Exposition is dull.If you can drive the story forward with simple visual and audio clues and do it in seconds you are ahead of the game.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30885696</id>
	<title>Re:Just keep him away from any real UI!</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1264351920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How many of these dials and buttons are for everyday, in-flight use, and how many are meant to be used to adjust pre-sets according to weight and conditions?</p><p>I happen to have a bit of a background with a similar interface. It's intimidating at first until you learn that you simply don't need a lot of those knobs and dials. Or, rather, that they are not to be used in a normal situation. You pretty much put then into a certain state depending on your mission (or even your tastes) and leave it at that, never to be touched again.</p><p>Take your average development tool. Let's take MS Visual Studio. Ever checked how many things you can adjust in there? It's stunning! You can basically turn it inside out and make it look and feel how YOU like. Other parameters depend on your project, you can after all create not only executables with it but DLLs, static libraries, ATL projects or even non-standard applications like Apps for Mobile devices. Still, you adjust those things once per project and never ever change them thoroughout the project ever again.</p><p>Now, I'm no expert for the 747 UI but I'd wager it's similar here. You probably need these dials, knobs and switches to create a pre-set for the flight at hand and don't touch them again until the bird touches the ground again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many of these dials and buttons are for everyday , in-flight use , and how many are meant to be used to adjust pre-sets according to weight and conditions ? I happen to have a bit of a background with a similar interface .
It 's intimidating at first until you learn that you simply do n't need a lot of those knobs and dials .
Or , rather , that they are not to be used in a normal situation .
You pretty much put then into a certain state depending on your mission ( or even your tastes ) and leave it at that , never to be touched again.Take your average development tool .
Let 's take MS Visual Studio .
Ever checked how many things you can adjust in there ?
It 's stunning !
You can basically turn it inside out and make it look and feel how YOU like .
Other parameters depend on your project , you can after all create not only executables with it but DLLs , static libraries , ATL projects or even non-standard applications like Apps for Mobile devices .
Still , you adjust those things once per project and never ever change them thoroughout the project ever again.Now , I 'm no expert for the 747 UI but I 'd wager it 's similar here .
You probably need these dials , knobs and switches to create a pre-set for the flight at hand and do n't touch them again until the bird touches the ground again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many of these dials and buttons are for everyday, in-flight use, and how many are meant to be used to adjust pre-sets according to weight and conditions?I happen to have a bit of a background with a similar interface.
It's intimidating at first until you learn that you simply don't need a lot of those knobs and dials.
Or, rather, that they are not to be used in a normal situation.
You pretty much put then into a certain state depending on your mission (or even your tastes) and leave it at that, never to be touched again.Take your average development tool.
Let's take MS Visual Studio.
Ever checked how many things you can adjust in there?
It's stunning!
You can basically turn it inside out and make it look and feel how YOU like.
Other parameters depend on your project, you can after all create not only executables with it but DLLs, static libraries, ATL projects or even non-standard applications like Apps for Mobile devices.
Still, you adjust those things once per project and never ever change them thoroughout the project ever again.Now, I'm no expert for the 747 UI but I'd wager it's similar here.
You probably need these dials, knobs and switches to create a pre-set for the flight at hand and don't touch them again until the bird touches the ground again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30884238</id>
	<title>Re:Clever girl</title>
	<author>Maltheus</author>
	<datestamp>1264341000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the reasons I like gentoo is that watching the compiler messages scroll up the screen makes it feel like a movie computer. They always have a window with messages scrolling quickly by. The true fancy computer interfaces reduce clutter and can look rather boring on (movie) screen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the reasons I like gentoo is that watching the compiler messages scroll up the screen makes it feel like a movie computer .
They always have a window with messages scrolling quickly by .
The true fancy computer interfaces reduce clutter and can look rather boring on ( movie ) screen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the reasons I like gentoo is that watching the compiler messages scroll up the screen makes it feel like a movie computer.
They always have a window with messages scrolling quickly by.
The true fancy computer interfaces reduce clutter and can look rather boring on (movie) screen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881426</id>
	<title>So does he make the "Enhance" Button?</title>
	<author>Gabe0463</author>
	<datestamp>1264366680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just curious...that pseudo-tech is not only amazing from an image-manipulation standpoint, but also a plot-substitution one as well!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just curious...that pseudo-tech is not only amazing from an image-manipulation standpoint , but also a plot-substitution one as well !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just curious...that pseudo-tech is not only amazing from an image-manipulation standpoint, but also a plot-substitution one as well!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881990</id>
	<title>Unnecessary and annoying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264326840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone fire the guy. Really. Just show KDE or Gnome and be done with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone fire the guy .
Really. Just show KDE or Gnome and be done with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone fire the guy.
Really. Just show KDE or Gnome and be done with it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882426</id>
	<title>Re:Just keep him away from any real UI!</title>
	<author>spire3661</author>
	<datestamp>1264329300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One thing id like to add, especially to your first point is the accompanying sound they add to each fingerprint miss and pretty much any time there is motion in the UI. Your computer UI would be intolerable if it made sounds with the frequency (no pun intended) that movie UIs do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One thing id like to add , especially to your first point is the accompanying sound they add to each fingerprint miss and pretty much any time there is motion in the UI .
Your computer UI would be intolerable if it made sounds with the frequency ( no pun intended ) that movie UIs do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One thing id like to add, especially to your first point is the accompanying sound they add to each fingerprint miss and pretty much any time there is motion in the UI.
Your computer UI would be intolerable if it made sounds with the frequency (no pun intended) that movie UIs do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883036</id>
	<title>Re:Clever girl</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264333080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"You aren't Vin Diesel."</p><p>well, maybe YOU aren't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" You are n't Vin Diesel .
" well , maybe YOU are n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"You aren't Vin Diesel.
"well, maybe YOU aren't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30884730</id>
	<title>Re:Just keep him away from any real UI!</title>
	<author>joe\_frisch</author>
	<datestamp>1264344600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are good and bad things of all types in movies, I don't see why the UIs should be any different. Most are pretty poor, but there may be clever ideas here and there that could find their way into a real UI.</p><p>Personally I like large monitors for some types of control. The SLAC accelerator control room contains a large number of large monitors (covering most of the available space now. That way the operators can glance around the room and quickly get status on a large number of systems. This seems to be more efficient than selecting through display windows or having automatic alarms raise windows (both of which we've tried as well). For special purpose systems large monitors are cheaper (only a few thousand $), than custom software (which could run millions of $).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are good and bad things of all types in movies , I do n't see why the UIs should be any different .
Most are pretty poor , but there may be clever ideas here and there that could find their way into a real UI.Personally I like large monitors for some types of control .
The SLAC accelerator control room contains a large number of large monitors ( covering most of the available space now .
That way the operators can glance around the room and quickly get status on a large number of systems .
This seems to be more efficient than selecting through display windows or having automatic alarms raise windows ( both of which we 've tried as well ) .
For special purpose systems large monitors are cheaper ( only a few thousand $ ) , than custom software ( which could run millions of $ ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are good and bad things of all types in movies, I don't see why the UIs should be any different.
Most are pretty poor, but there may be clever ideas here and there that could find their way into a real UI.Personally I like large monitors for some types of control.
The SLAC accelerator control room contains a large number of large monitors (covering most of the available space now.
That way the operators can glance around the room and quickly get status on a large number of systems.
This seems to be more efficient than selecting through display windows or having automatic alarms raise windows (both of which we've tried as well).
For special purpose systems large monitors are cheaper (only a few thousand $), than custom software (which could run millions of $).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883260</id>
	<title>Re:Just keep him away from any real UI!</title>
	<author>mindstrm</author>
	<datestamp>1264334700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One note on larger displays - studies have shown that using a larger display to display the same information (same resolution) definitively improved employee productivity - the theory being that, even though everyone had good vision, the larger display was easier on the mind to read.  I believe they were contrasting 17" monitors over 36" monitors or something similar.</p><p>This is tangenital to what us nerds want - which is large displays with super high res so we can display more stuff without switching windows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One note on larger displays - studies have shown that using a larger display to display the same information ( same resolution ) definitively improved employee productivity - the theory being that , even though everyone had good vision , the larger display was easier on the mind to read .
I believe they were contrasting 17 " monitors over 36 " monitors or something similar.This is tangenital to what us nerds want - which is large displays with super high res so we can display more stuff without switching windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One note on larger displays - studies have shown that using a larger display to display the same information (same resolution) definitively improved employee productivity - the theory being that, even though everyone had good vision, the larger display was easier on the mind to read.
I believe they were contrasting 17" monitors over 36" monitors or something similar.This is tangenital to what us nerds want - which is large displays with super high res so we can display more stuff without switching windows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881436</id>
	<title>UI Clip From War Games (1983)</title>
	<author>theodp</author>
	<datestamp>1264366740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHWjlCaIrQo" title="youtube.com">The only way to win in Nuclear War is not to play</a> [youtube.com].<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only way to win in Nuclear War is not to play [ youtube.com ] .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only way to win in Nuclear War is not to play [youtube.com].
:-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30902320</id>
	<title>Re:Clever girl</title>
	<author>H3g3m0n</author>
	<datestamp>1264509900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What about the 3D hologram generator they somehow have in Bones. WTF is up with that?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What about the 3D hologram generator they somehow have in Bones .
WTF is up with that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about the 3D hologram generator they somehow have in Bones.
WTF is up with that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881930</id>
	<title>Re:"Narrative Causality"...</title>
	<author>SanityInAnarchy</author>
	<datestamp>1264326420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>everything that matters exists and acts because it serves the plot.</p></div><p>Everything that matters, right.</p><p>So what would be the problem with showing an actual ssh "access denied" or "someone is doing something nasty" message? Or with using real security-related tools like netcat and iptables? I mean, sure, most of the screen is going to be irrelevant, but I'm sure the actors are going to be able to tell you what's going on, and it's still throwing in a bunch of "red herrings" or "generic extras" in the UI, still everything that matters serves the plot.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>everything that matters exists and acts because it serves the plot.Everything that matters , right.So what would be the problem with showing an actual ssh " access denied " or " someone is doing something nasty " message ?
Or with using real security-related tools like netcat and iptables ?
I mean , sure , most of the screen is going to be irrelevant , but I 'm sure the actors are going to be able to tell you what 's going on , and it 's still throwing in a bunch of " red herrings " or " generic extras " in the UI , still everything that matters serves the plot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>everything that matters exists and acts because it serves the plot.Everything that matters, right.So what would be the problem with showing an actual ssh "access denied" or "someone is doing something nasty" message?
Or with using real security-related tools like netcat and iptables?
I mean, sure, most of the screen is going to be irrelevant, but I'm sure the actors are going to be able to tell you what's going on, and it's still throwing in a bunch of "red herrings" or "generic extras" in the UI, still everything that matters serves the plot.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883308</id>
	<title>Re:Not to blame</title>
	<author>Trepidity</author>
	<datestamp>1264335000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Blaming him would be like blaming some make up guy for making Hollywood starlets set an impossibly high bar for beauty.</p></div></blockquote><p>Presumably you'd disagree with it as well, but people <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/03/15/BK.girls.body.image/index.html" title="cnn.com">do</a> [cnn.com] frequently <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1590200632?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=abxxm-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=1590200632" title="amazon.com">blame</a> [amazon.com] the movie industry as a whole for such things, if not necessarily the makeup guy in particular.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Blaming him would be like blaming some make up guy for making Hollywood starlets set an impossibly high bar for beauty.Presumably you 'd disagree with it as well , but people do [ cnn.com ] frequently blame [ amazon.com ] the movie industry as a whole for such things , if not necessarily the makeup guy in particular .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blaming him would be like blaming some make up guy for making Hollywood starlets set an impossibly high bar for beauty.Presumably you'd disagree with it as well, but people do [cnn.com] frequently blame [amazon.com] the movie industry as a whole for such things, if not necessarily the makeup guy in particular.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881752</id>
	<title>Been there</title>
	<author>Thelasko</author>
	<datestamp>1264325280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We had a thread on <a href="http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=452850" title="ubuntuforums.org">Ubuntuforums</a> [ubuntuforums.org] dedicated to this topic.  I think we concluded that <a href="http://www.determinate.net/webdata/seg/tdfsb.html" title="determinate.net">tdfsb</a> [determinate.net] is awesome.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We had a thread on Ubuntuforums [ ubuntuforums.org ] dedicated to this topic .
I think we concluded that tdfsb [ determinate.net ] is awesome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We had a thread on Ubuntuforums [ubuntuforums.org] dedicated to this topic.
I think we concluded that tdfsb [determinate.net] is awesome.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30885452</id>
	<title>Re:Clever girl</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264350060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Life isn't a soap opera. Life isn't a love story. Life isn't about looking like Brad Pitt. Life isn't an action movie. You aren't Vin Diesel.</p></div><p>You are the all singing, all dancing crap of the world. You are the same degrading organic matter as everything else.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Life is n't a soap opera .
Life is n't a love story .
Life is n't about looking like Brad Pitt .
Life is n't an action movie .
You are n't Vin Diesel.You are the all singing , all dancing crap of the world .
You are the same degrading organic matter as everything else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Life isn't a soap opera.
Life isn't a love story.
Life isn't about looking like Brad Pitt.
Life isn't an action movie.
You aren't Vin Diesel.You are the all singing, all dancing crap of the world.
You are the same degrading organic matter as everything else.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881830</id>
	<title>To tell a story quickly.....</title>
	<author>UseCase</author>
	<datestamp>1264325700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The main point of these fake movie UIs is different than that of real UIs: to tell a story very quickly, not to reveal and enable function." </p><p>This sentence is quite telling and ultimately the main reason behind the flash of (or lack of flash) in comupter UI's in motion pictures.  They are used to drive the plot.  Everyone here has surely noticed the cool looking way people "hack" computers in the movies.  How about the slowing ticking progress bar and flashing data presented when people are illegally downloading files to a usb drive.  In some movies the UI is so 3d and gesture advance as to make the user "dance" to interact with it.  This is to present the virtuosity of the user at his craft.  In other movies retro monochrome looking console UI's are used to give things an analog grittiness.  I find the whole thing quite fascinating.  Its a dream job if there ever was one. </p><p>The coolness of fictional media UI's does make it hard to design regular UI's for real products.  The user expectation is pretty high.  I always chuckle a little when I start up my PS3.  The main nav is just a menu tree.  The eye candy floating in the back has no function use whatsoever but most of the processing during the navigation phase is consumed by presenting the cool liquid effect in the background. </p><p>

I've been watching "The 1st 48" (US reality show about solving murder cases) for a while.  I love how all of the UIs are basically just MS Windows and maybe a web based perp search application because is what cops actually use.  I compare this show to CSI all the time and "CSI fan" friends hate me for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The main point of these fake movie UIs is different than that of real UIs : to tell a story very quickly , not to reveal and enable function .
" This sentence is quite telling and ultimately the main reason behind the flash of ( or lack of flash ) in comupter UI 's in motion pictures .
They are used to drive the plot .
Everyone here has surely noticed the cool looking way people " hack " computers in the movies .
How about the slowing ticking progress bar and flashing data presented when people are illegally downloading files to a usb drive .
In some movies the UI is so 3d and gesture advance as to make the user " dance " to interact with it .
This is to present the virtuosity of the user at his craft .
In other movies retro monochrome looking console UI 's are used to give things an analog grittiness .
I find the whole thing quite fascinating .
Its a dream job if there ever was one .
The coolness of fictional media UI 's does make it hard to design regular UI 's for real products .
The user expectation is pretty high .
I always chuckle a little when I start up my PS3 .
The main nav is just a menu tree .
The eye candy floating in the back has no function use whatsoever but most of the processing during the navigation phase is consumed by presenting the cool liquid effect in the background .
I 've been watching " The 1st 48 " ( US reality show about solving murder cases ) for a while .
I love how all of the UIs are basically just MS Windows and maybe a web based perp search application because is what cops actually use .
I compare this show to CSI all the time and " CSI fan " friends hate me for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The main point of these fake movie UIs is different than that of real UIs: to tell a story very quickly, not to reveal and enable function.
" This sentence is quite telling and ultimately the main reason behind the flash of (or lack of flash) in comupter UI's in motion pictures.
They are used to drive the plot.
Everyone here has surely noticed the cool looking way people "hack" computers in the movies.
How about the slowing ticking progress bar and flashing data presented when people are illegally downloading files to a usb drive.
In some movies the UI is so 3d and gesture advance as to make the user "dance" to interact with it.
This is to present the virtuosity of the user at his craft.
In other movies retro monochrome looking console UI's are used to give things an analog grittiness.
I find the whole thing quite fascinating.
Its a dream job if there ever was one.
The coolness of fictional media UI's does make it hard to design regular UI's for real products.
The user expectation is pretty high.
I always chuckle a little when I start up my PS3.
The main nav is just a menu tree.
The eye candy floating in the back has no function use whatsoever but most of the processing during the navigation phase is consumed by presenting the cool liquid effect in the background.
I've been watching "The 1st 48" (US reality show about solving murder cases) for a while.
I love how all of the UIs are basically just MS Windows and maybe a web based perp search application because is what cops actually use.
I compare this show to CSI all the time and "CSI fan" friends hate me for it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881364</id>
	<title>It's as simple as Ninnle!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264366380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>All these fake OS in various movies, from Wargames to Jurassic Park to Star Trek, and beyond, are all powered by Ninnle Linux.  It's so flexible, it can be made to look like any other OS, not to mention something completely different.  Ninnle is the way of the future!</htmltext>
<tokenext>All these fake OS in various movies , from Wargames to Jurassic Park to Star Trek , and beyond , are all powered by Ninnle Linux .
It 's so flexible , it can be made to look like any other OS , not to mention something completely different .
Ninnle is the way of the future !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All these fake OS in various movies, from Wargames to Jurassic Park to Star Trek, and beyond, are all powered by Ninnle Linux.
It's so flexible, it can be made to look like any other OS, not to mention something completely different.
Ninnle is the way of the future!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881602</id>
	<title>Re:Clever girl</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264324380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well I rather see some fancy things in movies. Movies generally never show exact true life anyway in any area. Why should they in computer.</p><p>Life isn't a soap opera. Life isn't a love story. Life isn't about looking like Brad Pitt. Life isn't an action movie. You aren't Vin Diesel.</p><p>But movies are entertainment. I rather see some fancy looking computer interface in a movie than watch gentoo compiling nano for 50 mins and then crashing to an unresolvable state that requires complete reinstall of the system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well I rather see some fancy things in movies .
Movies generally never show exact true life anyway in any area .
Why should they in computer.Life is n't a soap opera .
Life is n't a love story .
Life is n't about looking like Brad Pitt .
Life is n't an action movie .
You are n't Vin Diesel.But movies are entertainment .
I rather see some fancy looking computer interface in a movie than watch gentoo compiling nano for 50 mins and then crashing to an unresolvable state that requires complete reinstall of the system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well I rather see some fancy things in movies.
Movies generally never show exact true life anyway in any area.
Why should they in computer.Life isn't a soap opera.
Life isn't a love story.
Life isn't about looking like Brad Pitt.
Life isn't an action movie.
You aren't Vin Diesel.But movies are entertainment.
I rather see some fancy looking computer interface in a movie than watch gentoo compiling nano for 50 mins and then crashing to an unresolvable state that requires complete reinstall of the system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30891042</id>
	<title>Re:This wouldn't be a problem except...</title>
	<author>molecular</author>
	<datestamp>1264438740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My sister took a photo of a bald eagle with her cellphone. She mailed it to me and asked if I could "enhance it" for her.<br>If she hadn't told me what it was I'd have had no idea what I was even looking at. Damn you CSI. Damn you.</p></div><p>Just send her some other photo of an eagle. She wont notice, right?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My sister took a photo of a bald eagle with her cellphone .
She mailed it to me and asked if I could " enhance it " for her.If she had n't told me what it was I 'd have had no idea what I was even looking at .
Damn you CSI .
Damn you.Just send her some other photo of an eagle .
She wont notice , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My sister took a photo of a bald eagle with her cellphone.
She mailed it to me and asked if I could "enhance it" for her.If she hadn't told me what it was I'd have had no idea what I was even looking at.
Damn you CSI.
Damn you.Just send her some other photo of an eagle.
She wont notice, right?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883228</id>
	<title>Re:People who think fake UIs are real.</title>
	<author>mindstrm</author>
	<datestamp>1264334460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find it funny, and say "Just hollywood"</p><p>And the truth is, the truth would scare them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it funny , and say " Just hollywood " And the truth is , the truth would scare them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it funny, and say "Just hollywood"And the truth is, the truth would scare them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882338</id>
	<title>Re:Matrix averted this trope</title>
	<author>AikonMGB</author>
	<datestamp>1264328940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks a lot; I just spent an hour and a half clicking through tropes. I should know better than to visit that site..</p><p>Aikon-</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks a lot ; I just spent an hour and a half clicking through tropes .
I should know better than to visit that site..Aikon-</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks a lot; I just spent an hour and a half clicking through tropes.
I should know better than to visit that site..Aikon-</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30887818</id>
	<title>ACCESS GRANTED</title>
	<author>dugeen</author>
	<datestamp>1264417980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sorry, I just wanted to say that. Why can't Windows tell me that when I log on?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , I just wanted to say that .
Why ca n't Windows tell me that when I log on ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, I just wanted to say that.
Why can't Windows tell me that when I log on?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883450</id>
	<title>Re:Just keep him away from any real UI!</title>
	<author>AmberBlackCat</author>
	<datestamp>1264335900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
<p>I totally agree with 4 and 5. But,</p><p><div class="quote"><p>1) They're slow. Cue CSI fingerprint patching program. The program  displays every single failed compare in quick flash forward display.  Pulling the whole dataset from the database and rendering it takes time.  This time is wasted. You would not want your program to do that.</p></div><p>I'm thinking if it were real, it wouldn't be showing every fingerprint, and might not even show real fingerprints. It would be a fingerprint-themed progress bar, and would be no less efficient than the ones Windows uses now.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>2) Hard to reach buttons. Unfortunately, Knight Rider is the only  example that comes to my mind right now, but it's true for far too many  movies. Buttons located overhead, out of reach, sometimes requiring the  user/pilot to stop doing whatever he is doing right now, move his hands  and punch a minuscle button somewhere awkward. Yes, it looks cool, but  it's about as sensible as putting the gear stick behind the driver's  seat.</p></div><p>I'm thinking the Knight Rider setup is actually fairly similar to the way real cars are set up. In my aunt's Toyota and friend's Lexus, you have the radio and climate control on the steering wheel, garage door openers on the ceiling, and other controls in the center dashboard, while still more controls are down below. It could be good or bad, but this actually is a counterexample to movie interfaces being nothing like real interfaces.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>3) 100&quot; see through displays. Again CSI (but it's made its way into  various other movies by now). Yes, we all want bigger displays. Bigger  is better. But there's a limit to better. Especially if, as in CSI, the  additional space is not used to present more information but just to  display the information in larger font or to fill it with more pointless  gimmicky pictures. The angle your eye can see sharp in and can easily  catch is very tiny. The diameter of the screen has to be viewable by  moving your eyes alone and without strain, or it can just as well be  accessible by scrolling.</p></div><p>I totally agree, this would suck for the things I do, but you know if it were real and reasonably priced, every Slashdotter would buy one. And it wouldn't be used for solving crime. It would be used to watch movies. And if I had one, it would only be a matter of time before I put it in front of a football game on a standard television, set it to show a telephone coverage map, and asked, &quot;is my map in your way?&quot;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I totally agree with 4 and 5 .
But,1 ) They 're slow .
Cue CSI fingerprint patching program .
The program displays every single failed compare in quick flash forward display .
Pulling the whole dataset from the database and rendering it takes time .
This time is wasted .
You would not want your program to do that.I 'm thinking if it were real , it would n't be showing every fingerprint , and might not even show real fingerprints .
It would be a fingerprint-themed progress bar , and would be no less efficient than the ones Windows uses now.2 ) Hard to reach buttons .
Unfortunately , Knight Rider is the only example that comes to my mind right now , but it 's true for far too many movies .
Buttons located overhead , out of reach , sometimes requiring the user/pilot to stop doing whatever he is doing right now , move his hands and punch a minuscle button somewhere awkward .
Yes , it looks cool , but it 's about as sensible as putting the gear stick behind the driver 's seat.I 'm thinking the Knight Rider setup is actually fairly similar to the way real cars are set up .
In my aunt 's Toyota and friend 's Lexus , you have the radio and climate control on the steering wheel , garage door openers on the ceiling , and other controls in the center dashboard , while still more controls are down below .
It could be good or bad , but this actually is a counterexample to movie interfaces being nothing like real interfaces.3 ) 100 " see through displays .
Again CSI ( but it 's made its way into various other movies by now ) .
Yes , we all want bigger displays .
Bigger is better .
But there 's a limit to better .
Especially if , as in CSI , the additional space is not used to present more information but just to display the information in larger font or to fill it with more pointless gimmicky pictures .
The angle your eye can see sharp in and can easily catch is very tiny .
The diameter of the screen has to be viewable by moving your eyes alone and without strain , or it can just as well be accessible by scrolling.I totally agree , this would suck for the things I do , but you know if it were real and reasonably priced , every Slashdotter would buy one .
And it would n't be used for solving crime .
It would be used to watch movies .
And if I had one , it would only be a matter of time before I put it in front of a football game on a standard television , set it to show a telephone coverage map , and asked , " is my map in your way ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I totally agree with 4 and 5.
But,1) They're slow.
Cue CSI fingerprint patching program.
The program  displays every single failed compare in quick flash forward display.
Pulling the whole dataset from the database and rendering it takes time.
This time is wasted.
You would not want your program to do that.I'm thinking if it were real, it wouldn't be showing every fingerprint, and might not even show real fingerprints.
It would be a fingerprint-themed progress bar, and would be no less efficient than the ones Windows uses now.2) Hard to reach buttons.
Unfortunately, Knight Rider is the only  example that comes to my mind right now, but it's true for far too many  movies.
Buttons located overhead, out of reach, sometimes requiring the  user/pilot to stop doing whatever he is doing right now, move his hands  and punch a minuscle button somewhere awkward.
Yes, it looks cool, but  it's about as sensible as putting the gear stick behind the driver's  seat.I'm thinking the Knight Rider setup is actually fairly similar to the way real cars are set up.
In my aunt's Toyota and friend's Lexus, you have the radio and climate control on the steering wheel, garage door openers on the ceiling, and other controls in the center dashboard, while still more controls are down below.
It could be good or bad, but this actually is a counterexample to movie interfaces being nothing like real interfaces.3) 100" see through displays.
Again CSI (but it's made its way into  various other movies by now).
Yes, we all want bigger displays.
Bigger  is better.
But there's a limit to better.
Especially if, as in CSI, the  additional space is not used to present more information but just to  display the information in larger font or to fill it with more pointless  gimmicky pictures.
The angle your eye can see sharp in and can easily  catch is very tiny.
The diameter of the screen has to be viewable by  moving your eyes alone and without strain, or it can just as well be  accessible by scrolling.I totally agree, this would suck for the things I do, but you know if it were real and reasonably priced, every Slashdotter would buy one.
And it wouldn't be used for solving crime.
It would be used to watch movies.
And if I had one, it would only be a matter of time before I put it in front of a football game on a standard television, set it to show a telephone coverage map, and asked, "is my map in your way?
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882878</id>
	<title>Re:Just keep him away from any real UI!</title>
	<author>MartinSchou</author>
	<datestamp>1264331880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>2) Hard to reach buttons. Unfortunately, Knight Rider is the only example that comes to my mind right now, but it's true for far too many movies. Buttons located overhead, out of reach, sometimes requiring the user/pilot to stop doing whatever he is doing right now, move his hands and punch a minuscle button somewhere awkward. Yes, it looks cool, but it's about as sensible as putting the gear stick behind the driver's seat.</p></div></blockquote><p>You should go into airplane cockpit design:</p><p><a href="http://www.aviationsystemsdivision.arc.nasa.gov/multimedia/cvsrf/images/747\_cockpit\_hi.jpg" title="nasa.gov">http://www.aviationsystemsdivision.arc.nasa.gov/multimedia/cvsrf/images/747\_cockpit\_hi.jpg</a> [nasa.gov]</p><p>I count 6 rows of 26 dials and buttons above the heads of the pilots in just <b>one bank</b>. I'm sure you have a better idea for how to handle it? How about a modern air-liner instead?</p><p><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/787-flight-deck.jpg" title="wikimedia.org">http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/787-flight-deck.jpg</a> [wikimedia.org]</p><p>The 787 Dreamliner has certainly moved/removed a LOT of the dials and switches compared to the 747, but there's still an awful lot of dials and switches that require you to move your focus and reach. But again, I'm sure those are completely crappy interface examples.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>2 ) Hard to reach buttons .
Unfortunately , Knight Rider is the only example that comes to my mind right now , but it 's true for far too many movies .
Buttons located overhead , out of reach , sometimes requiring the user/pilot to stop doing whatever he is doing right now , move his hands and punch a minuscle button somewhere awkward .
Yes , it looks cool , but it 's about as sensible as putting the gear stick behind the driver 's seat.You should go into airplane cockpit design : http : //www.aviationsystemsdivision.arc.nasa.gov/multimedia/cvsrf/images/747 \ _cockpit \ _hi.jpg [ nasa.gov ] I count 6 rows of 26 dials and buttons above the heads of the pilots in just one bank .
I 'm sure you have a better idea for how to handle it ?
How about a modern air-liner instead ? http : //upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/787-flight-deck.jpg [ wikimedia.org ] The 787 Dreamliner has certainly moved/removed a LOT of the dials and switches compared to the 747 , but there 's still an awful lot of dials and switches that require you to move your focus and reach .
But again , I 'm sure those are completely crappy interface examples .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2) Hard to reach buttons.
Unfortunately, Knight Rider is the only example that comes to my mind right now, but it's true for far too many movies.
Buttons located overhead, out of reach, sometimes requiring the user/pilot to stop doing whatever he is doing right now, move his hands and punch a minuscle button somewhere awkward.
Yes, it looks cool, but it's about as sensible as putting the gear stick behind the driver's seat.You should go into airplane cockpit design:http://www.aviationsystemsdivision.arc.nasa.gov/multimedia/cvsrf/images/747\_cockpit\_hi.jpg [nasa.gov]I count 6 rows of 26 dials and buttons above the heads of the pilots in just one bank.
I'm sure you have a better idea for how to handle it?
How about a modern air-liner instead?http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/787-flight-deck.jpg [wikimedia.org]The 787 Dreamliner has certainly moved/removed a LOT of the dials and switches compared to the 747, but there's still an awful lot of dials and switches that require you to move your focus and reach.
But again, I'm sure those are completely crappy interface examples.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882006</id>
	<title>Re:Clever girl</title>
	<author>Orange Crush</author>
	<datestamp>1264326960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not sure I understand what you're referring to . .<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.enhance.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure I understand what you 're referring to .
. .enhance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure I understand what you're referring to .
. .enhance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883334</id>
	<title>Re:LCARS</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1264335180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have to agree.  The LCARS mockups are an outstanding sci-fi user interface.</p><p>Although they doesn't really stand up to close scrutiny, they look like something that has been designed for a recognizable task according to design and user interface principles that are familiar, although extrapolated to an astonishing degree.  LCARS seems to *guide* its users to information they are seeking, using negative space and alignment to cluster information into logical groupings which the users evidently find easy to navigate.</p><p>Like all interesting sci-fi, it has something of a contrarian spirit to it.   It's a very *text heavy* interface, although perhaps we should understand this in context.  It is an information display for a system that has perfect natural language input and output, and in some cases understands gestural input.</p><p>Still, the facility with which the users navigate this very text-centric interface is remarkable, suggesting that there is more going on here than meets the eye.  Perhaps the data is arranged in some subtle way into larger semantic chunks that users parse by some kind of visual pattern recognition.   This (and the facility with which users adapt to even alien systems) probably means that users are highly systems literate; that they've been rigorously trained in the use of information technology and the theories behind it...</p><p>Nah, I just convinced myself that LCARS is fantasy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to agree .
The LCARS mockups are an outstanding sci-fi user interface.Although they does n't really stand up to close scrutiny , they look like something that has been designed for a recognizable task according to design and user interface principles that are familiar , although extrapolated to an astonishing degree .
LCARS seems to * guide * its users to information they are seeking , using negative space and alignment to cluster information into logical groupings which the users evidently find easy to navigate.Like all interesting sci-fi , it has something of a contrarian spirit to it .
It 's a very * text heavy * interface , although perhaps we should understand this in context .
It is an information display for a system that has perfect natural language input and output , and in some cases understands gestural input.Still , the facility with which the users navigate this very text-centric interface is remarkable , suggesting that there is more going on here than meets the eye .
Perhaps the data is arranged in some subtle way into larger semantic chunks that users parse by some kind of visual pattern recognition .
This ( and the facility with which users adapt to even alien systems ) probably means that users are highly systems literate ; that they 've been rigorously trained in the use of information technology and the theories behind it...Nah , I just convinced myself that LCARS is fantasy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to agree.
The LCARS mockups are an outstanding sci-fi user interface.Although they doesn't really stand up to close scrutiny, they look like something that has been designed for a recognizable task according to design and user interface principles that are familiar, although extrapolated to an astonishing degree.
LCARS seems to *guide* its users to information they are seeking, using negative space and alignment to cluster information into logical groupings which the users evidently find easy to navigate.Like all interesting sci-fi, it has something of a contrarian spirit to it.
It's a very *text heavy* interface, although perhaps we should understand this in context.
It is an information display for a system that has perfect natural language input and output, and in some cases understands gestural input.Still, the facility with which the users navigate this very text-centric interface is remarkable, suggesting that there is more going on here than meets the eye.
Perhaps the data is arranged in some subtle way into larger semantic chunks that users parse by some kind of visual pattern recognition.
This (and the facility with which users adapt to even alien systems) probably means that users are highly systems literate; that they've been rigorously trained in the use of information technology and the theories behind it...Nah, I just convinced myself that LCARS is fantasy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30885492</id>
	<title>Re:This wouldn't be a problem except...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264350480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>GIS it, fool. Use something like <a href="http://www.theeagle.lowrychallenge.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/bald\_eagle\_head\_frontal.jpg" title="lowrychallenge.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.theeagle.lowrychallenge.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/bald\_eagle\_head\_frontal.jpg</a> [lowrychallenge.com] and she'll think you're a genius!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>GIS it , fool .
Use something like http : //www.theeagle.lowrychallenge.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/bald \ _eagle \ _head \ _frontal.jpg [ lowrychallenge.com ] and she 'll think you 're a genius !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GIS it, fool.
Use something like http://www.theeagle.lowrychallenge.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/bald\_eagle\_head\_frontal.jpg [lowrychallenge.com] and she'll think you're a genius!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882488</id>
	<title>Re:Clever girl</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264329600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well-written and well-directed fool the viewer into thinking the events are plausible.  The less the viewer must suspend their disbelief, the more enjoyable the movie, play, book, etc.  For example: A director could use a real car in a scene.  Or they could make the car out of two giant pieces of cardboard with painted-on wheels.  Or they could use a real car, but spray paint it with the word "CAR" on the side and replace the steering wheel with a wagon wheel.  But generally they don't do that - they use a car that is appropriate to the scene.  They should do the same thing for ovens, sandwiches, furniture, and computers.  It is a bit odd to see a modern, relatively intelligent scene, where the login screen has dancing lightning beams and lasers firing, and a voice that yells "Access Denied" - no computer actually does that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well-written and well-directed fool the viewer into thinking the events are plausible .
The less the viewer must suspend their disbelief , the more enjoyable the movie , play , book , etc .
For example : A director could use a real car in a scene .
Or they could make the car out of two giant pieces of cardboard with painted-on wheels .
Or they could use a real car , but spray paint it with the word " CAR " on the side and replace the steering wheel with a wagon wheel .
But generally they do n't do that - they use a car that is appropriate to the scene .
They should do the same thing for ovens , sandwiches , furniture , and computers .
It is a bit odd to see a modern , relatively intelligent scene , where the login screen has dancing lightning beams and lasers firing , and a voice that yells " Access Denied " - no computer actually does that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well-written and well-directed fool the viewer into thinking the events are plausible.
The less the viewer must suspend their disbelief, the more enjoyable the movie, play, book, etc.
For example: A director could use a real car in a scene.
Or they could make the car out of two giant pieces of cardboard with painted-on wheels.
Or they could use a real car, but spray paint it with the word "CAR" on the side and replace the steering wheel with a wagon wheel.
But generally they don't do that - they use a car that is appropriate to the scene.
They should do the same thing for ovens, sandwiches, furniture, and computers.
It is a bit odd to see a modern, relatively intelligent scene, where the login screen has dancing lightning beams and lasers firing, and a voice that yells "Access Denied" - no computer actually does that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883640</id>
	<title>Re:Just keep him away from any real UI!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264336920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do you feel about that Star Trek "pool table" interface? I think it has merit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you feel about that Star Trek " pool table " interface ?
I think it has merit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you feel about that Star Trek "pool table" interface?
I think it has merit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881346</id>
	<title>LCARS</title>
	<author>Malicious</author>
	<datestamp>1264366260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Movie/TV interface design peaked with LCARS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Movie/TV interface design peaked with LCARS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Movie/TV interface design peaked with LCARS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30884068</id>
	<title>Re:Just keep him away from any real UI!</title>
	<author>hankwang</author>
	<datestamp>1264339680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>5) Touch input. (...) Now put it upright like a computer screen and tell me how convenient, comfortable or accurate it is.</p></div> </blockquote><p>The cash registers in our company restaurant all use upright(-ish) touch screens. One of the cashiers told me that she tends to stick her fingers into her computer screen at home while web surfing. Here in Netherlands, most pubs and restaurants use computers with touch screens as well for keeping track of orders, although that is not continuous use.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>5 ) Touch input .
( ... ) Now put it upright like a computer screen and tell me how convenient , comfortable or accurate it is .
The cash registers in our company restaurant all use upright ( -ish ) touch screens .
One of the cashiers told me that she tends to stick her fingers into her computer screen at home while web surfing .
Here in Netherlands , most pubs and restaurants use computers with touch screens as well for keeping track of orders , although that is not continuous use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>5) Touch input.
(...) Now put it upright like a computer screen and tell me how convenient, comfortable or accurate it is.
The cash registers in our company restaurant all use upright(-ish) touch screens.
One of the cashiers told me that she tends to stick her fingers into her computer screen at home while web surfing.
Here in Netherlands, most pubs and restaurants use computers with touch screens as well for keeping track of orders, although that is not continuous use.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30885200</id>
	<title>Re:Clever girl</title>
	<author>vikstar</author>
	<datestamp>1264347660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The ridiculous UIs in tv and movies help to disconnect me as a viewer from the hard work that other areas of the program/film applied to immerse me in the story. Such ghastly and unrealistic UIs are similar to terrible acting and unrealistic dialog. These days I just laugh at such UIs as I laughed at the acting and dialog of Team America, that is, I consider it a deliberate attempt at comedy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The ridiculous UIs in tv and movies help to disconnect me as a viewer from the hard work that other areas of the program/film applied to immerse me in the story .
Such ghastly and unrealistic UIs are similar to terrible acting and unrealistic dialog .
These days I just laugh at such UIs as I laughed at the acting and dialog of Team America , that is , I consider it a deliberate attempt at comedy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ridiculous UIs in tv and movies help to disconnect me as a viewer from the hard work that other areas of the program/film applied to immerse me in the story.
Such ghastly and unrealistic UIs are similar to terrible acting and unrealistic dialog.
These days I just laugh at such UIs as I laughed at the acting and dialog of Team America, that is, I consider it a deliberate attempt at comedy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882284</id>
	<title>Never push the big red button</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1264328580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>2) Hard to reach buttons.</i></p><p><i>Yes, it looks cool, but it's about as sensible as putting the gear stick behind the driver's seat.</i> </p><p>Not entirely true.</p><p>Sometimes you want to prevent mistakes.</p><p>You want to force the user to think about what he is about to do. Because all sales are final.</p><p>So you introduce arbitrary barriers and complications.</p><p>Star Trek:TOS <a href="http://homepage.mac.com/m5comp/trekbits/trekpics/martial/index.html" title="mac.com">Court-Martial,</a> [mac.com] 1967 is a textbook example  of what can go wrong.</p><p> To jettison the forward sensor pod the Captain flicks an unmarked switch that looks and feels exactly like the others built into the arm of his chair.</p><p> The odds that he'll fire the damn thing off by accident sometime in his career are probably no worse than 1 in 4.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>2 ) Hard to reach buttons.Yes , it looks cool , but it 's about as sensible as putting the gear stick behind the driver 's seat .
Not entirely true.Sometimes you want to prevent mistakes.You want to force the user to think about what he is about to do .
Because all sales are final.So you introduce arbitrary barriers and complications.Star Trek : TOS Court-Martial , [ mac.com ] 1967 is a textbook example of what can go wrong .
To jettison the forward sensor pod the Captain flicks an unmarked switch that looks and feels exactly like the others built into the arm of his chair .
The odds that he 'll fire the damn thing off by accident sometime in his career are probably no worse than 1 in 4 .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>2) Hard to reach buttons.Yes, it looks cool, but it's about as sensible as putting the gear stick behind the driver's seat.
Not entirely true.Sometimes you want to prevent mistakes.You want to force the user to think about what he is about to do.
Because all sales are final.So you introduce arbitrary barriers and complications.Star Trek:TOS Court-Martial, [mac.com] 1967 is a textbook example  of what can go wrong.
To jettison the forward sensor pod the Captain flicks an unmarked switch that looks and feels exactly like the others built into the arm of his chair.
The odds that he'll fire the damn thing off by accident sometime in his career are probably no worse than 1 in 4.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30891782</id>
	<title>Re:Not to blame</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1264440900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do you mean that in real life Kate Hudson will end up with the vacuous, handsome, rich guy instead of the scruffy, honest, smart, kind guy? I'm so disillusioned.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you mean that in real life Kate Hudson will end up with the vacuous , handsome , rich guy instead of the scruffy , honest , smart , kind guy ?
I 'm so disillusioned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you mean that in real life Kate Hudson will end up with the vacuous, handsome, rich guy instead of the scruffy, honest, smart, kind guy?
I'm so disillusioned.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881572</id>
	<title>Avatar was cool...</title>
	<author>creimer</author>
	<datestamp>1264324320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I liked the one scene in Avatar where a scientist slides a finger across a 3D display to a mobile device to transfer over the viewable data.  Now that's mobile computing.  I can see that technology being developed.  If any company can develop that technology, it'll probably be Apple.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I liked the one scene in Avatar where a scientist slides a finger across a 3D display to a mobile device to transfer over the viewable data .
Now that 's mobile computing .
I can see that technology being developed .
If any company can develop that technology , it 'll probably be Apple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I liked the one scene in Avatar where a scientist slides a finger across a 3D display to a mobile device to transfer over the viewable data.
Now that's mobile computing.
I can see that technology being developed.
If any company can develop that technology, it'll probably be Apple.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30885612</id>
	<title>Re:Just keep him away from any real UI!</title>
	<author>Zerth</author>
	<datestamp>1264351380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>4) Lifted-hands interface. Lacking a better term I dubbed it that: An interface that does not allow your hand to rest but requires you to lift them and reach.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Also known as a "gorilla arm" interface, because that's what you'll feel like after 4 hours of "ook, point, ook"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>4 ) Lifted-hands interface .
Lacking a better term I dubbed it that : An interface that does not allow your hand to rest but requires you to lift them and reach .
Also known as a " gorilla arm " interface , because that 's what you 'll feel like after 4 hours of " ook , point , ook "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>4) Lifted-hands interface.
Lacking a better term I dubbed it that: An interface that does not allow your hand to rest but requires you to lift them and reach.
Also known as a "gorilla arm" interface, because that's what you'll feel like after 4 hours of "ook, point, ook"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883960</id>
	<title>Re:Clever girl</title>
	<author>Viadd</author>
	<datestamp>1264338960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUFkb0d1kbU" title="youtube.com">Uncrop.</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uncrop .
[ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uncrop.
[youtube.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882664</id>
	<title>Re:"Narrative Causality"...</title>
	<author>MobileTatsu-NJG</author>
	<datestamp>1264330500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is you end up spending 10 seconds explaining to the audience what 2 seconds of fictional computer display does.  Then you end up with something like Sigourney Weaver's character on Galaxy Quest.  It doesn't make the movie any more entertaining just like turning the sound off in space scenes doesn't automatically make it better.  All it buys you is one less nitpick.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is you end up spending 10 seconds explaining to the audience what 2 seconds of fictional computer display does .
Then you end up with something like Sigourney Weaver 's character on Galaxy Quest .
It does n't make the movie any more entertaining just like turning the sound off in space scenes does n't automatically make it better .
All it buys you is one less nitpick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is you end up spending 10 seconds explaining to the audience what 2 seconds of fictional computer display does.
Then you end up with something like Sigourney Weaver's character on Galaxy Quest.
It doesn't make the movie any more entertaining just like turning the sound off in space scenes doesn't automatically make it better.
All it buys you is one less nitpick.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882902</id>
	<title>Re:Clever girl</title>
	<author>Thinboy00</author>
	<datestamp>1264332060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It is a bit odd to see a modern, relatively intelligent scene, where the login screen has dancing lightning beams and lasers firing, and a voice that yells "Access <b>Granted</b>" - no computer actually does that.</p></div><p>FTFY -- that's even more unreasonable.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is a bit odd to see a modern , relatively intelligent scene , where the login screen has dancing lightning beams and lasers firing , and a voice that yells " Access Granted " - no computer actually does that.FTFY -- that 's even more unreasonable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is a bit odd to see a modern, relatively intelligent scene, where the login screen has dancing lightning beams and lasers firing, and a voice that yells "Access Granted" - no computer actually does that.FTFY -- that's even more unreasonable.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882044</id>
	<title>Korea does not do this</title>
	<author>BlueFiberOptics</author>
	<datestamp>1264327200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All Korean dramas and movies pretty much use Windows XP/Vista. (Ok, some movies have used Macbooks) I get so annoyed when I see a vanilla XP install/computer in the dramas with the default rolling hill background.  At least change the background to make it look like people actually use the computer.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</htmltext>
<tokenext>All Korean dramas and movies pretty much use Windows XP/Vista .
( Ok , some movies have used Macbooks ) I get so annoyed when I see a vanilla XP install/computer in the dramas with the default rolling hill background .
At least change the background to make it look like people actually use the computer .
: (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All Korean dramas and movies pretty much use Windows XP/Vista.
(Ok, some movies have used Macbooks) I get so annoyed when I see a vanilla XP install/computer in the dramas with the default rolling hill background.
At least change the background to make it look like people actually use the computer.
:(</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30885372</id>
	<title>Re:Matrix averted this trope</title>
	<author>uvajed\_ekil</author>
	<datestamp>1264349340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The Viewer Friendly Interface trope was (surprisingly) largely averted in the Matrix where only a little Hollywood was wrapped around an almost unmodified nmap and sshnuke.</i> <br> <br>
Yes, very true, except for two tiny exceptions: the crazy, green characters flying all over their screens (which does not look like a very easy to use ui, to me), and the small fact that the majority of interfacing with the matrix is done in people's minds after physically sticking something into the backs of their necks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Viewer Friendly Interface trope was ( surprisingly ) largely averted in the Matrix where only a little Hollywood was wrapped around an almost unmodified nmap and sshnuke .
Yes , very true , except for two tiny exceptions : the crazy , green characters flying all over their screens ( which does not look like a very easy to use ui , to me ) , and the small fact that the majority of interfacing with the matrix is done in people 's minds after physically sticking something into the backs of their necks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Viewer Friendly Interface trope was (surprisingly) largely averted in the Matrix where only a little Hollywood was wrapped around an almost unmodified nmap and sshnuke.
Yes, very true, except for two tiny exceptions: the crazy, green characters flying all over their screens (which does not look like a very easy to use ui, to me), and the small fact that the majority of interfacing with the matrix is done in people's minds after physically sticking something into the backs of their necks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882212</id>
	<title>Re:Not to blame</title>
	<author>k.a.f.</author>
	<datestamp>1264328160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>He's not the guy to blame for people's misconceptions regarding computers. He's just doing his job and making stuff look pretty. Blaming him would be like blaming some make up guy for making Hollywood starlets set an impossibly high bar for beauty. Or script writers for giving people misconceptions about how life works.</p> </div><p>In other words, it would be quite appropriate.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's not the guy to blame for people 's misconceptions regarding computers .
He 's just doing his job and making stuff look pretty .
Blaming him would be like blaming some make up guy for making Hollywood starlets set an impossibly high bar for beauty .
Or script writers for giving people misconceptions about how life works .
In other words , it would be quite appropriate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's not the guy to blame for people's misconceptions regarding computers.
He's just doing his job and making stuff look pretty.
Blaming him would be like blaming some make up guy for making Hollywood starlets set an impossibly high bar for beauty.
Or script writers for giving people misconceptions about how life works.
In other words, it would be quite appropriate.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883834</id>
	<title>Re:It's as simple as Ninnle!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264338060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>which was released after the movie came out</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>which was released after the movie came out</tokentext>
<sentencetext>which was released after the movie came out</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882326</id>
	<title>Re:Just keep him away from any real UI!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264328880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now put it upright like a computer screen and tell me how convenient, comfortable or accurate it is.</p></div><p>Here's a solution. <b>Don't put it upright!</b> Lay the screen down on the desktop, and you've avoided gorilla arm. Movies need displays to be upright so they can have both the display and the characters faces in frame at the same time. real life doesn't need that.</p><p>I don't know why it is, that over 90\% of the arguments against touchscreen input for the desktop are all about the difficulty of an upright input method. From your own post, you already know the problem is with the upright part alone and is not touch input in general. Yet you still complain as if the problem was inherent to all touch based input.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now put it upright like a computer screen and tell me how convenient , comfortable or accurate it is.Here 's a solution .
Do n't put it upright !
Lay the screen down on the desktop , and you 've avoided gorilla arm .
Movies need displays to be upright so they can have both the display and the characters faces in frame at the same time .
real life does n't need that.I do n't know why it is , that over 90 \ % of the arguments against touchscreen input for the desktop are all about the difficulty of an upright input method .
From your own post , you already know the problem is with the upright part alone and is not touch input in general .
Yet you still complain as if the problem was inherent to all touch based input .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now put it upright like a computer screen and tell me how convenient, comfortable or accurate it is.Here's a solution.
Don't put it upright!
Lay the screen down on the desktop, and you've avoided gorilla arm.
Movies need displays to be upright so they can have both the display and the characters faces in frame at the same time.
real life doesn't need that.I don't know why it is, that over 90\% of the arguments against touchscreen input for the desktop are all about the difficulty of an upright input method.
From your own post, you already know the problem is with the upright part alone and is not touch input in general.
Yet you still complain as if the problem was inherent to all touch based input.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882936</id>
	<title>Age/timing gap?</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1264332300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Rather, it's the failing of the educational system for not adequately educating people regarding technology</p></div><p>How much technology has come out since your ~80-yo family members left school?  How could school have prepared them better?  What would be reasonable to ask of the schooling system?  What would be possible to get?  Now ask yourself the same question for ages ~70, ~60,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..., ~30.</p><p>Education is a marvellous thing.  A schooling can <em>at best</em> be a useful part of a good education.  Some things you only learn "on the street".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Rather , it 's the failing of the educational system for not adequately educating people regarding technologyHow much technology has come out since your ~ 80-yo family members left school ?
How could school have prepared them better ?
What would be reasonable to ask of the schooling system ?
What would be possible to get ?
Now ask yourself the same question for ages ~ 70 , ~ 60 , ... , ~ 30.Education is a marvellous thing .
A schooling can at best be a useful part of a good education .
Some things you only learn " on the street " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rather, it's the failing of the educational system for not adequately educating people regarding technologyHow much technology has come out since your ~80-yo family members left school?
How could school have prepared them better?
What would be reasonable to ask of the schooling system?
What would be possible to get?
Now ask yourself the same question for ages ~70, ~60, ..., ~30.Education is a marvellous thing.
A schooling can at best be a useful part of a good education.
Some things you only learn "on the street".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881420</id>
	<title>I know the story said it was in a Flash but</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264366680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Putting a slideshow into a flash movie is unnecessary and irritating.  To get larger images I need to use the full screen option when the images take up less than half my screen area.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Putting a slideshow into a flash movie is unnecessary and irritating .
To get larger images I need to use the full screen option when the images take up less than half my screen area .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Putting a slideshow into a flash movie is unnecessary and irritating.
To get larger images I need to use the full screen option when the images take up less than half my screen area.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30886312</id>
	<title>Re:This wouldn't be a problem except...</title>
	<author>ajlisows</author>
	<datestamp>1264357380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is probably the thing I hate most about those CSI type shows.  Everyone seems to think that any still/moving picture that they have created with their digital camera/webcam/camcorder/security camera can just be zoomed in on by 20x while losing absolutely no quality.  I've had dozens of people ask me if I could do something like that for them.  About 20 seconds into the explanation about pixels/resolution they go into blank stare mode, zoning out thinking about who else they know is good with computer because they KNOW it can be done.</p><p>If people were able to understand that, I'd be fine with Movies and TV shows enhancing the picture.  If it serves the plot, fine.  It is fiction.  If technology is crazy advanced beyond what they should have available...that is fine.  It serves a purpose in their story.</p><p>It is pretty funny watching movies with my wife.  I'm a Chemist/Tech geek and she is a history geek.  She rolls her eyes when I point out things that are technically impossible.  "It is just a movie" she says.  When someone in a movie makes a statement that isn't historically accurate, she flips out and hates the movie.  Alexander, 10,000 BC, various others....I thought she was going to smash the DVD's to bits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is probably the thing I hate most about those CSI type shows .
Everyone seems to think that any still/moving picture that they have created with their digital camera/webcam/camcorder/security camera can just be zoomed in on by 20x while losing absolutely no quality .
I 've had dozens of people ask me if I could do something like that for them .
About 20 seconds into the explanation about pixels/resolution they go into blank stare mode , zoning out thinking about who else they know is good with computer because they KNOW it can be done.If people were able to understand that , I 'd be fine with Movies and TV shows enhancing the picture .
If it serves the plot , fine .
It is fiction .
If technology is crazy advanced beyond what they should have available...that is fine .
It serves a purpose in their story.It is pretty funny watching movies with my wife .
I 'm a Chemist/Tech geek and she is a history geek .
She rolls her eyes when I point out things that are technically impossible .
" It is just a movie " she says .
When someone in a movie makes a statement that is n't historically accurate , she flips out and hates the movie .
Alexander , 10,000 BC , various others....I thought she was going to smash the DVD 's to bits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is probably the thing I hate most about those CSI type shows.
Everyone seems to think that any still/moving picture that they have created with their digital camera/webcam/camcorder/security camera can just be zoomed in on by 20x while losing absolutely no quality.
I've had dozens of people ask me if I could do something like that for them.
About 20 seconds into the explanation about pixels/resolution they go into blank stare mode, zoning out thinking about who else they know is good with computer because they KNOW it can be done.If people were able to understand that, I'd be fine with Movies and TV shows enhancing the picture.
If it serves the plot, fine.
It is fiction.
If technology is crazy advanced beyond what they should have available...that is fine.
It serves a purpose in their story.It is pretty funny watching movies with my wife.
I'm a Chemist/Tech geek and she is a history geek.
She rolls her eyes when I point out things that are technically impossible.
"It is just a movie" she says.
When someone in a movie makes a statement that isn't historically accurate, she flips out and hates the movie.
Alexander, 10,000 BC, various others....I thought she was going to smash the DVD's to bits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882458</id>
	<title>Re:"Narrative Causality"...</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1264329480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Only teleologists and the mentally ill"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/me pulls out his teleoscope and stares at you through it. Yes, I predict you will fall wildly in love on the nearest possible Thursday. And then be hit by a meteorite.</p><p>Okay, what's good on teleovision? Aw man, just reruns of Star Wars VII-IX again?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Only teleologists and the mentally ill " /me pulls out his teleoscope and stares at you through it .
Yes , I predict you will fall wildly in love on the nearest possible Thursday .
And then be hit by a meteorite.Okay , what 's good on teleovision ?
Aw man , just reruns of Star Wars VII-IX again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Only teleologists and the mentally ill" /me pulls out his teleoscope and stares at you through it.
Yes, I predict you will fall wildly in love on the nearest possible Thursday.
And then be hit by a meteorite.Okay, what's good on teleovision?
Aw man, just reruns of Star Wars VII-IX again?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30894300</id>
	<title>Here, have this one for free:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264451340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>#!/bin/bash<br>clear<br># Show some wowee message<br>echo -e "\x1b[31;01mIncoming message - Priority 5 - Code list AX-332"<br>echo<br># Create meaningless message and dump to a text file<br>echo "Attack at dawn! Arm phasers! Raise the shields! Set warp speed to 9!" &gt; xxd.txt<br># Now create a hexadecimal dump from the text<br>xxd -p xxd.txt &gt; xxd\_h.txt<br># Print hex file to screen, one char at a time and use beep to make sci-fi sounds<br>cat xxd\_h.txt | beep -c -f 400 -D 50 -l 10<br># Now waste some time to look busy<br>echo<br>echo -e "\x1b[32;01mTransmission complete."<br>sleep 2<br>echo<br>echo -e "\x1b[33;01mDecoding....23.45\% complete"<br># and make cheesy sound<br>beep -f 1000 -r 2 -n -r 5 -l 10 --new<br>sleep 2<br>echo "Decoding....47.22\% complete"<br>beep -f 1000 -r 2 -n -r 5 -l 10 --new<br>sleep 2<br>echo "Decoding....76.19\% complete"<br>beep -f 1000 -r 2 -n -r 5 -l 10 --new<br>sleep 2<br># Show important looking gibberish<br>echo<br>echo -e "\x1b[36;01mDecoding complete. Message from Star Command following:"<br>echo<br>cat xxd.txt | beep -c -f 400 -D 50 -l 10<br>beep -f 261.6 -n -f 293.7 -n -f 329.6 -n -f 349.2 -n -f 392.0 -n -f 440.0 -n -f 493.9 -n -f 523.2<br>echo<br>echo<br>rm xxd.txt<br>rm xxd\_h.txt</p></htmltext>
<tokenext># ! /bin/bashclear # Show some wowee messageecho -e " \ x1b [ 31 ; 01mIncoming message - Priority 5 - Code list AX-332 " echo # Create meaningless message and dump to a text fileecho " Attack at dawn !
Arm phasers !
Raise the shields !
Set warp speed to 9 !
" &gt; xxd.txt # Now create a hexadecimal dump from the textxxd -p xxd.txt &gt; xxd \ _h.txt # Print hex file to screen , one char at a time and use beep to make sci-fi soundscat xxd \ _h.txt | beep -c -f 400 -D 50 -l 10 # Now waste some time to look busyechoecho -e " \ x1b [ 32 ; 01mTransmission complete .
" sleep 2echoecho -e " \ x1b [ 33 ; 01mDecoding....23.45 \ % complete " # and make cheesy soundbeep -f 1000 -r 2 -n -r 5 -l 10 --newsleep 2echo " Decoding....47.22 \ % complete " beep -f 1000 -r 2 -n -r 5 -l 10 --newsleep 2echo " Decoding....76.19 \ % complete " beep -f 1000 -r 2 -n -r 5 -l 10 --newsleep 2 # Show important looking gibberishechoecho -e " \ x1b [ 36 ; 01mDecoding complete .
Message from Star Command following : " echocat xxd.txt | beep -c -f 400 -D 50 -l 10beep -f 261.6 -n -f 293.7 -n -f 329.6 -n -f 349.2 -n -f 392.0 -n -f 440.0 -n -f 493.9 -n -f 523.2echoechorm xxd.txtrm xxd \ _h.txt</tokentext>
<sentencetext>#!/bin/bashclear# Show some wowee messageecho -e "\x1b[31;01mIncoming message - Priority 5 - Code list AX-332"echo# Create meaningless message and dump to a text fileecho "Attack at dawn!
Arm phasers!
Raise the shields!
Set warp speed to 9!
" &gt; xxd.txt# Now create a hexadecimal dump from the textxxd -p xxd.txt &gt; xxd\_h.txt# Print hex file to screen, one char at a time and use beep to make sci-fi soundscat xxd\_h.txt | beep -c -f 400 -D 50 -l 10# Now waste some time to look busyechoecho -e "\x1b[32;01mTransmission complete.
"sleep 2echoecho -e "\x1b[33;01mDecoding....23.45\% complete"# and make cheesy soundbeep -f 1000 -r 2 -n -r 5 -l 10 --newsleep 2echo "Decoding....47.22\% complete"beep -f 1000 -r 2 -n -r 5 -l 10 --newsleep 2echo "Decoding....76.19\% complete"beep -f 1000 -r 2 -n -r 5 -l 10 --newsleep 2# Show important looking gibberishechoecho -e "\x1b[36;01mDecoding complete.
Message from Star Command following:"echocat xxd.txt | beep -c -f 400 -D 50 -l 10beep -f 261.6 -n -f 293.7 -n -f 329.6 -n -f 349.2 -n -f 392.0 -n -f 440.0 -n -f 493.9 -n -f 523.2echoechorm xxd.txtrm xxd\_h.txt</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881784</id>
	<title>UI doesn't matter</title>
	<author>dvh.tosomja</author>
	<datestamp>1264325460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>UI doesn't matter, but unlimited zoom must be there!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>UI does n't matter , but unlimited zoom must be there !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>UI doesn't matter, but unlimited zoom must be there!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882806</id>
	<title>you just don't know the right tools</title>
	<author>AlgorithMan</author>
	<datestamp>1264331460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>So you obviously never hacked using the ultimate hacker tool <a href="http://www.introversion.co.uk/uplink/" title="introversion.co.uk">uplink</a> [introversion.co.uk]. You should try! there you see how realistic most movies are, unlike most of the hacking tools YOU lamers use...</htmltext>
<tokenext>So you obviously never hacked using the ultimate hacker tool uplink [ introversion.co.uk ] .
You should try !
there you see how realistic most movies are , unlike most of the hacking tools YOU lamers use.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you obviously never hacked using the ultimate hacker tool uplink [introversion.co.uk].
You should try!
there you see how realistic most movies are, unlike most of the hacking tools YOU lamers use...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883220</id>
	<title>Re:This wouldn't be a problem except...</title>
	<author>CaptainDefragged</author>
	<datestamp>1264334400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I nearly feel off my chair when I saw Microsoft Vista on a tv show the other day. I think it was Cougar Town. I'll have to go back and get a screen grab.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I nearly feel off my chair when I saw Microsoft Vista on a tv show the other day .
I think it was Cougar Town .
I 'll have to go back and get a screen grab .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I nearly feel off my chair when I saw Microsoft Vista on a tv show the other day.
I think it was Cougar Town.
I'll have to go back and get a screen grab.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882242</id>
	<title>Re:Avatar was cool...</title>
	<author>Idarubicin</author>
	<datestamp>1264328400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I liked the one scene in Avatar where a scientist slides a finger across a 3D display to a mobile device to transfer over the viewable data.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Amen.  That's exactly how a touch interface ought to work.  Indeed, it's such a good idea that variations have already appeared in other films, including <a href="http://garry.posterous.com/quantum-of-solaces-multitouch-ui-video-wall-g" title="posterous.com"> <i>Quantum of Solace</i> (2008)</a> [posterous.com] and even <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwVBzx0LMNQ" title="youtube.com"> <i>Minority Report</i> (2002)</a> [youtube.com].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I liked the one scene in Avatar where a scientist slides a finger across a 3D display to a mobile device to transfer over the viewable data .
Amen. That 's exactly how a touch interface ought to work .
Indeed , it 's such a good idea that variations have already appeared in other films , including Quantum of Solace ( 2008 ) [ posterous.com ] and even Minority Report ( 2002 ) [ youtube.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I liked the one scene in Avatar where a scientist slides a finger across a 3D display to a mobile device to transfer over the viewable data.
Amen.  That's exactly how a touch interface ought to work.
Indeed, it's such a good idea that variations have already appeared in other films, including  Quantum of Solace (2008) [posterous.com] and even  Minority Report (2002) [youtube.com].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883166</id>
	<title>Re:"Science" in movies not built for realism</title>
	<author>rantingkitten</author>
	<datestamp>1264334040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>take Star Trek and the computer that's absurdly context- and plotsensitive, you can ask questions like "Computer, were there any anomalies detected?" and it'll point out a vital plot clue in less than 5 seconds.</i> <br>
<br>
I don't think that's far-fetched, though, and I don't think it's that far down the road.  Assuming computers reach a point where they can more or less understand spoken words, why wouldn't a computer tied into various sensors and ship's systems be able to answer that question?  And you'll notice that even the computers on Star Trek aren't perfect -- if you say something the computer doesn't understand, it'll ask you to rephrase it.  <br>
<br>
In ten or twenty years it'll probably be possible.  You'll be able to call your computer at home, using the phone, and say "Computer, did I turn the oven off?" or "Computer, did I remember to lock the door?" and it'll give you the answer.  <br>
<br>
Personally, I find talking to be a terrible way to interact with a computer, but there are certain niche cases where it would make a lot of sense.</htmltext>
<tokenext>take Star Trek and the computer that 's absurdly context- and plotsensitive , you can ask questions like " Computer , were there any anomalies detected ?
" and it 'll point out a vital plot clue in less than 5 seconds .
I do n't think that 's far-fetched , though , and I do n't think it 's that far down the road .
Assuming computers reach a point where they can more or less understand spoken words , why would n't a computer tied into various sensors and ship 's systems be able to answer that question ?
And you 'll notice that even the computers on Star Trek are n't perfect -- if you say something the computer does n't understand , it 'll ask you to rephrase it .
In ten or twenty years it 'll probably be possible .
You 'll be able to call your computer at home , using the phone , and say " Computer , did I turn the oven off ?
" or " Computer , did I remember to lock the door ?
" and it 'll give you the answer .
Personally , I find talking to be a terrible way to interact with a computer , but there are certain niche cases where it would make a lot of sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>take Star Trek and the computer that's absurdly context- and plotsensitive, you can ask questions like "Computer, were there any anomalies detected?
" and it'll point out a vital plot clue in less than 5 seconds.
I don't think that's far-fetched, though, and I don't think it's that far down the road.
Assuming computers reach a point where they can more or less understand spoken words, why wouldn't a computer tied into various sensors and ship's systems be able to answer that question?
And you'll notice that even the computers on Star Trek aren't perfect -- if you say something the computer doesn't understand, it'll ask you to rephrase it.
In ten or twenty years it'll probably be possible.
You'll be able to call your computer at home, using the phone, and say "Computer, did I turn the oven off?
" or "Computer, did I remember to lock the door?
" and it'll give you the answer.
Personally, I find talking to be a terrible way to interact with a computer, but there are certain niche cases where it would make a lot of sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30886506</id>
	<title>Story vs. function</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264359060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The main point of these fake movie UIs is different than that of real UIs: to tell a story very quickly, not to reveal and enable function.</i></p><p>My favorite example of this is in Star Trek V.  Kirk is dictating a captain's log into a handheld pad and the pad is malfunctioning (like everything else on the ship).  The single biggest feature on the front of the pad is a great big honking "Error" light that takes up something like 25\% of the front of the pad (mind you- this isn't a computer graphic, this is a plastic bezel with a light inside it and the word "Error" printed on it).</p><p>Whoever designed this pad clearly doesn't have much confidence that it will function properly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The main point of these fake movie UIs is different than that of real UIs : to tell a story very quickly , not to reveal and enable function.My favorite example of this is in Star Trek V. Kirk is dictating a captain 's log into a handheld pad and the pad is malfunctioning ( like everything else on the ship ) .
The single biggest feature on the front of the pad is a great big honking " Error " light that takes up something like 25 \ % of the front of the pad ( mind you- this is n't a computer graphic , this is a plastic bezel with a light inside it and the word " Error " printed on it ) .Whoever designed this pad clearly does n't have much confidence that it will function properly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The main point of these fake movie UIs is different than that of real UIs: to tell a story very quickly, not to reveal and enable function.My favorite example of this is in Star Trek V.  Kirk is dictating a captain's log into a handheld pad and the pad is malfunctioning (like everything else on the ship).
The single biggest feature on the front of the pad is a great big honking "Error" light that takes up something like 25\% of the front of the pad (mind you- this isn't a computer graphic, this is a plastic bezel with a light inside it and the word "Error" printed on it).Whoever designed this pad clearly doesn't have much confidence that it will function properly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881986</id>
	<title>Re:LCARS</title>
	<author>hitmark</author>
	<datestamp>1264326780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>tho, the description of lcars can basically be atm's with touch screens, or maybe a touchscreen variation on a MFD...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>tho , the description of lcars can basically be atm 's with touch screens , or maybe a touchscreen variation on a MFD.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>tho, the description of lcars can basically be atm's with touch screens, or maybe a touchscreen variation on a MFD...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881658</id>
	<title>I love NCIS...</title>
	<author>The Master Control P</author>
	<datestamp>1264324740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Half the time they need to get into someone's computer and you get a glimpse of it running, it's Linux.</p><p>"Hey, I recognize that directory structure..."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Half the time they need to get into someone 's computer and you get a glimpse of it running , it 's Linux .
" Hey , I recognize that directory structure... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Half the time they need to get into someone's computer and you get a glimpse of it running, it's Linux.
"Hey, I recognize that directory structure..."</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881724</id>
	<title>Re:This wouldn't be a problem except...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264325160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My sister took a photo of a bald eagle with her cellphone. She mailed it to me and asked if I could "enhance it" for her.<br>If she hadn't told me what it was I'd have had no idea what I was even looking at. Damn you CSI. Damn you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My sister took a photo of a bald eagle with her cellphone .
She mailed it to me and asked if I could " enhance it " for her.If she had n't told me what it was I 'd have had no idea what I was even looking at .
Damn you CSI .
Damn you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My sister took a photo of a bald eagle with her cellphone.
She mailed it to me and asked if I could "enhance it" for her.If she hadn't told me what it was I'd have had no idea what I was even looking at.
Damn you CSI.
Damn you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882568</id>
	<title>Re:Not to blame</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264330020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it inconceivable that we all share responsibility of not dumbing down society?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it inconceivable that we all share responsibility of not dumbing down society ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it inconceivable that we all share responsibility of not dumbing down society?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30889168</id>
	<title>Re:Just keep him away from any real UI!</title>
	<author>Mindcontrolled</author>
	<datestamp>1264431540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The overhead panel usually contains the systems control - electrics, hydraulics, air, engine startups and external lights. During normal flight, those controls are rarely used. So, this is not an example of bad design. All the controls essential in flight usually directly in front of the pilot (autopilot controls for example) or on the center console - flaps, slats, spoilers, radios, FMC etc.<br> <br>So, the controls used mostly during startup and shutdown are kept in a still reachable place where they don't clutter up the essential stuff in the direct field of view of the pilots. Modern panels use an all dark logic, too. Basically, if nothing on the overhead is lit up, everything is working as intended. So the overhead can be checked with a quick glance during flight. Even if something goes wrong in flight and the overhead has to be worked, this is the job of the pilot not flying, while the pilot flying can still focus on the instruments and safely control and navigate the plane.<br> <br>Airliners are complex systems and the controls have to be put somewhere. A lot of thought went into the interface design and crew resource management, which is very similar among all current airliners.<br> <br>(IANAP, just an aviation geek, so any pilots around here feel free to correct me where I am wrong.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>The overhead panel usually contains the systems control - electrics , hydraulics , air , engine startups and external lights .
During normal flight , those controls are rarely used .
So , this is not an example of bad design .
All the controls essential in flight usually directly in front of the pilot ( autopilot controls for example ) or on the center console - flaps , slats , spoilers , radios , FMC etc .
So , the controls used mostly during startup and shutdown are kept in a still reachable place where they do n't clutter up the essential stuff in the direct field of view of the pilots .
Modern panels use an all dark logic , too .
Basically , if nothing on the overhead is lit up , everything is working as intended .
So the overhead can be checked with a quick glance during flight .
Even if something goes wrong in flight and the overhead has to be worked , this is the job of the pilot not flying , while the pilot flying can still focus on the instruments and safely control and navigate the plane .
Airliners are complex systems and the controls have to be put somewhere .
A lot of thought went into the interface design and crew resource management , which is very similar among all current airliners .
( IANAP , just an aviation geek , so any pilots around here feel free to correct me where I am wrong .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The overhead panel usually contains the systems control - electrics, hydraulics, air, engine startups and external lights.
During normal flight, those controls are rarely used.
So, this is not an example of bad design.
All the controls essential in flight usually directly in front of the pilot (autopilot controls for example) or on the center console - flaps, slats, spoilers, radios, FMC etc.
So, the controls used mostly during startup and shutdown are kept in a still reachable place where they don't clutter up the essential stuff in the direct field of view of the pilots.
Modern panels use an all dark logic, too.
Basically, if nothing on the overhead is lit up, everything is working as intended.
So the overhead can be checked with a quick glance during flight.
Even if something goes wrong in flight and the overhead has to be worked, this is the job of the pilot not flying, while the pilot flying can still focus on the instruments and safely control and navigate the plane.
Airliners are complex systems and the controls have to be put somewhere.
A lot of thought went into the interface design and crew resource management, which is very similar among all current airliners.
(IANAP, just an aviation geek, so any pilots around here feel free to correct me where I am wrong.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881462</id>
	<title>Stardock Systems in the 90s had stuff used for thi</title>
	<author>Locutus</author>
	<datestamp>1264323720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the 90s, with the OO( Object Oriented ) Workplace Shell on OS/2, a company called Stardock Systems came up with a great desktop enhancing package( Object Desktop ) which I'd heard was also being used to build screens for the film industry. It really made an OS/2 desktop pop and back then, only the NextStep UI can close to the default WPS. I don't think anything came close to what Stardock did with the WPS using their desktop extension Object Desktop.<br><br>The article could have went into what they use and what they've used. It was pretty shallow without that info IMO.<br><br>LoB</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the 90s , with the OO ( Object Oriented ) Workplace Shell on OS/2 , a company called Stardock Systems came up with a great desktop enhancing package ( Object Desktop ) which I 'd heard was also being used to build screens for the film industry .
It really made an OS/2 desktop pop and back then , only the NextStep UI can close to the default WPS .
I do n't think anything came close to what Stardock did with the WPS using their desktop extension Object Desktop.The article could have went into what they use and what they 've used .
It was pretty shallow without that info IMO.LoB</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the 90s, with the OO( Object Oriented ) Workplace Shell on OS/2, a company called Stardock Systems came up with a great desktop enhancing package( Object Desktop ) which I'd heard was also being used to build screens for the film industry.
It really made an OS/2 desktop pop and back then, only the NextStep UI can close to the default WPS.
I don't think anything came close to what Stardock did with the WPS using their desktop extension Object Desktop.The article could have went into what they use and what they've used.
It was pretty shallow without that info IMO.LoB</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882082</id>
	<title>Re:This wouldn't be a problem except...</title>
	<author>electrosoccertux</author>
	<datestamp>1264327440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Favor quickly understandable over accurate. This is understandable.</p></div><p>I see what you did there.</p><p>Personally I find the family situations the most...interesting.<br>Gorgeous cut child, never misbehaves, always does what you tell him.</p><p>We attribute positive character traits to attractive people more than we do non-attractive people.<br>Personally I just find looking at fat/ugly people (especially women) to be unsettling. I get this uncanny, clammy feeling all over. Bleck.<br>So I don't mind it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Favor quickly understandable over accurate .
This is understandable.I see what you did there.Personally I find the family situations the most...interesting.Gorgeous cut child , never misbehaves , always does what you tell him.We attribute positive character traits to attractive people more than we do non-attractive people.Personally I just find looking at fat/ugly people ( especially women ) to be unsettling .
I get this uncanny , clammy feeling all over .
Bleck.So I do n't mind it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Favor quickly understandable over accurate.
This is understandable.I see what you did there.Personally I find the family situations the most...interesting.Gorgeous cut child, never misbehaves, always does what you tell him.We attribute positive character traits to attractive people more than we do non-attractive people.Personally I just find looking at fat/ugly people (especially women) to be unsettling.
I get this uncanny, clammy feeling all over.
Bleck.So I don't mind it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30888264</id>
	<title>Concentrate on their lines rather than typing eh?</title>
	<author>mrjb</author>
	<datestamp>1264423620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"They're not doing anything at all other than acting," Coleran says. The actors need to concentrate on their lines, not on typing</p></div></blockquote><p> thatmightbebutsomeoneshouldtellthemtostartusingthespacebar.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" They 're not doing anything at all other than acting , " Coleran says .
The actors need to concentrate on their lines , not on typing thatmightbebutsomeoneshouldtellthemtostartusingthespacebar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"They're not doing anything at all other than acting," Coleran says.
The actors need to concentrate on their lines, not on typing thatmightbebutsomeoneshouldtellthemtostartusingthespacebar.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883330</id>
	<title>Re:Just keep him away from any real UI!</title>
	<author>Trepidity</author>
	<datestamp>1264335120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I actually think #1 could be done somewhat more in real interfaces. Computers too often portray their workings as a magical black box, leading to increased trouble diagnosing what's going on and figuring out how to fix or improve it. UNIX programs' traditional progress and status indicators are a nice example of opening that black box. It's harder with very complex programs, but there's increasing interest in AI in exactly what you criticize--- having things like computer-vision algorithms, classification algorithms, etc., give more real-time visualization of their operation, not just their results.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually think # 1 could be done somewhat more in real interfaces .
Computers too often portray their workings as a magical black box , leading to increased trouble diagnosing what 's going on and figuring out how to fix or improve it .
UNIX programs ' traditional progress and status indicators are a nice example of opening that black box .
It 's harder with very complex programs , but there 's increasing interest in AI in exactly what you criticize--- having things like computer-vision algorithms , classification algorithms , etc. , give more real-time visualization of their operation , not just their results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually think #1 could be done somewhat more in real interfaces.
Computers too often portray their workings as a magical black box, leading to increased trouble diagnosing what's going on and figuring out how to fix or improve it.
UNIX programs' traditional progress and status indicators are a nice example of opening that black box.
It's harder with very complex programs, but there's increasing interest in AI in exactly what you criticize--- having things like computer-vision algorithms, classification algorithms, etc., give more real-time visualization of their operation, not just their results.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883028</id>
	<title>This would be interesting...</title>
	<author>Evil Shabazz</author>
	<datestamp>1264332960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This story would be interesting on a site not built for computer people.  It might be interesting to people who don't have any understanding of computers how and why computers work the way they do in movies, and why the computers at their office or home are so different.  But here?  I doubt very many folks on reading this site are even remotely surprised, or find this at all interesting.  Anyone with even basic knowledge of a computer would understand that the things being displayed on computers in movies and televisions shows is not actual software, but displays and animations meant to mimic it.
<br> <br>
The content of this article is so obvious that SCO should file a patent request for it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This story would be interesting on a site not built for computer people .
It might be interesting to people who do n't have any understanding of computers how and why computers work the way they do in movies , and why the computers at their office or home are so different .
But here ?
I doubt very many folks on reading this site are even remotely surprised , or find this at all interesting .
Anyone with even basic knowledge of a computer would understand that the things being displayed on computers in movies and televisions shows is not actual software , but displays and animations meant to mimic it .
The content of this article is so obvious that SCO should file a patent request for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This story would be interesting on a site not built for computer people.
It might be interesting to people who don't have any understanding of computers how and why computers work the way they do in movies, and why the computers at their office or home are so different.
But here?
I doubt very many folks on reading this site are even remotely surprised, or find this at all interesting.
Anyone with even basic knowledge of a computer would understand that the things being displayed on computers in movies and televisions shows is not actual software, but displays and animations meant to mimic it.
The content of this article is so obvious that SCO should file a patent request for it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30886368</id>
	<title>Re:Clever girl</title>
	<author>Kral\_Blbec</author>
	<datestamp>1264357800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>At least now that geocities has been shut down they dont.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At least now that geocities has been shut down they dont .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least now that geocities has been shut down they dont.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881232</id>
	<title>FIRST FUMBLE !!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264365780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Colts v NO</p><p>eat my \_\_\_\_ slashdot !!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Colts v NOeat my \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ slashdot !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Colts v NOeat my \_\_\_\_ slashdot !
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30886354</id>
	<title>Re:It's as simple as Ninnle!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264357680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>HA! HA! YOU MENTIONED NINNLE! HOW CLEVERLY CLEVER OF YOU!<br>
<br>
Fuck off back to your cave of Jokes That Were Never Funny, assbasket.</htmltext>
<tokenext>HA !
HA ! YOU MENTIONED NINNLE !
HOW CLEVERLY CLEVER OF YOU !
Fuck off back to your cave of Jokes That Were Never Funny , assbasket .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HA!
HA! YOU MENTIONED NINNLE!
HOW CLEVERLY CLEVER OF YOU!
Fuck off back to your cave of Jokes That Were Never Funny, assbasket.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881486</id>
	<title>80's version of this was lacking</title>
	<author>bobdotorg</author>
	<datestamp>1264323840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember being slightly irked by computer scenes in 80's movies: while showing a person typing command line text, the displayed text was revealed at a constant rate, probably about that of a 150 baud modem.  The appearance is vastly different than that of someone actually typing.</p><p>Same with early attempts at showing GUI use - constant, linear movements of the cursor.</p><p>I suspect that the problem came from lack of the computer / tech equivalent of a 'sound guy'.  No way would a sound engineer allow an otherwise well-made movie to be released with out of sync, or unnatural spoken word.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember being slightly irked by computer scenes in 80 's movies : while showing a person typing command line text , the displayed text was revealed at a constant rate , probably about that of a 150 baud modem .
The appearance is vastly different than that of someone actually typing.Same with early attempts at showing GUI use - constant , linear movements of the cursor.I suspect that the problem came from lack of the computer / tech equivalent of a 'sound guy' .
No way would a sound engineer allow an otherwise well-made movie to be released with out of sync , or unnatural spoken word .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember being slightly irked by computer scenes in 80's movies: while showing a person typing command line text, the displayed text was revealed at a constant rate, probably about that of a 150 baud modem.
The appearance is vastly different than that of someone actually typing.Same with early attempts at showing GUI use - constant, linear movements of the cursor.I suspect that the problem came from lack of the computer / tech equivalent of a 'sound guy'.
No way would a sound engineer allow an otherwise well-made movie to be released with out of sync, or unnatural spoken word.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882498</id>
	<title>Re:Story?</title>
	<author>newdsfornerds</author>
	<datestamp>1264329660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They damn well should seem magical. They are in the future, after all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They damn well should seem magical .
They are in the future , after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They damn well should seem magical.
They are in the future, after all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30888112</id>
	<title>Re:Not as bad a directed security camera's</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264421520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Please stop putting apostrophes in plurals.  It's cameras, not camera's; dollies, not dolly's.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Please stop putting apostrophes in plurals .
It 's cameras , not camera 's ; dollies , not dolly 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please stop putting apostrophes in plurals.
It's cameras, not camera's; dollies, not dolly's.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882126</id>
	<title>Re:so hes the guy to blame</title>
	<author>MightyMartian</author>
	<datestamp>1264327620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is he the guy to blame for all the incredible annoying sounds movie and TV computers make.  All those blips and blops may have been cool forty years ago when they released the Andromeda Strain, but just seem incredibly moronic today.  I'd go fucking mental if every time I hit the Page Down button or refreshed a page my computer went "Blizzop-wik!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is he the guy to blame for all the incredible annoying sounds movie and TV computers make .
All those blips and blops may have been cool forty years ago when they released the Andromeda Strain , but just seem incredibly moronic today .
I 'd go fucking mental if every time I hit the Page Down button or refreshed a page my computer went " Blizzop-wik !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is he the guy to blame for all the incredible annoying sounds movie and TV computers make.
All those blips and blops may have been cool forty years ago when they released the Andromeda Strain, but just seem incredibly moronic today.
I'd go fucking mental if every time I hit the Page Down button or refreshed a page my computer went "Blizzop-wik!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881276</id>
	<title>Clever girl</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264365960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does he also make those fancy monitors that project what is on the screen out into the room and onto any passing dinosaur?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does he also make those fancy monitors that project what is on the screen out into the room and onto any passing dinosaur ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does he also make those fancy monitors that project what is on the screen out into the room and onto any passing dinosaur?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30884336</id>
	<title>Re:This wouldn't be a problem except...</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1264341780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Every single computer is made by Sony or Apple.</i></p><p>Some people here on Slashdot think that every phone is made by Apple or maybe Google...</p><p><i>I think in the UK these are now all routed to the same place for that reason</i></p><p>I don't think there's any evidence that people in the UK think it's 911 from watching US TV. The more likely reason is that it simply makes good sense, for anyone who happens to be travelling to the UK.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every single computer is made by Sony or Apple.Some people here on Slashdot think that every phone is made by Apple or maybe Google...I think in the UK these are now all routed to the same place for that reasonI do n't think there 's any evidence that people in the UK think it 's 911 from watching US TV .
The more likely reason is that it simply makes good sense , for anyone who happens to be travelling to the UK .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every single computer is made by Sony or Apple.Some people here on Slashdot think that every phone is made by Apple or maybe Google...I think in the UK these are now all routed to the same place for that reasonI don't think there's any evidence that people in the UK think it's 911 from watching US TV.
The more likely reason is that it simply makes good sense, for anyone who happens to be travelling to the UK.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883180</id>
	<title>Re:This wouldn't be a problem except...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264334220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I tell kids not to believe what they see on tv all the time. But these are the movies we're talking about.  Much more believable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I tell kids not to believe what they see on tv all the time .
But these are the movies we 're talking about .
Much more believable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tell kids not to believe what they see on tv all the time.
But these are the movies we're talking about.
Much more believable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883718</id>
	<title>Re:Clever girl</title>
	<author>Zero\_\_Kelvin</author>
	<datestamp>1264337340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Life isn't a soap opera. Life isn't a love story. Life isn't about looking like Brad Pitt. Life isn't an action movie. You aren't Vin Diesel.</p><blockquote><div><p>Unless he's on slashdot. Are you reading this, Vin?</p></div></blockquote></div> </blockquote><p>Reading Slashdot won't make that ugly bastard look like me!

-- Brad</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Life is n't a soap opera .
Life is n't a love story .
Life is n't about looking like Brad Pitt .
Life is n't an action movie .
You are n't Vin Diesel.Unless he 's on slashdot .
Are you reading this , Vin ?
Reading Slashdot wo n't make that ugly bastard look like me !
-- Brad</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Life isn't a soap opera.
Life isn't a love story.
Life isn't about looking like Brad Pitt.
Life isn't an action movie.
You aren't Vin Diesel.Unless he's on slashdot.
Are you reading this, Vin?
Reading Slashdot won't make that ugly bastard look like me!
-- Brad
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30885290</id>
	<title>Re:To tell a story quickly.....</title>
	<author>Pentium100</author>
	<datestamp>1264348560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I've been watching "The 1st 48" (US reality show about solving murder cases) for a while.</p></div><p>Thanks. I'm looking for a torrent of this now, will give it a try.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been watching " The 1st 48 " ( US reality show about solving murder cases ) for a while.Thanks .
I 'm looking for a torrent of this now , will give it a try .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been watching "The 1st 48" (US reality show about solving murder cases) for a while.Thanks.
I'm looking for a torrent of this now, will give it a try.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882674</id>
	<title>1980s computer screens in early Star trek movie</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264330620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I always thought that was so silly and hopelessly dated those movies.  Perhaps they looked "modern" for about five years at the time of the movies.
<br> <br>
The original Star Trek TV show was smarter: either the computer conversed in voice or displayed output on the bridge screen.  This anticipated the computer of three centuries hence.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I always thought that was so silly and hopelessly dated those movies .
Perhaps they looked " modern " for about five years at the time of the movies .
The original Star Trek TV show was smarter : either the computer conversed in voice or displayed output on the bridge screen .
This anticipated the computer of three centuries hence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always thought that was so silly and hopelessly dated those movies.
Perhaps they looked "modern" for about five years at the time of the movies.
The original Star Trek TV show was smarter: either the computer conversed in voice or displayed output on the bridge screen.
This anticipated the computer of three centuries hence.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30888078</id>
	<title>Re:Clever girl</title>
	<author>sakari</author>
	<datestamp>1264421160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You insensitive clod! My life is an action movie, with the days filled with boring everyday life and on my free time I become a Ninja Warrior in IRL. The nights are filled with fantasy and adventure. Look outside! Life is an adventure! Movies are just analogies of the real life! Don't be put down by the fact that somebody tells you that life should be boring and generalized piece of shit! Don't listen to the mass media telling that YOU aren't the center of the Universe. We all make our own worlds, and decided what comes into our lifes. Not the mass media, not other people, not anybody else than you. Remember this and your life will be filled with fantastic things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You insensitive clod !
My life is an action movie , with the days filled with boring everyday life and on my free time I become a Ninja Warrior in IRL .
The nights are filled with fantasy and adventure .
Look outside !
Life is an adventure !
Movies are just analogies of the real life !
Do n't be put down by the fact that somebody tells you that life should be boring and generalized piece of shit !
Do n't listen to the mass media telling that YOU are n't the center of the Universe .
We all make our own worlds , and decided what comes into our lifes .
Not the mass media , not other people , not anybody else than you .
Remember this and your life will be filled with fantastic things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You insensitive clod!
My life is an action movie, with the days filled with boring everyday life and on my free time I become a Ninja Warrior in IRL.
The nights are filled with fantasy and adventure.
Look outside!
Life is an adventure!
Movies are just analogies of the real life!
Don't be put down by the fact that somebody tells you that life should be boring and generalized piece of shit!
Don't listen to the mass media telling that YOU aren't the center of the Universe.
We all make our own worlds, and decided what comes into our lifes.
Not the mass media, not other people, not anybody else than you.
Remember this and your life will be filled with fantastic things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882626</id>
	<title>Re:Clever girl</title>
	<author>this great guy</author>
	<datestamp>1264330320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Life isn't a soap opera. Life isn't a love story. Life isn't about looking like Brad Pitt. Life isn't an action movie. <b>You aren't Vin Diesel</b>.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Hahaha... Yes I am.<br>
<br>
- Vin Diesel.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Life is n't a soap opera .
Life is n't a love story .
Life is n't about looking like Brad Pitt .
Life is n't an action movie .
You are n't Vin Diesel .
Hahaha... Yes I am .
- Vin Diesel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Life isn't a soap opera.
Life isn't a love story.
Life isn't about looking like Brad Pitt.
Life isn't an action movie.
You aren't Vin Diesel.
Hahaha... Yes I am.
- Vin Diesel.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30884920</id>
	<title>Re:Just keep him away from any real UI!</title>
	<author>MrNemesis</author>
	<datestamp>1264345680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>Lifted-hands interface.</b></p><p>Life imitating art imitating stupid-ass design decisions from a bunch of amazingly primitive simians descended from telephone sanitisers and marketing executives.</p><p><i>For  years  radios  had  been operated by means of pressing buttons  and  turning  dials;  then  as  the technology   became   more   sophisticated   the   controls   were    made touch-sensitive - you merely had to brush the panels  with  your  fingers; now all you had to do was wave your hand in the general direction  of  the components and hope. It saved a lot of muscular expenditure of course, but meant that you had to sit  infuriatingly  still  if  you  wanted  to  keep listening to the same programme.</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lifted-hands interface.Life imitating art imitating stupid-ass design decisions from a bunch of amazingly primitive simians descended from telephone sanitisers and marketing executives.For years radios had been operated by means of pressing buttons and turning dials ; then as the technology became more sophisticated the controls were made touch-sensitive - you merely had to brush the panels with your fingers ; now all you had to do was wave your hand in the general direction of the components and hope .
It saved a lot of muscular expenditure of course , but meant that you had to sit infuriatingly still if you wanted to keep listening to the same programme .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lifted-hands interface.Life imitating art imitating stupid-ass design decisions from a bunch of amazingly primitive simians descended from telephone sanitisers and marketing executives.For  years  radios  had  been operated by means of pressing buttons  and  turning  dials;  then  as  the technology   became   more   sophisticated   the   controls   were    made touch-sensitive - you merely had to brush the panels  with  your  fingers; now all you had to do was wave your hand in the general direction  of  the components and hope.
It saved a lot of muscular expenditure of course, but meant that you had to sit  infuriatingly  still  if  you  wanted  to  keep listening to the same programme.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882600</id>
	<title>Re:Not to blame</title>
	<author>aflag</author>
	<datestamp>1264330200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Rather, it's the failing of the educational system for not adequately educating people regarding technology, which still remains a set of magic boxes for the lay man.</p></div><p>I don't agree. I think having misconceptions is perfectly normal. You can't possible want that everyone is knowledgeble about everything. Have you ever tried to do something entirely new that you never did before? It will feel like when you started with computers, you're a complete newbie who thinks things are different than they really are. Try sailing, I bet you'll find out that it's actually harder than you thought it was and you'll see that you have a lot of misconceptions about it. Some of them will come from movies, some of them because of other experiences. But the thing is that your knowledge in the field is superficial. That's no reason for requiring students to take sailing lessons at school.</p><p>Another example (it ain't slashdot if we don't use a car analogy), my car is a magic box for me. I think that I understand some of the basics, but I probably have several misconceptions. It's even possible that I use it in some suboptimal way because of those misconceptions. I just don't feel like searching any deeper, though. If it runs and takes me places, I'm fine. If it breaks I call the guy and he will make it work again. Just because I'm the guy when it comes to computers, it doesn't mean that I feel that everyone must know as well.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Rather , it 's the failing of the educational system for not adequately educating people regarding technology , which still remains a set of magic boxes for the lay man.I do n't agree .
I think having misconceptions is perfectly normal .
You ca n't possible want that everyone is knowledgeble about everything .
Have you ever tried to do something entirely new that you never did before ?
It will feel like when you started with computers , you 're a complete newbie who thinks things are different than they really are .
Try sailing , I bet you 'll find out that it 's actually harder than you thought it was and you 'll see that you have a lot of misconceptions about it .
Some of them will come from movies , some of them because of other experiences .
But the thing is that your knowledge in the field is superficial .
That 's no reason for requiring students to take sailing lessons at school.Another example ( it ai n't slashdot if we do n't use a car analogy ) , my car is a magic box for me .
I think that I understand some of the basics , but I probably have several misconceptions .
It 's even possible that I use it in some suboptimal way because of those misconceptions .
I just do n't feel like searching any deeper , though .
If it runs and takes me places , I 'm fine .
If it breaks I call the guy and he will make it work again .
Just because I 'm the guy when it comes to computers , it does n't mean that I feel that everyone must know as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rather, it's the failing of the educational system for not adequately educating people regarding technology, which still remains a set of magic boxes for the lay man.I don't agree.
I think having misconceptions is perfectly normal.
You can't possible want that everyone is knowledgeble about everything.
Have you ever tried to do something entirely new that you never did before?
It will feel like when you started with computers, you're a complete newbie who thinks things are different than they really are.
Try sailing, I bet you'll find out that it's actually harder than you thought it was and you'll see that you have a lot of misconceptions about it.
Some of them will come from movies, some of them because of other experiences.
But the thing is that your knowledge in the field is superficial.
That's no reason for requiring students to take sailing lessons at school.Another example (it ain't slashdot if we don't use a car analogy), my car is a magic box for me.
I think that I understand some of the basics, but I probably have several misconceptions.
It's even possible that I use it in some suboptimal way because of those misconceptions.
I just don't feel like searching any deeper, though.
If it runs and takes me places, I'm fine.
If it breaks I call the guy and he will make it work again.
Just because I'm the guy when it comes to computers, it doesn't mean that I feel that everyone must know as well.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30890354</id>
	<title>Re:Clever girl</title>
	<author>Trinn</author>
	<datestamp>1264436340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...actually, yes.</p><p>and amazingly, it took psychedelic experience to make me realize this.  and facing down death.  if you're ready to die, you're ready to live.  as the klingons say, "today is a good day to die." -- if you're already ready to die, then anything else you do after this point, succeed or fail, pleasure or pain, is just gravy, another experience, so as long as you keep trying to make it whatever you want, what matters that you have to shove a few more quarters into the arcade machine?  it'll be over when you say its over, not before, even if it hurts, and that's incredibly liberating.  experience only has the value that we choose to attach to it.  meaning lies entirely within our own heads.  in the end, it applesauce pumpkin kumquat fiddlesticks lagoon double-loopback hockey quack.  Or something like that.  absurdity gives everyone a collective distraction to make the universe more interesting, less boring, and to give everyone who's ever had a bad day (or even a good day that could be better) an opportunity to go "was that just real? did that just happen?" and laugh about the impossible absurdity that is reality!  If you look, reality will surprise you by just how god damned *weird* it can be, and if nothing else, you can make any experience interesting at the very least by this method.  Therefore, life is actually pretty damn awesome.  This is wisdom I've come to over the past few days in climbing out of 14 years of near-suicidal depression and shame after failing at my family's dream of being a supergenius kid in college, eventually getting my brain to calm down enough that whatever traumatic-stress-induced-injury happened at the microcellular/neural-net-wiring-pattern level to sort itself out, solder that last connection and flip the switch.  Some physical therapy is ahead of me, and lots more psych meds and other drug-induced experiences, but I'm out of the woods and the rest of the recovery will just be more of the same with occasional backslides, but I'll always remember I can finally breathe again, metaphorically speaking, and I will never let that go again.  Ever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...actually , yes.and amazingly , it took psychedelic experience to make me realize this .
and facing down death .
if you 're ready to die , you 're ready to live .
as the klingons say , " today is a good day to die .
" -- if you 're already ready to die , then anything else you do after this point , succeed or fail , pleasure or pain , is just gravy , another experience , so as long as you keep trying to make it whatever you want , what matters that you have to shove a few more quarters into the arcade machine ?
it 'll be over when you say its over , not before , even if it hurts , and that 's incredibly liberating .
experience only has the value that we choose to attach to it .
meaning lies entirely within our own heads .
in the end , it applesauce pumpkin kumquat fiddlesticks lagoon double-loopback hockey quack .
Or something like that .
absurdity gives everyone a collective distraction to make the universe more interesting , less boring , and to give everyone who 's ever had a bad day ( or even a good day that could be better ) an opportunity to go " was that just real ?
did that just happen ?
" and laugh about the impossible absurdity that is reality !
If you look , reality will surprise you by just how god damned * weird * it can be , and if nothing else , you can make any experience interesting at the very least by this method .
Therefore , life is actually pretty damn awesome .
This is wisdom I 've come to over the past few days in climbing out of 14 years of near-suicidal depression and shame after failing at my family 's dream of being a supergenius kid in college , eventually getting my brain to calm down enough that whatever traumatic-stress-induced-injury happened at the microcellular/neural-net-wiring-pattern level to sort itself out , solder that last connection and flip the switch .
Some physical therapy is ahead of me , and lots more psych meds and other drug-induced experiences , but I 'm out of the woods and the rest of the recovery will just be more of the same with occasional backslides , but I 'll always remember I can finally breathe again , metaphorically speaking , and I will never let that go again .
Ever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...actually, yes.and amazingly, it took psychedelic experience to make me realize this.
and facing down death.
if you're ready to die, you're ready to live.
as the klingons say, "today is a good day to die.
" -- if you're already ready to die, then anything else you do after this point, succeed or fail, pleasure or pain, is just gravy, another experience, so as long as you keep trying to make it whatever you want, what matters that you have to shove a few more quarters into the arcade machine?
it'll be over when you say its over, not before, even if it hurts, and that's incredibly liberating.
experience only has the value that we choose to attach to it.
meaning lies entirely within our own heads.
in the end, it applesauce pumpkin kumquat fiddlesticks lagoon double-loopback hockey quack.
Or something like that.
absurdity gives everyone a collective distraction to make the universe more interesting, less boring, and to give everyone who's ever had a bad day (or even a good day that could be better) an opportunity to go "was that just real?
did that just happen?
" and laugh about the impossible absurdity that is reality!
If you look, reality will surprise you by just how god damned *weird* it can be, and if nothing else, you can make any experience interesting at the very least by this method.
Therefore, life is actually pretty damn awesome.
This is wisdom I've come to over the past few days in climbing out of 14 years of near-suicidal depression and shame after failing at my family's dream of being a supergenius kid in college, eventually getting my brain to calm down enough that whatever traumatic-stress-induced-injury happened at the microcellular/neural-net-wiring-pattern level to sort itself out, solder that last connection and flip the switch.
Some physical therapy is ahead of me, and lots more psych meds and other drug-induced experiences, but I'm out of the woods and the rest of the recovery will just be more of the same with occasional backslides, but I'll always remember I can finally breathe again, metaphorically speaking, and I will never let that go again.
Ever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30888078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30885254</id>
	<title>Re:Clever girl</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264348080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>both animated login screens and voice replacing the silly windows sounds are doable with custom OS skins, at least in windows 98,   haven't really bothered to find ones for my more recently assembled PCs, but I'd wager someone has a fancy login replacer for Vista (likely BSG for sci-fi types, Twilight for the gooey set, etc), possibly even some for Win7</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>both animated login screens and voice replacing the silly windows sounds are doable with custom OS skins , at least in windows 98 , have n't really bothered to find ones for my more recently assembled PCs , but I 'd wager someone has a fancy login replacer for Vista ( likely BSG for sci-fi types , Twilight for the gooey set , etc ) , possibly even some for Win7</tokentext>
<sentencetext>both animated login screens and voice replacing the silly windows sounds are doable with custom OS skins, at least in windows 98,   haven't really bothered to find ones for my more recently assembled PCs, but I'd wager someone has a fancy login replacer for Vista (likely BSG for sci-fi types, Twilight for the gooey set, etc), possibly even some for Win7</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30885426</id>
	<title>Re:"Narrative Causality"...</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1264349940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know about coca cola, or the specific brand of cigarette, but cigarettes in general are a crutch for body puppets who can't think of something to do with their hands.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about coca cola , or the specific brand of cigarette , but cigarettes in general are a crutch for body puppets who ca n't think of something to do with their hands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about coca cola, or the specific brand of cigarette, but cigarettes in general are a crutch for body puppets who can't think of something to do with their hands.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30888174</id>
	<title>Re:Clever girl</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264422360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>maybe vim diesel</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>maybe vim diesel</tokentext>
<sentencetext>maybe vim diesel</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30890378</id>
	<title>Re:This wouldn't be a problem except...</title>
	<author>GameboyRMH</author>
	<datestamp>1264436400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More like people can't distinguish reality from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreality" title="wikipedia.org">hyperreality</a> [wikipedia.org] (which is sort of the point).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More like people ca n't distinguish reality from hyperreality [ wikipedia.org ] ( which is sort of the point ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More like people can't distinguish reality from hyperreality [wikipedia.org] (which is sort of the point).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881478</id>
	<title>Just keep him away from any real UI!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264323780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This for the ones who think Movie-OS interfaces are cool and slick looking: They're not efficient, they're not sensible, they are not intuitive and most of all, they're not useable.</p><p>I often run into people who ask me "Why isn't this or that program designed like that one in this or that movie". Because it would not be usable. A few examples how Movie-OS interfaces are very, very poorly designed, from a usability point of view.</p><p>1) They're slow. Cue CSI fingerprint patching program. The program displays every single failed compare in quick flash forward display. Pulling the whole dataset from the database and rendering it takes time. This time is wasted. You would not want your program to do that.</p><p>2) Hard to reach buttons. Unfortunately, Knight Rider is the only example that comes to my mind right now, but it's true for far too many movies. Buttons located overhead, out of reach, sometimes requiring the user/pilot to stop doing whatever he is doing right now, move his hands and punch a minuscle button somewhere awkward. Yes, it looks cool, but it's about as sensible as putting the gear stick behind the driver's seat.</p><p>3) 100" see through displays. Again CSI (but it's made its way into various other movies by now). Yes, we all want bigger displays. Bigger is better. But there's a limit to better. Especially if, as in CSI, the additional space is not used to present more information but just to display the information in larger font or to fill it with more pointless gimmicky pictures. The angle your eye can see sharp in and can easily catch is very tiny. The diameter of the screen has to be viewable by moving your eyes alone and without strain, or it can just as well be accessible by scrolling.</p><p>4) Lifted-hands interface. Lacking a better term I dubbed it that: An interface that does not allow your hand to rest but requires you to lift them and reach. First of all, it's inaccurate. You are moving your hand from your shoulder instead of your wrist, which does limit your accuracy quite a bit. It's straining and tiring. Especially when you're supposed to hit tiny icons, this is magnitudes worse than traditional input.</p><p>5) Touch input. While we're at it. Touch input becomes so popular in cellphones that EVERYTHING has to be touch input now. In case you didn't notice: It's popular because you have the input device in your palm. Now put it upright like a computer screen and tell me how convenient, comfortable or accurate it is. Not to mention that you're covering the info you try to access with your fingers, which means that you will have to lift your hand to see what you're doing. It's comfortable for quick input, but not for constant use.</p><p>Basically, Movie-OS interfaces look cool and dramatic, and that's what they're good for. They are not good for use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This for the ones who think Movie-OS interfaces are cool and slick looking : They 're not efficient , they 're not sensible , they are not intuitive and most of all , they 're not useable.I often run into people who ask me " Why is n't this or that program designed like that one in this or that movie " .
Because it would not be usable .
A few examples how Movie-OS interfaces are very , very poorly designed , from a usability point of view.1 ) They 're slow .
Cue CSI fingerprint patching program .
The program displays every single failed compare in quick flash forward display .
Pulling the whole dataset from the database and rendering it takes time .
This time is wasted .
You would not want your program to do that.2 ) Hard to reach buttons .
Unfortunately , Knight Rider is the only example that comes to my mind right now , but it 's true for far too many movies .
Buttons located overhead , out of reach , sometimes requiring the user/pilot to stop doing whatever he is doing right now , move his hands and punch a minuscle button somewhere awkward .
Yes , it looks cool , but it 's about as sensible as putting the gear stick behind the driver 's seat.3 ) 100 " see through displays .
Again CSI ( but it 's made its way into various other movies by now ) .
Yes , we all want bigger displays .
Bigger is better .
But there 's a limit to better .
Especially if , as in CSI , the additional space is not used to present more information but just to display the information in larger font or to fill it with more pointless gimmicky pictures .
The angle your eye can see sharp in and can easily catch is very tiny .
The diameter of the screen has to be viewable by moving your eyes alone and without strain , or it can just as well be accessible by scrolling.4 ) Lifted-hands interface .
Lacking a better term I dubbed it that : An interface that does not allow your hand to rest but requires you to lift them and reach .
First of all , it 's inaccurate .
You are moving your hand from your shoulder instead of your wrist , which does limit your accuracy quite a bit .
It 's straining and tiring .
Especially when you 're supposed to hit tiny icons , this is magnitudes worse than traditional input.5 ) Touch input .
While we 're at it .
Touch input becomes so popular in cellphones that EVERYTHING has to be touch input now .
In case you did n't notice : It 's popular because you have the input device in your palm .
Now put it upright like a computer screen and tell me how convenient , comfortable or accurate it is .
Not to mention that you 're covering the info you try to access with your fingers , which means that you will have to lift your hand to see what you 're doing .
It 's comfortable for quick input , but not for constant use.Basically , Movie-OS interfaces look cool and dramatic , and that 's what they 're good for .
They are not good for use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This for the ones who think Movie-OS interfaces are cool and slick looking: They're not efficient, they're not sensible, they are not intuitive and most of all, they're not useable.I often run into people who ask me "Why isn't this or that program designed like that one in this or that movie".
Because it would not be usable.
A few examples how Movie-OS interfaces are very, very poorly designed, from a usability point of view.1) They're slow.
Cue CSI fingerprint patching program.
The program displays every single failed compare in quick flash forward display.
Pulling the whole dataset from the database and rendering it takes time.
This time is wasted.
You would not want your program to do that.2) Hard to reach buttons.
Unfortunately, Knight Rider is the only example that comes to my mind right now, but it's true for far too many movies.
Buttons located overhead, out of reach, sometimes requiring the user/pilot to stop doing whatever he is doing right now, move his hands and punch a minuscle button somewhere awkward.
Yes, it looks cool, but it's about as sensible as putting the gear stick behind the driver's seat.3) 100" see through displays.
Again CSI (but it's made its way into various other movies by now).
Yes, we all want bigger displays.
Bigger is better.
But there's a limit to better.
Especially if, as in CSI, the additional space is not used to present more information but just to display the information in larger font or to fill it with more pointless gimmicky pictures.
The angle your eye can see sharp in and can easily catch is very tiny.
The diameter of the screen has to be viewable by moving your eyes alone and without strain, or it can just as well be accessible by scrolling.4) Lifted-hands interface.
Lacking a better term I dubbed it that: An interface that does not allow your hand to rest but requires you to lift them and reach.
First of all, it's inaccurate.
You are moving your hand from your shoulder instead of your wrist, which does limit your accuracy quite a bit.
It's straining and tiring.
Especially when you're supposed to hit tiny icons, this is magnitudes worse than traditional input.5) Touch input.
While we're at it.
Touch input becomes so popular in cellphones that EVERYTHING has to be touch input now.
In case you didn't notice: It's popular because you have the input device in your palm.
Now put it upright like a computer screen and tell me how convenient, comfortable or accurate it is.
Not to mention that you're covering the info you try to access with your fingers, which means that you will have to lift your hand to see what you're doing.
It's comfortable for quick input, but not for constant use.Basically, Movie-OS interfaces look cool and dramatic, and that's what they're good for.
They are not good for use.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883416</id>
	<title>Re:Clever girl</title>
	<author>ThisIsForReal</author>
	<datestamp>1264335720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here you go.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vxq9yj2pVWk" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">Click here to enhance</a> [youtube.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here you go .
Click here to enhance [ youtube.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here you go.
Click here to enhance [youtube.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30893090</id>
	<title>Same for any profession.</title>
	<author>Xoltri</author>
	<datestamp>1264446000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My wife is a nurse and she sees similar things in all of the medical dramas on TV.  I'm sure it's the same for any profession that they portray on television or in the movies; definately not true to life.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My wife is a nurse and she sees similar things in all of the medical dramas on TV .
I 'm sure it 's the same for any profession that they portray on television or in the movies ; definately not true to life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My wife is a nurse and she sees similar things in all of the medical dramas on TV.
I'm sure it's the same for any profession that they portray on television or in the movies; definately not true to life.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30886448</id>
	<title>Re:Clever girl</title>
	<author>FatdogHaiku</author>
	<datestamp>1264358520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Well I rather see some fancy things in movies. Movies generally never show exact true life anyway in any area. Why should they in computer.</p><p>Life isn't a soap opera.</p></div><p>I've been in relationships that would disprove that point.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Life isn't a love story.</p></div><p>SEE ABOVE</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Life isn't about looking like Brad Pitt.</p></div><p>Unless you have looks comparable to Brad Pitt</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Life isn't an action movie.</p></div><p>And that's OK. Those people do exist to some degree, but they end up in unmarked graves thanks to either there enemies or their employers... more quickly if the agent leaves a trail of flaming carnage in their wake.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>You aren't Vin Diesel.</p></div><p>Proof that God is merciful</p><p><div class="quote"><p>But movies are entertainment. I rather see some fancy looking computer interface in a movie than watch gentoo compiling nano for 50 mins and then crashing to an unresolvable state that requires complete reinstall of the system.</p></div><p>I'll go with that one OK. I don't expect movies or TV to be realistic unless the item is advertised as such. Long ago, reading SF taught me to suspend disbelief... and it cracks me up when people have nothing better to do than pick apart some directors interpretation of a screen writers version of a novel or short story. The idea is that the art amplifies a segment of experience to the point that it will resonate with most people and thus maximize the transfer of many small amounts of wealth from a large group to a small group.<br> <br>And for the most part it is done pretty well.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well I rather see some fancy things in movies .
Movies generally never show exact true life anyway in any area .
Why should they in computer.Life is n't a soap opera.I 've been in relationships that would disprove that point.Life is n't a love story.SEE ABOVELife is n't about looking like Brad Pitt.Unless you have looks comparable to Brad PittLife is n't an action movie.And that 's OK. Those people do exist to some degree , but they end up in unmarked graves thanks to either there enemies or their employers... more quickly if the agent leaves a trail of flaming carnage in their wake.You are n't Vin Diesel.Proof that God is mercifulBut movies are entertainment .
I rather see some fancy looking computer interface in a movie than watch gentoo compiling nano for 50 mins and then crashing to an unresolvable state that requires complete reinstall of the system.I 'll go with that one OK. I do n't expect movies or TV to be realistic unless the item is advertised as such .
Long ago , reading SF taught me to suspend disbelief... and it cracks me up when people have nothing better to do than pick apart some directors interpretation of a screen writers version of a novel or short story .
The idea is that the art amplifies a segment of experience to the point that it will resonate with most people and thus maximize the transfer of many small amounts of wealth from a large group to a small group .
And for the most part it is done pretty well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well I rather see some fancy things in movies.
Movies generally never show exact true life anyway in any area.
Why should they in computer.Life isn't a soap opera.I've been in relationships that would disprove that point.Life isn't a love story.SEE ABOVELife isn't about looking like Brad Pitt.Unless you have looks comparable to Brad PittLife isn't an action movie.And that's OK. Those people do exist to some degree, but they end up in unmarked graves thanks to either there enemies or their employers... more quickly if the agent leaves a trail of flaming carnage in their wake.You aren't Vin Diesel.Proof that God is mercifulBut movies are entertainment.
I rather see some fancy looking computer interface in a movie than watch gentoo compiling nano for 50 mins and then crashing to an unresolvable state that requires complete reinstall of the system.I'll go with that one OK. I don't expect movies or TV to be realistic unless the item is advertised as such.
Long ago, reading SF taught me to suspend disbelief... and it cracks me up when people have nothing better to do than pick apart some directors interpretation of a screen writers version of a novel or short story.
The idea is that the art amplifies a segment of experience to the point that it will resonate with most people and thus maximize the transfer of many small amounts of wealth from a large group to a small group.
And for the most part it is done pretty well.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881390</id>
	<title>Matrix averted this trope</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1264366500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The <a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ViewerFriendlyInterface" title="tvtropes.org">Viewer Friendly Interface</a> [tvtropes.org] trope was (surprisingly) largely averted in the Matrix where only a little Hollywood was wrapped around an almost unmodified <a href="http://nmap.org/images/matrix/Nmap\_Matrix\_Screen\_Huge.jpg" title="nmap.org">nmap and sshnuke</a> [nmap.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Viewer Friendly Interface [ tvtropes.org ] trope was ( surprisingly ) largely averted in the Matrix where only a little Hollywood was wrapped around an almost unmodified nmap and sshnuke [ nmap.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Viewer Friendly Interface [tvtropes.org] trope was (surprisingly) largely averted in the Matrix where only a little Hollywood was wrapped around an almost unmodified nmap and sshnuke [nmap.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30895656</id>
	<title>favor "understandable" over "accurate"?</title>
	<author>KWTm</author>
	<datestamp>1264413600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> tendency to favor "understandable" over "accurate". This is understandable.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Yes, but not accurate.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>tendency to favor " understandable " over " accurate " .
This is understandable .
Yes , but not accurate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> tendency to favor "understandable" over "accurate".
This is understandable.
Yes, but not accurate.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881890</id>
	<title>"Science" in movies not built for realism</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1264326120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For example, I recently say "Pandorum". And they're suddenly getting data on Earth from a probe in another star system that landed 6 days ago, but that'd take at least 4+ years at lightspeed. The plot's pacing just doesn't have time for realism. You can either sit back and enjoy or irritate yourself over such things, I prefer to enjoy the movie. I'm sure doctors are shaking their heads at all the "medicine" happening in movies too. Or to go back to the classics, take Star Trek and the computer that's absurdly context- and plotsensitive, you can ask questions like "Computer, were there any anomalies detected?" and it'll point out a vital plot clue in less than 5 seconds. Same with computers now, you always and only get exactly what it is the plot needs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For example , I recently say " Pandorum " .
And they 're suddenly getting data on Earth from a probe in another star system that landed 6 days ago , but that 'd take at least 4 + years at lightspeed .
The plot 's pacing just does n't have time for realism .
You can either sit back and enjoy or irritate yourself over such things , I prefer to enjoy the movie .
I 'm sure doctors are shaking their heads at all the " medicine " happening in movies too .
Or to go back to the classics , take Star Trek and the computer that 's absurdly context- and plotsensitive , you can ask questions like " Computer , were there any anomalies detected ?
" and it 'll point out a vital plot clue in less than 5 seconds .
Same with computers now , you always and only get exactly what it is the plot needs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For example, I recently say "Pandorum".
And they're suddenly getting data on Earth from a probe in another star system that landed 6 days ago, but that'd take at least 4+ years at lightspeed.
The plot's pacing just doesn't have time for realism.
You can either sit back and enjoy or irritate yourself over such things, I prefer to enjoy the movie.
I'm sure doctors are shaking their heads at all the "medicine" happening in movies too.
Or to go back to the classics, take Star Trek and the computer that's absurdly context- and plotsensitive, you can ask questions like "Computer, were there any anomalies detected?
" and it'll point out a vital plot clue in less than 5 seconds.
Same with computers now, you always and only get exactly what it is the plot needs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882262</id>
	<title>Re:Just keep him away from any real UI!</title>
	<author>eddy\_crim</author>
	<datestamp>1264328460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>more here <a href="http://nand.net/~demaria/hollywood.txt" title="nand.net" rel="nofollow">http://nand.net/~demaria/hollywood.txt</a> [nand.net]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>more here http : //nand.net/ ~ demaria/hollywood.txt [ nand.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>more here http://nand.net/~demaria/hollywood.txt [nand.net]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30886534</id>
	<title>Re:Matrix averted this trope</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264359420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You got off lucky. Most souls that enter that black pit of endless reading never come back out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You got off lucky .
Most souls that enter that black pit of endless reading never come back out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You got off lucky.
Most souls that enter that black pit of endless reading never come back out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881758</id>
	<title>Jurassic xterms</title>
	<author>nudicle</author>
	<datestamp>1264325280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's a UNIX system! I know this!</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a UNIX system !
I know this !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a UNIX system!
I know this!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30884498</id>
	<title>Re:LCARS</title>
	<author>MobileTatsu-NJG</author>
	<datestamp>1264342980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh I dunno.. LCARS didn't support overlapping windows and abbreviated the heck out of everything. Posting on Slashdot with LCARS would have been a bit of a learning curve.  "To reply, press the R132 button!"</p><p>Still, though, the auto-scrolling feature is nice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh I dunno.. LCARS did n't support overlapping windows and abbreviated the heck out of everything .
Posting on Slashdot with LCARS would have been a bit of a learning curve .
" To reply , press the R132 button !
" Still , though , the auto-scrolling feature is nice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh I dunno.. LCARS didn't support overlapping windows and abbreviated the heck out of everything.
Posting on Slashdot with LCARS would have been a bit of a learning curve.
"To reply, press the R132 button!
"Still, though, the auto-scrolling feature is nice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881574</id>
	<title>they look absurd</title>
	<author>DaveGod</author>
	<datestamp>1264324320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Usually when I see one of these computer screens the absurdity is quite distracting - often because it looks like a computer game and not software being used by highly skilled professionals at work. Actually that's a bit unfair, most games' UI is and looks much more usable. It doesn't help when the script calls for software that apparently comes with a button simply labelled "magically solve your problem".  </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Usually when I see one of these computer screens the absurdity is quite distracting - often because it looks like a computer game and not software being used by highly skilled professionals at work .
Actually that 's a bit unfair , most games ' UI is and looks much more usable .
It does n't help when the script calls for software that apparently comes with a button simply labelled " magically solve your problem " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Usually when I see one of these computer screens the absurdity is quite distracting - often because it looks like a computer game and not software being used by highly skilled professionals at work.
Actually that's a bit unfair, most games' UI is and looks much more usable.
It doesn't help when the script calls for software that apparently comes with a button simply labelled "magically solve your problem".  </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881744</id>
	<title>"Narrative Causality"...</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1264325220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The difference between movie UIs and real UIs is actually, in many respects, pretty similar to the difference between movie plots and real life (lack of) plots.<br> <br>

Real UIs always have a strongly generic character, because they are usually rather multipurpose(and even the fairly strongly single-purpose ones, industrial inventory systems and such, are often just special cases of horribly general enterprise stacks, hacked together by hacks for economic reasons). They have to expose a great many of the system's features because they have no way of knowing which ones the user is going to want. Movie UIs can be highly specific, without any visible provision for doing anything other than what is happening at that very moment; because they exist only for the purposes of the story. A particularly driven production team <i>might</i> want to make them look more generic, just to enhance the verisimilitude of the world by making it seem less wrapped around the story; but that is very much optional.<br> <br>

This is analogous to how movie plots work. In a movie, everything that happens, every character who exists, all accidents of fate, and so forth, is there by design, in order to advance the plot. There might be red herrrings, specifically to throw the audience off, or generic extras, to make things look realistic; but everything that matters exists and acts because it serves the plot. In real life, things just exist, probabilities are settled by chance. Only teleologists and the mentally ill are aware of a grand design being served.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference between movie UIs and real UIs is actually , in many respects , pretty similar to the difference between movie plots and real life ( lack of ) plots .
Real UIs always have a strongly generic character , because they are usually rather multipurpose ( and even the fairly strongly single-purpose ones , industrial inventory systems and such , are often just special cases of horribly general enterprise stacks , hacked together by hacks for economic reasons ) .
They have to expose a great many of the system 's features because they have no way of knowing which ones the user is going to want .
Movie UIs can be highly specific , without any visible provision for doing anything other than what is happening at that very moment ; because they exist only for the purposes of the story .
A particularly driven production team might want to make them look more generic , just to enhance the verisimilitude of the world by making it seem less wrapped around the story ; but that is very much optional .
This is analogous to how movie plots work .
In a movie , everything that happens , every character who exists , all accidents of fate , and so forth , is there by design , in order to advance the plot .
There might be red herrrings , specifically to throw the audience off , or generic extras , to make things look realistic ; but everything that matters exists and acts because it serves the plot .
In real life , things just exist , probabilities are settled by chance .
Only teleologists and the mentally ill are aware of a grand design being served .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference between movie UIs and real UIs is actually, in many respects, pretty similar to the difference between movie plots and real life (lack of) plots.
Real UIs always have a strongly generic character, because they are usually rather multipurpose(and even the fairly strongly single-purpose ones, industrial inventory systems and such, are often just special cases of horribly general enterprise stacks, hacked together by hacks for economic reasons).
They have to expose a great many of the system's features because they have no way of knowing which ones the user is going to want.
Movie UIs can be highly specific, without any visible provision for doing anything other than what is happening at that very moment; because they exist only for the purposes of the story.
A particularly driven production team might want to make them look more generic, just to enhance the verisimilitude of the world by making it seem less wrapped around the story; but that is very much optional.
This is analogous to how movie plots work.
In a movie, everything that happens, every character who exists, all accidents of fate, and so forth, is there by design, in order to advance the plot.
There might be red herrrings, specifically to throw the audience off, or generic extras, to make things look realistic; but everything that matters exists and acts because it serves the plot.
In real life, things just exist, probabilities are settled by chance.
Only teleologists and the mentally ill are aware of a grand design being served.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882362</id>
	<title>Re:This wouldn't be a problem except...</title>
	<author>pommiekiwifruit</author>
	<datestamp>1264329120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't forget, thanks to Hollywood people might be:
<ul> <li>Thinking American students must be terrible at passing exams, since they are still in high school at the age of 27 (Glee) or more (90210, Buffy etc.)</li>
<li>Not buying American cars, because if you so much as scratch them at 10 miles per hour, they will explode in a huge fireball. Or is that just Ford?</li>
<li>Security cameras - "enhance, enhance, rotate" (in 3d to get the view from behind the obstruction!)</li>
<li>Every single computer is made by Sony or Apple.</li>
<li>Microsoft Windows does not exist (hey!)</li>
<li>Think that it takes 30 seconds to delete a single tiny text file, with a countdown dialog... but then Microsoft implemented that in their operating systems, in a case of life imitating art.</li>
<li>Think that the speed of light == the speed of sound.</li>
<li>On a serious note, think that "911" is the emergency phone number, instead of "999" or "111" or "112" as appropriate for your country (I think in the UK these are now all routed to the same place for that reason).</li>
</ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget , thanks to Hollywood people might be : Thinking American students must be terrible at passing exams , since they are still in high school at the age of 27 ( Glee ) or more ( 90210 , Buffy etc .
) Not buying American cars , because if you so much as scratch them at 10 miles per hour , they will explode in a huge fireball .
Or is that just Ford ?
Security cameras - " enhance , enhance , rotate " ( in 3d to get the view from behind the obstruction !
) Every single computer is made by Sony or Apple .
Microsoft Windows does not exist ( hey !
) Think that it takes 30 seconds to delete a single tiny text file , with a countdown dialog... but then Microsoft implemented that in their operating systems , in a case of life imitating art .
Think that the speed of light = = the speed of sound .
On a serious note , think that " 911 " is the emergency phone number , instead of " 999 " or " 111 " or " 112 " as appropriate for your country ( I think in the UK these are now all routed to the same place for that reason ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget, thanks to Hollywood people might be:
 Thinking American students must be terrible at passing exams, since they are still in high school at the age of 27 (Glee) or more (90210, Buffy etc.
)
Not buying American cars, because if you so much as scratch them at 10 miles per hour, they will explode in a huge fireball.
Or is that just Ford?
Security cameras - "enhance, enhance, rotate" (in 3d to get the view from behind the obstruction!
)
Every single computer is made by Sony or Apple.
Microsoft Windows does not exist (hey!
)
Think that it takes 30 seconds to delete a single tiny text file, with a countdown dialog... but then Microsoft implemented that in their operating systems, in a case of life imitating art.
Think that the speed of light == the speed of sound.
On a serious note, think that "911" is the emergency phone number, instead of "999" or "111" or "112" as appropriate for your country (I think in the UK these are now all routed to the same place for that reason).
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882608</id>
	<title>Re:An example of realistic UI</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264330260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree, Antitrust was a very good example of computer UI and code which looked real. A pleasant surprise and it didn't hurt the film. Though I think advertising the trailers in a proprietary format was a bad idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , Antitrust was a very good example of computer UI and code which looked real .
A pleasant surprise and it did n't hurt the film .
Though I think advertising the trailers in a proprietary format was a bad idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, Antitrust was a very good example of computer UI and code which looked real.
A pleasant surprise and it didn't hurt the film.
Though I think advertising the trailers in a proprietary format was a bad idea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881722</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30884184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30886534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30890540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30885254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30891042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30890738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30886932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30886368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30888078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30890354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30888112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30885200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30891782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30884336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30885492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30889168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30886354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30885830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30885696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30895656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30891104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30884730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30899506
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30884498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30887108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30884322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30884920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30885228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30884256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30885608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30890378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30885290
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30885612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30885380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30885524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30886768
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30888174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30884238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30888290
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30886312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30885834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30886500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30884068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883330
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30885426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30885372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30885452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30884314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30902320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30886448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1821248_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882264
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1821248.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882264
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883450
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882644
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882284
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30885608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30884920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882878
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30889168
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30885696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30884730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30885612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30884068
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1821248.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30885372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882338
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30886534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883214
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1821248.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883166
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1821248.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30884498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883334
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881986
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1821248.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882126
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30890738
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1821248.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881420
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1821248.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881658
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1821248.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30884256
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1821248.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30885830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30899506
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883228
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1821248.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881744
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882458
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30890540
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881930
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882664
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30886500
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30885380
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882358
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882958
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30885426
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1821248.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883482
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1821248.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882006
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883960
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30886932
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30887108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881602
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883036
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30888290
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882314
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30884184
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882594
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882488
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30885228
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30886368
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882902
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30885254
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30891104
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882626
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30886448
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30885452
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30884238
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883590
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882272
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30885524
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30888174
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883718
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30888078
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30890354
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30885200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30902320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882166
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30888112
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1821248.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30886354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882310
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883834
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1821248.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881750
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1821248.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30885290
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1821248.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30895656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881446
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30891782
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882568
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882936
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883308
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881702
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882600
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882212
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30886768
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882362
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883220
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30884336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881580
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30890378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882082
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881724
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30891042
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30884314
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30884322
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30886312
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30885492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881450
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30883180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882928
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1821248.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881898
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1821248.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881232
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1821248.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881574
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1821248.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881758
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1821248.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881630
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1821248.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30885834
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1821248.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881784
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1821248.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882674
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1821248.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881572
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882242
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1821248.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882828
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1821248.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30882806
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1821248.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1821248.30881462
</commentlist>
</conversation>
