<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_30_1858244</id>
	<title>1Gbps Optical Wireless Network Might Replace Wi-Fi</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1264879200000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Mark.JUK writes <i>"Pennsylvania State University has developed a new method of <a href="http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/2010/01/30/1gbps-optical-wireless-network-could-replace-wi-fi-for-indoor-use.html">indoor Optical Wireless network that does not require a line-of-sight and runs at speeds of 1Gbps+</a>. The system uses a high-powered laser diode &mdash; a device that converts electricity into light &mdash; as the optical transmitter and an avalanche photo diode &mdash; a device that converts light to electricity &mdash; as the receiver. The light bounces off the walls and is picked up by the receiver. Traditional radio frequency systems (Wi-Fi , WiMAX etc.) do not require line of sight transmission, but can pass through some substances and so present a security problem. Light, in a room without windows, will not escape the room, improving security."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mark.JUK writes " Pennsylvania State University has developed a new method of indoor Optical Wireless network that does not require a line-of-sight and runs at speeds of 1Gbps + .
The system uses a high-powered laser diode    a device that converts electricity into light    as the optical transmitter and an avalanche photo diode    a device that converts light to electricity    as the receiver .
The light bounces off the walls and is picked up by the receiver .
Traditional radio frequency systems ( Wi-Fi , WiMAX etc .
) do not require line of sight transmission , but can pass through some substances and so present a security problem .
Light , in a room without windows , will not escape the room , improving security .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mark.JUK writes "Pennsylvania State University has developed a new method of indoor Optical Wireless network that does not require a line-of-sight and runs at speeds of 1Gbps+.
The system uses a high-powered laser diode — a device that converts electricity into light — as the optical transmitter and an avalanche photo diode — a device that converts light to electricity — as the receiver.
The light bounces off the walls and is picked up by the receiver.
Traditional radio frequency systems (Wi-Fi , WiMAX etc.
) do not require line of sight transmission, but can pass through some substances and so present a security problem.
Light, in a room without windows, will not escape the room, improving security.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30966010</id>
	<title>Re:Ah, and is it Useful?</title>
	<author>eiapoce</author>
	<datestamp>1264850520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The other point is that for most applications, it's simply unnecessary to improve over the speed of modern wireless.</p></div><p>Of course, also 640K ought to be enough for anybody!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The other point is that for most applications , it 's simply unnecessary to improve over the speed of modern wireless.Of course , also 640K ought to be enough for anybody !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The other point is that for most applications, it's simply unnecessary to improve over the speed of modern wireless.Of course, also 640K ought to be enough for anybody!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30967712</id>
	<title>Re:stop closing that door</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264867440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Stop taking the notebook into the bathroom.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Stop taking the notebook into the bathroom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stop taking the notebook into the bathroom.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964732</id>
	<title>Re:Of course often the room *does* have windows.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264884000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What more do I want?</p><p>Which technology uses the least power?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What more do I want ? Which technology uses the least power ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What more do I want?Which technology uses the least power?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30967268</id>
	<title>Re:unlikely to get anywhere</title>
	<author>sillybilly</author>
	<datestamp>1264861740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Every room using IRDA or light networks should have a no smoking sign.
Bandwidth is important, and will be the driver for this technology. Sure, people like signals that penetrate walls and obstacles, but those waves have limited frequency, and eventually you have to go to directional/line-of-sight high frequency signals. Kind of like satellite vs. VHF. VHF goes through everything almost, but has only 13 conventional 100 MHz TV channels. UHF can carry more channels, but it's less penetrating. And satellite signals can carry thousands of channels, but require line of sight. People don't bother with satellite signals? Sure they do. Eventually. Not in 1956, but yes in 2000. IRDA and light is not for 2010, or even 1991, but yes for 2020.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every room using IRDA or light networks should have a no smoking sign .
Bandwidth is important , and will be the driver for this technology .
Sure , people like signals that penetrate walls and obstacles , but those waves have limited frequency , and eventually you have to go to directional/line-of-sight high frequency signals .
Kind of like satellite vs. VHF. VHF goes through everything almost , but has only 13 conventional 100 MHz TV channels .
UHF can carry more channels , but it 's less penetrating .
And satellite signals can carry thousands of channels , but require line of sight .
People do n't bother with satellite signals ?
Sure they do .
Eventually. Not in 1956 , but yes in 2000 .
IRDA and light is not for 2010 , or even 1991 , but yes for 2020 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every room using IRDA or light networks should have a no smoking sign.
Bandwidth is important, and will be the driver for this technology.
Sure, people like signals that penetrate walls and obstacles, but those waves have limited frequency, and eventually you have to go to directional/line-of-sight high frequency signals.
Kind of like satellite vs. VHF. VHF goes through everything almost, but has only 13 conventional 100 MHz TV channels.
UHF can carry more channels, but it's less penetrating.
And satellite signals can carry thousands of channels, but require line of sight.
People don't bother with satellite signals?
Sure they do.
Eventually. Not in 1956, but yes in 2000.
IRDA and light is not for 2010, or even 1991, but yes for 2020.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965486</id>
	<title>Re:Or, you could just use cables</title>
	<author>mindstrm</author>
	<datestamp>1264846080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You'd have little sensors, just like little antennae in wifi... but, say a call-center floor. Instead of running Cat5 everywhere, you just put a few transmitters and receivers around... possibly built into the monitors, and everything "just works"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'd have little sensors , just like little antennae in wifi... but , say a call-center floor .
Instead of running Cat5 everywhere , you just put a few transmitters and receivers around... possibly built into the monitors , and everything " just works "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'd have little sensors, just like little antennae in wifi... but, say a call-center floor.
Instead of running Cat5 everywhere, you just put a few transmitters and receivers around... possibly built into the monitors, and everything "just works"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964746</id>
	<title>Wrong on one count</title>
	<author>dreamchaser</author>
	<datestamp>1264884060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The other point is that for most applications, it's simply unnecessary to improve over the speed of modern wireless.</i></p><p>Uh huh, and 640K should be enough for anyone, and there's no reason to go to broadband when a regular old analog modem is sufficient for most applications, and...well you probably get my point by now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The other point is that for most applications , it 's simply unnecessary to improve over the speed of modern wireless.Uh huh , and 640K should be enough for anyone , and there 's no reason to go to broadband when a regular old analog modem is sufficient for most applications , and...well you probably get my point by now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The other point is that for most applications, it's simply unnecessary to improve over the speed of modern wireless.Uh huh, and 640K should be enough for anyone, and there's no reason to go to broadband when a regular old analog modem is sufficient for most applications, and...well you probably get my point by now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30966316</id>
	<title>Re:I'm curious of the on affect people with seizur</title>
	<author>SScorpio</author>
	<datestamp>1264853280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They can't really use the IR frequencies that remotes use though, otherwise all of your A/V equipment will go nuts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They ca n't really use the IR frequencies that remotes use though , otherwise all of your A/V equipment will go nuts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They can't really use the IR frequencies that remotes use though, otherwise all of your A/V equipment will go nuts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965602</id>
	<title>Color me skeptical</title>
	<author>Peter Simpson</author>
	<datestamp>1264846980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At a former job, I worked with a bunch of guys who had tried to develop a free-space optical Token Ring network.  Aside from the inadvisability of basin it on the Devil's own networking protocol, their biggest problems were multipath and low receiver signal level.</p><p>They never got it truly working.  I suspect these guys won't either. Signals bouncing off walls attenuate pretty quickly with each bounce and you end up needing a fairly large surface area detector.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At a former job , I worked with a bunch of guys who had tried to develop a free-space optical Token Ring network .
Aside from the inadvisability of basin it on the Devil 's own networking protocol , their biggest problems were multipath and low receiver signal level.They never got it truly working .
I suspect these guys wo n't either .
Signals bouncing off walls attenuate pretty quickly with each bounce and you end up needing a fairly large surface area detector .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At a former job, I worked with a bunch of guys who had tried to develop a free-space optical Token Ring network.
Aside from the inadvisability of basin it on the Devil's own networking protocol, their biggest problems were multipath and low receiver signal level.They never got it truly working.
I suspect these guys won't either.
Signals bouncing off walls attenuate pretty quickly with each bounce and you end up needing a fairly large surface area detector.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965216</id>
	<title>Re:Ah, and is it Useful?</title>
	<author>93 Escort Wagon</author>
	<datestamp>1264844160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't particularly see the usefulness of this tech for single-room "computer labs" - running cable is not difficult and will almost certainly be far cheaper. Also, you're not really all that concerned with the visual appearance of cables in a computer lab.</p><p>Not to mention that (based on my group's experience anyway) university computer labs tend to be theft magnets, so you'd have the issue with people wanting to walk off with your optical router and/or the optical receivers.</p><p>As far as security goes... all of our computer labs have windows, so the signal wouldn't be confined to the room anyway.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't particularly see the usefulness of this tech for single-room " computer labs " - running cable is not difficult and will almost certainly be far cheaper .
Also , you 're not really all that concerned with the visual appearance of cables in a computer lab.Not to mention that ( based on my group 's experience anyway ) university computer labs tend to be theft magnets , so you 'd have the issue with people wanting to walk off with your optical router and/or the optical receivers.As far as security goes... all of our computer labs have windows , so the signal would n't be confined to the room anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't particularly see the usefulness of this tech for single-room "computer labs" - running cable is not difficult and will almost certainly be far cheaper.
Also, you're not really all that concerned with the visual appearance of cables in a computer lab.Not to mention that (based on my group's experience anyway) university computer labs tend to be theft magnets, so you'd have the issue with people wanting to walk off with your optical router and/or the optical receivers.As far as security goes... all of our computer labs have windows, so the signal wouldn't be confined to the room anyway.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964722</id>
	<title>Doubles as strobe light</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1264883940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For awesome dance club effects.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For awesome dance club effects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For awesome dance club effects.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30966756</id>
	<title>Re:What happens if...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264857240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It means it's time to upgrade your friends to the kind that don't role play being Jedi Knights</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It means it 's time to upgrade your friends to the kind that do n't role play being Jedi Knights</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It means it's time to upgrade your friends to the kind that don't role play being Jedi Knights</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30966702</id>
	<title>Re:Headaches...</title>
	<author>Hadlock</author>
	<datestamp>1264856640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why wouldn't you use something in the visible spectrum? It seems that red lasers would work equally well. red lasers are insanely cheap (petco: $2.99, probably $0.30 in bulk). There's not really anything stopping someone from developing this sort of thing using red lasers and some sort of receiving eye. It's already been proven that you could intercept someone's network information by reading the data off of someone's network card TX LED. I don't know about the lifespan of 5w green lasers, but I bet homebrewers could develop some sort of 10 mile point to point link at night no problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would n't you use something in the visible spectrum ?
It seems that red lasers would work equally well .
red lasers are insanely cheap ( petco : $ 2.99 , probably $ 0.30 in bulk ) .
There 's not really anything stopping someone from developing this sort of thing using red lasers and some sort of receiving eye .
It 's already been proven that you could intercept someone 's network information by reading the data off of someone 's network card TX LED .
I do n't know about the lifespan of 5w green lasers , but I bet homebrewers could develop some sort of 10 mile point to point link at night no problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why wouldn't you use something in the visible spectrum?
It seems that red lasers would work equally well.
red lasers are insanely cheap (petco: $2.99, probably $0.30 in bulk).
There's not really anything stopping someone from developing this sort of thing using red lasers and some sort of receiving eye.
It's already been proven that you could intercept someone's network information by reading the data off of someone's network card TX LED.
I don't know about the lifespan of 5w green lasers, but I bet homebrewers could develop some sort of 10 mile point to point link at night no problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965846</id>
	<title>I'm surprised</title>
	<author>elsJake</author>
	<datestamp>1264849200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nobody knows of <a href="http://ronja.twibright.com/" title="twibright.com" rel="nofollow">Ronja</a> [twibright.com]. It's been around since forever.<br>
Visible laser based point-to-point networking  good for  1.4km@10Mbps.
I think they were working on a 100Mbps version as well  but i haven't seen much progress in that direction.<br>

Sure it's not 1Gbps and it doesn't serve the exact same market segment but the technology is already here , it's cheap to build and the designs are <b>free</b> so i thought some of you might get some use out of it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody knows of Ronja [ twibright.com ] .
It 's been around since forever .
Visible laser based point-to-point networking good for 1.4km @ 10Mbps .
I think they were working on a 100Mbps version as well but i have n't seen much progress in that direction .
Sure it 's not 1Gbps and it does n't serve the exact same market segment but the technology is already here , it 's cheap to build and the designs are free so i thought some of you might get some use out of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody knows of Ronja [twibright.com].
It's been around since forever.
Visible laser based point-to-point networking  good for  1.4km@10Mbps.
I think they were working on a 100Mbps version as well  but i haven't seen much progress in that direction.
Sure it's not 1Gbps and it doesn't serve the exact same market segment but the technology is already here , it's cheap to build and the designs are free so i thought some of you might get some use out of it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30968718</id>
	<title>Will not pickup another hymn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264970400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Write something useful</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Write something useful</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Write something useful</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965556</id>
	<title>Replace WiFi</title>
	<author>owlstead</author>
	<datestamp>1264846620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another flashy headline. Who the fuck do they think they are, the sun?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another flashy headline .
Who the fuck do they think they are , the sun ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another flashy headline.
Who the fuck do they think they are, the sun?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965400</id>
	<title>Has anyone thought about upoads?</title>
	<author>SwimmerBoy</author>
	<datestamp>1264845480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What if I want to upload a file, or even just send the small amount of data to request a download? Will my laptop suddenly turn into something resembling a 90's rave?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What if I want to upload a file , or even just send the small amount of data to request a download ?
Will my laptop suddenly turn into something resembling a 90 's rave ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if I want to upload a file, or even just send the small amount of data to request a download?
Will my laptop suddenly turn into something resembling a 90's rave?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964800</id>
	<title>now for iPad!</title>
	<author>the\_fat\_kid</author>
	<datestamp>1264884420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I smell a grant proposal<br>I think that they just strung together hot buzz words, Mad-Libs style<br>Wireless optical? what could be the problem with that?<br>I have a cordless monitor that I'd like to tell you about too...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I smell a grant proposalI think that they just strung together hot buzz words , Mad-Libs styleWireless optical ?
what could be the problem with that ? I have a cordless monitor that I 'd like to tell you about too.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I smell a grant proposalI think that they just strung together hot buzz words, Mad-Libs styleWireless optical?
what could be the problem with that?I have a cordless monitor that I'd like to tell you about too...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30967104</id>
	<title>Re:security</title>
	<author>sillybilly</author>
	<datestamp>1264860360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How many homes don't have windows? you can always put up a curtain for privacy reasons over the window.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How many homes do n't have windows ?
you can always put up a curtain for privacy reasons over the window .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many homes don't have windows?
you can always put up a curtain for privacy reasons over the window.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.31008428</id>
	<title>Re:What happens if...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264944660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i accidentally your whole download</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i accidentally your whole download</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i accidentally your whole download</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30973798</id>
	<title>Re:Headaches...</title>
	<author>zill</author>
	<datestamp>1264933020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If it's outside the visible spectrum then it has the potential to cause permanent eye injuries even at low power levels (class 1 and 2).<br> <br>

When a visible laser hazard hits the eye, reflex will protect the eye and limit the exposure level to under 10 milliseconds. Invisible spectrum laser on the other hand, makes it impossible for the reflex system to kick in and thus you slowly lose your sight without knowing why (contrary to popular belief laser damage to the eyes does not cause pain at all).<br> <br>

I, for one, am very scared of things that could blind me without my knowledge until <b>after</b> I'm blind.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it 's outside the visible spectrum then it has the potential to cause permanent eye injuries even at low power levels ( class 1 and 2 ) .
When a visible laser hazard hits the eye , reflex will protect the eye and limit the exposure level to under 10 milliseconds .
Invisible spectrum laser on the other hand , makes it impossible for the reflex system to kick in and thus you slowly lose your sight without knowing why ( contrary to popular belief laser damage to the eyes does not cause pain at all ) .
I , for one , am very scared of things that could blind me without my knowledge until after I 'm blind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it's outside the visible spectrum then it has the potential to cause permanent eye injuries even at low power levels (class 1 and 2).
When a visible laser hazard hits the eye, reflex will protect the eye and limit the exposure level to under 10 milliseconds.
Invisible spectrum laser on the other hand, makes it impossible for the reflex system to kick in and thus you slowly lose your sight without knowing why (contrary to popular belief laser damage to the eyes does not cause pain at all).
I, for one, am very scared of things that could blind me without my knowledge until after I'm blind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30966258</id>
	<title>Have you ever heard of optical filters?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264852680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you ever heard of optical filters? You can have windows with optical filter eliminating the wavelength of transmission. Since it is in infrared, your windows probably block it already, if you have good windows. Good window glass is coated with thin metallic layer to block infrared from going out of your hose (reduces heat loss) and going in (reduces expenses on air conditioning in summer). That is in Europe however, I do not know how about your windows in US.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you ever heard of optical filters ?
You can have windows with optical filter eliminating the wavelength of transmission .
Since it is in infrared , your windows probably block it already , if you have good windows .
Good window glass is coated with thin metallic layer to block infrared from going out of your hose ( reduces heat loss ) and going in ( reduces expenses on air conditioning in summer ) .
That is in Europe however , I do not know how about your windows in US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you ever heard of optical filters?
You can have windows with optical filter eliminating the wavelength of transmission.
Since it is in infrared, your windows probably block it already, if you have good windows.
Good window glass is coated with thin metallic layer to block infrared from going out of your hose (reduces heat loss) and going in (reduces expenses on air conditioning in summer).
That is in Europe however, I do not know how about your windows in US.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964918</id>
	<title>Self interference</title>
	<author>AJWM</author>
	<datestamp>1264885140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see how this can work at the speed they're claiming.   1+ Gbps means they're pulsing that light at sub-nanosecond intervals (or else doing something really amazing with frequency shifting, which I doubt).  Since light travels less than a foot per nanosecond, if you're just bouncing it off the walls you're going to get echoes delayed by multiple pulse lengths and fractions of pulse lengths.  Not a problem if the receiver is just seeing a single point, like in fiber, but how does that work in a room?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see how this can work at the speed they 're claiming .
1 + Gbps means they 're pulsing that light at sub-nanosecond intervals ( or else doing something really amazing with frequency shifting , which I doubt ) .
Since light travels less than a foot per nanosecond , if you 're just bouncing it off the walls you 're going to get echoes delayed by multiple pulse lengths and fractions of pulse lengths .
Not a problem if the receiver is just seeing a single point , like in fiber , but how does that work in a room ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see how this can work at the speed they're claiming.
1+ Gbps means they're pulsing that light at sub-nanosecond intervals (or else doing something really amazing with frequency shifting, which I doubt).
Since light travels less than a foot per nanosecond, if you're just bouncing it off the walls you're going to get echoes delayed by multiple pulse lengths and fractions of pulse lengths.
Not a problem if the receiver is just seeing a single point, like in fiber, but how does that work in a room?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30967734</id>
	<title>Not the same...</title>
	<author>jjoelc</author>
	<datestamp>1264867680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but <a href="http://www.1velocity.com/index.php/faq" title="1velocity.com" rel="nofollow">here in Las Vegas</a> [1velocity.com] we have gigabit wireless available at the corporate level at least.</p><p>As for the article (...ummm, I mean summary, this is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. where I know better than to RTFA...) I can see some niche uses for this, but not anything that points to "replace Wi-fi" potential... Cubical farms, or any other location where you need to share info with a group of people, but don't want anyone not allowed physical access to the location to have a chance to start poking around.</p><p>If you are that serious about security, use wires... with lots of shielding. Properly grounded... with a faraday cage built into the walls... walls which have been acoustically isolated from the outside walls of the building... and... and...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but here in Las Vegas [ 1velocity.com ] we have gigabit wireless available at the corporate level at least.As for the article ( ...ummm , I mean summary , this is / .
where I know better than to RTFA... ) I can see some niche uses for this , but not anything that points to " replace Wi-fi " potential... Cubical farms , or any other location where you need to share info with a group of people , but do n't want anyone not allowed physical access to the location to have a chance to start poking around.If you are that serious about security , use wires... with lots of shielding .
Properly grounded... with a faraday cage built into the walls... walls which have been acoustically isolated from the outside walls of the building... and... and.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but here in Las Vegas [1velocity.com] we have gigabit wireless available at the corporate level at least.As for the article (...ummm, I mean summary, this is /.
where I know better than to RTFA...) I can see some niche uses for this, but not anything that points to "replace Wi-fi" potential... Cubical farms, or any other location where you need to share info with a group of people, but don't want anyone not allowed physical access to the location to have a chance to start poking around.If you are that serious about security, use wires... with lots of shielding.
Properly grounded... with a faraday cage built into the walls... walls which have been acoustically isolated from the outside walls of the building... and... and...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30966502</id>
	<title>Re:1gbps is extremely useful</title>
	<author>tomhudson</author>
	<datestamp>1264855200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>With 100mbps or lower, your limit is the network</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
No it's not. Use a switch, not a dumb router.  A switch will recognize the source and destination address, so it's 100 mbps between any two ports.  Even el-cheapo switches have a 4k-entry lookup table nowadays.
</p><p>
Now it's true that wireless n, you're limited to 100mbps per channel (and you can actually achieve this).  There's nothing to stop you from running 3 or 4 wireless routers on different channels in the same area, each connected directly to a different nic on the server. Locate each wireless in a different area of the room, (or centrally, with panels of aluminium foil to ensure that each one only "sees" a 90-degree area), with each one also jacked into the others in a star topology, and you've got your own wifi "cell" setup with 400mbps throughput.  Total cost - under $300.00.
</p><p>
Can anyone set this up on thair roof at home and report on how they've created a public wifi with decent range?  I'd want to see a mesh network of these<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>With 100mbps or lower , your limit is the network No it 's not .
Use a switch , not a dumb router .
A switch will recognize the source and destination address , so it 's 100 mbps between any two ports .
Even el-cheapo switches have a 4k-entry lookup table nowadays .
Now it 's true that wireless n , you 're limited to 100mbps per channel ( and you can actually achieve this ) .
There 's nothing to stop you from running 3 or 4 wireless routers on different channels in the same area , each connected directly to a different nic on the server .
Locate each wireless in a different area of the room , ( or centrally , with panels of aluminium foil to ensure that each one only " sees " a 90-degree area ) , with each one also jacked into the others in a star topology , and you 've got your own wifi " cell " setup with 400mbps throughput .
Total cost - under $ 300.00 .
Can anyone set this up on thair roof at home and report on how they 've created a public wifi with decent range ?
I 'd want to see a mesh network of these .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With 100mbps or lower, your limit is the network

No it's not.
Use a switch, not a dumb router.
A switch will recognize the source and destination address, so it's 100 mbps between any two ports.
Even el-cheapo switches have a 4k-entry lookup table nowadays.
Now it's true that wireless n, you're limited to 100mbps per channel (and you can actually achieve this).
There's nothing to stop you from running 3 or 4 wireless routers on different channels in the same area, each connected directly to a different nic on the server.
Locate each wireless in a different area of the room, (or centrally, with panels of aluminium foil to ensure that each one only "sees" a 90-degree area), with each one also jacked into the others in a star topology, and you've got your own wifi "cell" setup with 400mbps throughput.
Total cost - under $300.00.
Can anyone set this up on thair roof at home and report on how they've created a public wifi with decent range?
I'd want to see a mesh network of these ...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964984</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965084</id>
	<title>Re:Windows = A security hazard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264843080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>explains why linux freaks all live in windows-less home basements of their parents, then?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>explains why linux freaks all live in windows-less home basements of their parents , then ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>explains why linux freaks all live in windows-less home basements of their parents, then?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30966058</id>
	<title>Re:Is this part of the EF spectrum</title>
	<author>hedwards</author>
	<datestamp>1264850880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's Electro Magnetic Radiation. Generally people don't refer to parts too far beyond the visible spectrum as light as people aren't able to see them or use them directly or perceive them as light.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's Electro Magnetic Radiation .
Generally people do n't refer to parts too far beyond the visible spectrum as light as people are n't able to see them or use them directly or perceive them as light .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's Electro Magnetic Radiation.
Generally people don't refer to parts too far beyond the visible spectrum as light as people aren't able to see them or use them directly or perceive them as light.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30967042</id>
	<title>Laser ray that shoots thru walls</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264859940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Man it must be hell of a job trying to get CE (nee) safety clearance for this in Europe<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Man it must be hell of a job trying to get CE ( nee ) safety clearance for this in Europe : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Man it must be hell of a job trying to get CE (nee) safety clearance for this in Europe :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30967142</id>
	<title>Re:HP used to sell a product like this</title>
	<author>sillybilly</author>
	<datestamp>1264860600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why is it obsolete technology? I put lightbulbs/fluorescent/led up into little domes in the ceiling, and that's still not obsolete technology, so why not put IR repeaters up there too?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is it obsolete technology ?
I put lightbulbs/fluorescent/led up into little domes in the ceiling , and that 's still not obsolete technology , so why not put IR repeaters up there too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is it obsolete technology?
I put lightbulbs/fluorescent/led up into little domes in the ceiling, and that's still not obsolete technology, so why not put IR repeaters up there too?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964944</id>
	<title>unlikely to get anywhere</title>
	<author>v1</author>
	<datestamp>1264842120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>users won't tolerate  very intermittent connections, and won't tolerate having to aim their system at all.  I remember using irda brirefly, and it was very touchy.</p><p>Wifi is generally omnidirectional.  light doesn't work that way - you can get a very strong signal 20 feet from it, or a nonexistent signal six inches away, if you're in a bad spot.  And this effect occurs in <i>both directions</i>, and has <b>different deadzones</b>.  So not only are you having a problem receiving, you're also having a differnt problem sending, requiring a great deal more adjustment to get communications going.  Having to solve two positional problems simultaneously effectively quadruples the difficulty of the task.</p><p>It's also going to be a great deal more environmentally sensitive.  You can drop a bar or two if someone sets their laptop bag down beside your laptop and clouds direct line between you and the access point.  Imagine how much worse that can get with light, and at a greater distance - you won't just lose a bar or two, you're almost certain to get completely disconnected.  A couple chatting as they walk down the hall ten feet from you could ground you for several seconds, giving you absolutely no hint of what caused it.</p><p>No, this technology's not going anywhere.  Sure it works, but it's nowhere near as reliable as the public will demand.  Look how badly people flip out now over an occasional dropped call.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>users wo n't tolerate very intermittent connections , and wo n't tolerate having to aim their system at all .
I remember using irda brirefly , and it was very touchy.Wifi is generally omnidirectional .
light does n't work that way - you can get a very strong signal 20 feet from it , or a nonexistent signal six inches away , if you 're in a bad spot .
And this effect occurs in both directions , and has different deadzones .
So not only are you having a problem receiving , you 're also having a differnt problem sending , requiring a great deal more adjustment to get communications going .
Having to solve two positional problems simultaneously effectively quadruples the difficulty of the task.It 's also going to be a great deal more environmentally sensitive .
You can drop a bar or two if someone sets their laptop bag down beside your laptop and clouds direct line between you and the access point .
Imagine how much worse that can get with light , and at a greater distance - you wo n't just lose a bar or two , you 're almost certain to get completely disconnected .
A couple chatting as they walk down the hall ten feet from you could ground you for several seconds , giving you absolutely no hint of what caused it.No , this technology 's not going anywhere .
Sure it works , but it 's nowhere near as reliable as the public will demand .
Look how badly people flip out now over an occasional dropped call .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>users won't tolerate  very intermittent connections, and won't tolerate having to aim their system at all.
I remember using irda brirefly, and it was very touchy.Wifi is generally omnidirectional.
light doesn't work that way - you can get a very strong signal 20 feet from it, or a nonexistent signal six inches away, if you're in a bad spot.
And this effect occurs in both directions, and has different deadzones.
So not only are you having a problem receiving, you're also having a differnt problem sending, requiring a great deal more adjustment to get communications going.
Having to solve two positional problems simultaneously effectively quadruples the difficulty of the task.It's also going to be a great deal more environmentally sensitive.
You can drop a bar or two if someone sets their laptop bag down beside your laptop and clouds direct line between you and the access point.
Imagine how much worse that can get with light, and at a greater distance - you won't just lose a bar or two, you're almost certain to get completely disconnected.
A couple chatting as they walk down the hall ten feet from you could ground you for several seconds, giving you absolutely no hint of what caused it.No, this technology's not going anywhere.
Sure it works, but it's nowhere near as reliable as the public will demand.
Look how badly people flip out now over an occasional dropped call.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30967164</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong on one count</title>
	<author>TBoon</author>
	<datestamp>1264860840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>64MB for large raw images.  640MB for SD video.</p></div><p>I would dread doing anything involving RAW on a system with 64MB RAM. On the other hand, I quite happily edited DV-video on 256 MB RAM (or less?) about a decade ago...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>64MB for large raw images .
640MB for SD video.I would dread doing anything involving RAW on a system with 64MB RAM .
On the other hand , I quite happily edited DV-video on 256 MB RAM ( or less ?
) about a decade ago.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>64MB for large raw images.
640MB for SD video.I would dread doing anything involving RAW on a system with 64MB RAM.
On the other hand, I quite happily edited DV-video on 256 MB RAM (or less?
) about a decade ago...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30967780</id>
	<title>Re:Windows = A security hazard</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1264868460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So THAT is why geeks live in the basement! For security!<br>From crackers... From sunlight... From <em>girls</em>!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So THAT is why geeks live in the basement !
For security ! From crackers... From sunlight... From girls !
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So THAT is why geeks live in the basement!
For security!From crackers... From sunlight... From girls!
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30968970</id>
	<title>Re:Light cant pass thru walls</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264932360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I kept pushing my cable into the wall and it couldn't penetrate it either<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I kept pushing my cable into the wall and it could n't penetrate it either ; ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I kept pushing my cable into the wall and it couldn't penetrate it either ;]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965040</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong on one count</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1264842780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>640KB is enough for some people.  6.4MB is enough for a few more, 64MB for a lot more, 640MB for a lot of people.  Each increment increases the things you can do.  64KB is enough for editing text.  640KB for rich text and small images.  6.4MB for larger images.  64MB for large raw images.  640MB for SD video.  6.4GB for HD video.  64GB for volumetric 3D images (the visible human dataset is around 40GB).  640GB for volumetric 3D movies.  Are there things that 640GB isn't enough for?  Almost certainly, but the number of people wanting to do them is relatively small.  Far more people want to edit text than want to edit volumetric data.</p><p>
In terms of network speed, 802.11n is fast enough to stream HD video.  BluRay movies are at most 50Mb/s, while 802.11n has a theoretical speed of 300Mb/s and can get 50Mb/s in the real world quite happily.  Are there uses where it's not fast enough?  Sure, but not many yet.  Eventually it probably will become common to do things that make 802.11n seem slow, but it isn't yet.  The only reason why GigE was deployed in a lot of places was that it was as cheap as 100Mbit Ethernet.  </p><p>
I moved from 100Mb/s wired Ethernet to 802.11g because, for most uses, the convenience of not having to use a wire was more useful than the extra speed.  From there, I'd rather move to 802.11n and have one access point for the house than 1Gb/s optical networking and need one in every room.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>640KB is enough for some people .
6.4MB is enough for a few more , 64MB for a lot more , 640MB for a lot of people .
Each increment increases the things you can do .
64KB is enough for editing text .
640KB for rich text and small images .
6.4MB for larger images .
64MB for large raw images .
640MB for SD video .
6.4GB for HD video .
64GB for volumetric 3D images ( the visible human dataset is around 40GB ) .
640GB for volumetric 3D movies .
Are there things that 640GB is n't enough for ?
Almost certainly , but the number of people wanting to do them is relatively small .
Far more people want to edit text than want to edit volumetric data .
In terms of network speed , 802.11n is fast enough to stream HD video .
BluRay movies are at most 50Mb/s , while 802.11n has a theoretical speed of 300Mb/s and can get 50Mb/s in the real world quite happily .
Are there uses where it 's not fast enough ?
Sure , but not many yet .
Eventually it probably will become common to do things that make 802.11n seem slow , but it is n't yet .
The only reason why GigE was deployed in a lot of places was that it was as cheap as 100Mbit Ethernet .
I moved from 100Mb/s wired Ethernet to 802.11g because , for most uses , the convenience of not having to use a wire was more useful than the extra speed .
From there , I 'd rather move to 802.11n and have one access point for the house than 1Gb/s optical networking and need one in every room .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>640KB is enough for some people.
6.4MB is enough for a few more, 64MB for a lot more, 640MB for a lot of people.
Each increment increases the things you can do.
64KB is enough for editing text.
640KB for rich text and small images.
6.4MB for larger images.
64MB for large raw images.
640MB for SD video.
6.4GB for HD video.
64GB for volumetric 3D images (the visible human dataset is around 40GB).
640GB for volumetric 3D movies.
Are there things that 640GB isn't enough for?
Almost certainly, but the number of people wanting to do them is relatively small.
Far more people want to edit text than want to edit volumetric data.
In terms of network speed, 802.11n is fast enough to stream HD video.
BluRay movies are at most 50Mb/s, while 802.11n has a theoretical speed of 300Mb/s and can get 50Mb/s in the real world quite happily.
Are there uses where it's not fast enough?
Sure, but not many yet.
Eventually it probably will become common to do things that make 802.11n seem slow, but it isn't yet.
The only reason why GigE was deployed in a lot of places was that it was as cheap as 100Mbit Ethernet.
I moved from 100Mb/s wired Ethernet to 802.11g because, for most uses, the convenience of not having to use a wire was more useful than the extra speed.
From there, I'd rather move to 802.11n and have one access point for the house than 1Gb/s optical networking and need one in every room.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30966352</id>
	<title>Life Without Walls</title>
	<author>epp\_b</author>
	<datestamp>1264853640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Guess it won't work with Windows<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Guess it wo n't work with Windows ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guess it won't work with Windows ;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964580</id>
	<title>stop closing that door</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264882920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it's interrupting my downloads!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's interrupting my downloads !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's interrupting my downloads!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964772</id>
	<title>Blindness</title>
	<author>enriquevagu</author>
	<datestamp>1264884240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Erm.... <p><div class="quote"><p>"high-powered laser diode"</p></div><p>
Doesn't it cause blindness? Isn't it the reason for fibers to have power sensing mechanisms that detect broken segments, for safety reasons?
</p><p>
Is this valid only for rooms without windows and without people?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Erm.... " high-powered laser diode " Does n't it cause blindness ?
Is n't it the reason for fibers to have power sensing mechanisms that detect broken segments , for safety reasons ?
Is this valid only for rooms without windows and without people ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Erm.... "high-powered laser diode"
Doesn't it cause blindness?
Isn't it the reason for fibers to have power sensing mechanisms that detect broken segments, for safety reasons?
Is this valid only for rooms without windows and without people?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30972612</id>
	<title>Feature</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264969620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's great how the summary turns "not being able to stream across a room" into a feature, and not a disadvantage. If it's in the same room, I can probably cable it just fine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's great how the summary turns " not being able to stream across a room " into a feature , and not a disadvantage .
If it 's in the same room , I can probably cable it just fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's great how the summary turns "not being able to stream across a room" into a feature, and not a disadvantage.
If it's in the same room, I can probably cable it just fine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965554</id>
	<title>Give thanks to the CSIRO</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264846620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ever wondered what the wifi patent suit by the Australian CSIRO against a bunch of American megacorps covered?
It was the algorithms and technology to solve just the problem you've just mentioned (in the RF band). The engineers were Radio Telescope scientists, see the story and transcript at <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/2708730.htm" title="abc.net.au" rel="nofollow">http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/2708730.htm</a> [abc.net.au]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever wondered what the wifi patent suit by the Australian CSIRO against a bunch of American megacorps covered ?
It was the algorithms and technology to solve just the problem you 've just mentioned ( in the RF band ) .
The engineers were Radio Telescope scientists , see the story and transcript at http : //www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/2708730.htm [ abc.net.au ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever wondered what the wifi patent suit by the Australian CSIRO against a bunch of American megacorps covered?
It was the algorithms and technology to solve just the problem you've just mentioned (in the RF band).
The engineers were Radio Telescope scientists, see the story and transcript at http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/2708730.htm [abc.net.au]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30967952</id>
	<title>Re:security</title>
	<author>kWahab</author>
	<datestamp>1264870920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How many homes don't have windows?</p> </div><p>
My home doesn't have windows! it's full of penguins though..</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How many homes do n't have windows ?
My home does n't have windows !
it 's full of penguins though. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many homes don't have windows?
My home doesn't have windows!
it's full of penguins though..
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965960</id>
	<title>This could put a crimp in war-driving</title>
	<author>Pictish Prince</author>
	<datestamp>1264850160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That being said, there are a hell of a lot more uses for a LAN than internet access.  Can you imagine a LAN party at 1Gbps?</htmltext>
<tokenext>That being said , there are a hell of a lot more uses for a LAN than internet access .
Can you imagine a LAN party at 1Gbps ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That being said, there are a hell of a lot more uses for a LAN than internet access.
Can you imagine a LAN party at 1Gbps?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964612</id>
	<title>Headaches...</title>
	<author>venkateshkumar99</author>
	<datestamp>1264883160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the LASER is anywhere in the visual spectrum, the whole house could become a perpetual disco<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the LASER is anywhere in the visual spectrum , the whole house could become a perpetual disco ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the LASER is anywhere in the visual spectrum, the whole house could become a perpetual disco ;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965938</id>
	<title>Re:Ah, and is it Useful?</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1264850040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The other point is that for most applications, it's simply unnecessary to improve over the speed of modern wireless.</p></div><p>There's still video.  IIRC, uncompressed 1080p/60 is roughly 3Gbps.  Now you can still stream video without hitting 3Gbps, but then you theoretically lose quality and also you need more power to decompress the video stream on the other end.
</p><p>Even ignoring the aspect of real-time streaming, people are buying/storing video at home, which even highly compressed can be several hundred megabytes per hour; if you want to copy those video files from one computer to another, you'll want some speed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The other point is that for most applications , it 's simply unnecessary to improve over the speed of modern wireless.There 's still video .
IIRC , uncompressed 1080p/60 is roughly 3Gbps .
Now you can still stream video without hitting 3Gbps , but then you theoretically lose quality and also you need more power to decompress the video stream on the other end .
Even ignoring the aspect of real-time streaming , people are buying/storing video at home , which even highly compressed can be several hundred megabytes per hour ; if you want to copy those video files from one computer to another , you 'll want some speed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The other point is that for most applications, it's simply unnecessary to improve over the speed of modern wireless.There's still video.
IIRC, uncompressed 1080p/60 is roughly 3Gbps.
Now you can still stream video without hitting 3Gbps, but then you theoretically lose quality and also you need more power to decompress the video stream on the other end.
Even ignoring the aspect of real-time streaming, people are buying/storing video at home, which even highly compressed can be several hundred megabytes per hour; if you want to copy those video files from one computer to another, you'll want some speed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964588</id>
	<title>Or, you could just use cables</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1264882980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is only going to work in the small area that the laser can get to, so cables might be a better solution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is only going to work in the small area that the laser can get to , so cables might be a better solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is only going to work in the small area that the laser can get to, so cables might be a better solution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30969574</id>
	<title>my bionic eye 0wns</title>
	<author>almondo</author>
	<datestamp>1264943760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, but my bionic eye (I bought it on the down low from Steve Austin a while back after his show was cancelled) will be able to glaze over and jack all the data from a mile away if they have a window.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , but my bionic eye ( I bought it on the down low from Steve Austin a while back after his show was cancelled ) will be able to glaze over and jack all the data from a mile away if they have a window .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, but my bionic eye (I bought it on the down low from Steve Austin a while back after his show was cancelled) will be able to glaze over and jack all the data from a mile away if they have a window.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964788</id>
	<title>The future of wireshark</title>
	<author>Johnny Grep</author>
	<datestamp>1264884360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Instead of packet sniffing, we'll be packet peeking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead of packet sniffing , we 'll be packet peeking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead of packet sniffing, we'll be packet peeking.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965394</id>
	<title>Security via opacity?</title>
	<author>VortexCortex</author>
	<datestamp>1264845360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Traditional radio frequency systems (Wi-Fi , WiMAX etc.) do not require line of sight transmission, but can pass through some substances and so present a security problem. Light, in a room without windows, will not escape the room, improving security."</p></div><p>As if security through obscurity weren't bad enough, now we'll have security via opacity... which can easily be defeated by slipping a fiber optic cable under the door, or through a small hole in the wall.</p><p>Bottom line: You'll still need to encrypt your data and it won't be any more secure than Wi-Fi.  Both Wi-Fi and Optical signals will only be as secure as the encryption system they use.</p><p>So, Optical transmission IS NOT more secure than Wi-Fi, and it sucks at traveling through walls (unlike Wi-Fi)... Wired 1Gps networks don't "leak" from the room with the door and windows open either... ( why we should care about this? )</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Traditional radio frequency systems ( Wi-Fi , WiMAX etc .
) do not require line of sight transmission , but can pass through some substances and so present a security problem .
Light , in a room without windows , will not escape the room , improving security .
" As if security through obscurity were n't bad enough , now we 'll have security via opacity... which can easily be defeated by slipping a fiber optic cable under the door , or through a small hole in the wall.Bottom line : You 'll still need to encrypt your data and it wo n't be any more secure than Wi-Fi .
Both Wi-Fi and Optical signals will only be as secure as the encryption system they use.So , Optical transmission IS NOT more secure than Wi-Fi , and it sucks at traveling through walls ( unlike Wi-Fi ) ... Wired 1Gps networks do n't " leak " from the room with the door and windows open either... ( why we should care about this ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Traditional radio frequency systems (Wi-Fi , WiMAX etc.
) do not require line of sight transmission, but can pass through some substances and so present a security problem.
Light, in a room without windows, will not escape the room, improving security.
"As if security through obscurity weren't bad enough, now we'll have security via opacity... which can easily be defeated by slipping a fiber optic cable under the door, or through a small hole in the wall.Bottom line: You'll still need to encrypt your data and it won't be any more secure than Wi-Fi.
Both Wi-Fi and Optical signals will only be as secure as the encryption system they use.So, Optical transmission IS NOT more secure than Wi-Fi, and it sucks at traveling through walls (unlike Wi-Fi)... Wired 1Gps networks don't "leak" from the room with the door and windows open either... ( why we should care about this?
)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30967152</id>
	<title>Re:Headaches...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264860720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can possibly read the TX light on a modem. But on modern Ethernet the speeds are much too high to read individual bits. Plus there's no guarantee that the light mean "bit" as opposed to "packet" or "TX power on", and the later two don't leak much information.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can possibly read the TX light on a modem .
But on modern Ethernet the speeds are much too high to read individual bits .
Plus there 's no guarantee that the light mean " bit " as opposed to " packet " or " TX power on " , and the later two do n't leak much information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can possibly read the TX light on a modem.
But on modern Ethernet the speeds are much too high to read individual bits.
Plus there's no guarantee that the light mean "bit" as opposed to "packet" or "TX power on", and the later two don't leak much information.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30966702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964620</id>
	<title>Ah, and is it Useful?</title>
	<author>Oxford\_Comma\_Lover</author>
	<datestamp>1264883160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>&gt; Light, in a room without windows, will not escape the room, improving security.</i></p><p>Although at a cost?  This system might be useful for Universities that need to provide wireless to a hundred computers in the same room, but it would be almost useless for homes and such, where one of the big reasons to go wireless is to avoid the need to rewire the house.  To use a 1 Gbps signal, you'd need a hard-line to the room.</p><p>The other point is that for most applications, it's simply unnecessary to improve over the speed of modern wireless.</p><p>Still, there are a few niches where this would be useful, and it sounds like a really fun idea to develop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Light , in a room without windows , will not escape the room , improving security.Although at a cost ?
This system might be useful for Universities that need to provide wireless to a hundred computers in the same room , but it would be almost useless for homes and such , where one of the big reasons to go wireless is to avoid the need to rewire the house .
To use a 1 Gbps signal , you 'd need a hard-line to the room.The other point is that for most applications , it 's simply unnecessary to improve over the speed of modern wireless.Still , there are a few niches where this would be useful , and it sounds like a really fun idea to develop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Light, in a room without windows, will not escape the room, improving security.Although at a cost?
This system might be useful for Universities that need to provide wireless to a hundred computers in the same room, but it would be almost useless for homes and such, where one of the big reasons to go wireless is to avoid the need to rewire the house.
To use a 1 Gbps signal, you'd need a hard-line to the room.The other point is that for most applications, it's simply unnecessary to improve over the speed of modern wireless.Still, there are a few niches where this would be useful, and it sounds like a really fun idea to develop.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30966532</id>
	<title>Re:Self interference</title>
	<author>Vellmont</author>
	<datestamp>1264855380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i><br>I don't see how this can work at the speed they're claiming. 1+ Gbps means they're pulsing that light at sub-nanosecond intervals<br></i><br>What makes you think that?  1+ Gb/sec doesn't mean modulating at 1 billion times/second, it's a raw bit rate.  Why couldn't they be using some encoding scheme that gets multiple bits/pulse?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see how this can work at the speed they 're claiming .
1 + Gbps means they 're pulsing that light at sub-nanosecond intervalsWhat makes you think that ?
1 + Gb/sec does n't mean modulating at 1 billion times/second , it 's a raw bit rate .
Why could n't they be using some encoding scheme that gets multiple bits/pulse ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see how this can work at the speed they're claiming.
1+ Gbps means they're pulsing that light at sub-nanosecond intervalsWhat makes you think that?
1+ Gb/sec doesn't mean modulating at 1 billion times/second, it's a raw bit rate.
Why couldn't they be using some encoding scheme that gets multiple bits/pulse?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30971262</id>
	<title>sounds good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264960980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but it depends what's worse for your health, being zapped with wi-fi microwaves, or light beams. Also, why can't u use it outside? There's light interference whether inside or outside.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but it depends what 's worse for your health , being zapped with wi-fi microwaves , or light beams .
Also , why ca n't u use it outside ?
There 's light interference whether inside or outside .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but it depends what's worse for your health, being zapped with wi-fi microwaves, or light beams.
Also, why can't u use it outside?
There's light interference whether inside or outside.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964784</id>
	<title>biznat34</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264884300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">THE FRUITLESS</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>THE FRUITLESS [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>THE FRUITLESS [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964984</id>
	<title>1gbps is extremely useful</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264842420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you have more than one computer, and that would be the sort of situation that this is targeted at (if you have only one you probalby have your cable modem plugged right in to it) 1gbps lets you transfer quickly between them. With 100mbps or lower, your limit is the network. Anything over the network is noticeably slower than something on your computer. Things can take a long time to transfer. However with 1gbps, the limitation is often as not something in your computer like the harddrive. Speeds over the network are near enough to local speeds you don't notice the difference. Copying something to a remote computer is as fast as copying it locally. It's very nice.</p><p>So sure, I have only 15mbps to the Internet. You could say for net access 100mbps is more than enough and be right. However I have a 1gbps wired network. That way my local systems can communicate extremely quickly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have more than one computer , and that would be the sort of situation that this is targeted at ( if you have only one you probalby have your cable modem plugged right in to it ) 1gbps lets you transfer quickly between them .
With 100mbps or lower , your limit is the network .
Anything over the network is noticeably slower than something on your computer .
Things can take a long time to transfer .
However with 1gbps , the limitation is often as not something in your computer like the harddrive .
Speeds over the network are near enough to local speeds you do n't notice the difference .
Copying something to a remote computer is as fast as copying it locally .
It 's very nice.So sure , I have only 15mbps to the Internet .
You could say for net access 100mbps is more than enough and be right .
However I have a 1gbps wired network .
That way my local systems can communicate extremely quickly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you have more than one computer, and that would be the sort of situation that this is targeted at (if you have only one you probalby have your cable modem plugged right in to it) 1gbps lets you transfer quickly between them.
With 100mbps or lower, your limit is the network.
Anything over the network is noticeably slower than something on your computer.
Things can take a long time to transfer.
However with 1gbps, the limitation is often as not something in your computer like the harddrive.
Speeds over the network are near enough to local speeds you don't notice the difference.
Copying something to a remote computer is as fast as copying it locally.
It's very nice.So sure, I have only 15mbps to the Internet.
You could say for net access 100mbps is more than enough and be right.
However I have a 1gbps wired network.
That way my local systems can communicate extremely quickly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965936</id>
	<title>Re:Or, you could just use cables</title>
	<author>eiapoce</author>
	<datestamp>1264849980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Get ready to buy telescopes to steal neighbor's internet!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get ready to buy telescopes to steal neighbor 's internet ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get ready to buy telescopes to steal neighbor's internet!!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964950</id>
	<title>What happens if...</title>
	<author>magsol</author>
	<datestamp>1264842120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>...a friend of mine runs into the room in the middle of a download and starts playing with a flashlight?</htmltext>
<tokenext>...a friend of mine runs into the room in the middle of a download and starts playing with a flashlight ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...a friend of mine runs into the room in the middle of a download and starts playing with a flashlight?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30966280</id>
	<title>what about the return data?</title>
	<author>CFD339</author>
	<datestamp>1264852860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; If I ignore the encoding issues and assume some mix of frequency and amplitude shifts or whatever to get that kind of bandwidth, I can go along with the idea that a well placed optical transmitter could bounce light around the room enough to do this -- but what about the return signal from the workstation or device?   That would hardly be placed in an optimal location.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Further, consider that wireless is most useful for mobile and transient devices -- laptops, sure; but what about cell phones, pda's, sensors, and all manner of other wireless things.  These are frequently -- even usually -- not placed in direct visual sight.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Frankly, I see this technology as potentially useful in long distance settings between stationary platforms (particularly in space) but not so much for day to day campus or home-office use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>      If I ignore the encoding issues and assume some mix of frequency and amplitude shifts or whatever to get that kind of bandwidth , I can go along with the idea that a well placed optical transmitter could bounce light around the room enough to do this -- but what about the return signal from the workstation or device ?
That would hardly be placed in an optimal location .
      Further , consider that wireless is most useful for mobile and transient devices -- laptops , sure ; but what about cell phones , pda 's , sensors , and all manner of other wireless things .
These are frequently -- even usually -- not placed in direct visual sight .
      Frankly , I see this technology as potentially useful in long distance settings between stationary platforms ( particularly in space ) but not so much for day to day campus or home-office use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
      If I ignore the encoding issues and assume some mix of frequency and amplitude shifts or whatever to get that kind of bandwidth, I can go along with the idea that a well placed optical transmitter could bounce light around the room enough to do this -- but what about the return signal from the workstation or device?
That would hardly be placed in an optimal location.
      Further, consider that wireless is most useful for mobile and transient devices -- laptops, sure; but what about cell phones, pda's, sensors, and all manner of other wireless things.
These are frequently -- even usually -- not placed in direct visual sight.
      Frankly, I see this technology as potentially useful in long distance settings between stationary platforms (particularly in space) but not so much for day to day campus or home-office use.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964886</id>
	<title>Light cant pass thru walls</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264884960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which makes its mostly useless for 99\% of us, unless you run cables to repeaters everywhere, which sort of defeats the purpose.</p><p>And how well would it work outside? Not well i would imagine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which makes its mostly useless for 99 \ % of us , unless you run cables to repeaters everywhere , which sort of defeats the purpose.And how well would it work outside ?
Not well i would imagine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which makes its mostly useless for 99\% of us, unless you run cables to repeaters everywhere, which sort of defeats the purpose.And how well would it work outside?
Not well i would imagine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964728</id>
	<title>Windows = A security hazard</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1264884000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Light, in a room without windows, will not escape the room, improving security."</p></div></blockquote><p>Well duh, everyone knows that avoiding Windows improves your security.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Light , in a room without windows , will not escape the room , improving security .
" Well duh , everyone knows that avoiding Windows improves your security .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Light, in a room without windows, will not escape the room, improving security.
"Well duh, everyone knows that avoiding Windows improves your security.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30966348</id>
	<title>Re:security</title>
	<author>antirelic</author>
	<datestamp>1264853640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Improved security is a non-starter. Sure, you gain the advantage of being able to seal in the light, but light that escapes can be detected and captured at a much greater distance. Unless they are using some form of signal shaping form of encryption, which I doubt would be a standard consumer grade application, its better to talk about what advantages can be gained over WiFi.</p><p>My first thought would be background noise. If this wireless optical network can operate on wavelengths that are not commonly found in a living area, then its big advantage would be interference. Currently, radio frequencies in nearly all ranges are becoming greatly over used, from home mimo networks, do it yourself UAV's, and emergency responder networks. The major advantage of optical would be the lack of congestion. Also being able to more easily focus an optical communication path could also be another advantage. Radio is very leaky and easily disrupted and scattered by a plethora of different things. Light is much more reliable (though it also has its environmental enemies).</p><p>Yeah, sounds like a nice alternative to crowded wireless medium.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Improved security is a non-starter .
Sure , you gain the advantage of being able to seal in the light , but light that escapes can be detected and captured at a much greater distance .
Unless they are using some form of signal shaping form of encryption , which I doubt would be a standard consumer grade application , its better to talk about what advantages can be gained over WiFi.My first thought would be background noise .
If this wireless optical network can operate on wavelengths that are not commonly found in a living area , then its big advantage would be interference .
Currently , radio frequencies in nearly all ranges are becoming greatly over used , from home mimo networks , do it yourself UAV 's , and emergency responder networks .
The major advantage of optical would be the lack of congestion .
Also being able to more easily focus an optical communication path could also be another advantage .
Radio is very leaky and easily disrupted and scattered by a plethora of different things .
Light is much more reliable ( though it also has its environmental enemies ) .Yeah , sounds like a nice alternative to crowded wireless medium .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Improved security is a non-starter.
Sure, you gain the advantage of being able to seal in the light, but light that escapes can be detected and captured at a much greater distance.
Unless they are using some form of signal shaping form of encryption, which I doubt would be a standard consumer grade application, its better to talk about what advantages can be gained over WiFi.My first thought would be background noise.
If this wireless optical network can operate on wavelengths that are not commonly found in a living area, then its big advantage would be interference.
Currently, radio frequencies in nearly all ranges are becoming greatly over used, from home mimo networks, do it yourself UAV's, and emergency responder networks.
The major advantage of optical would be the lack of congestion.
Also being able to more easily focus an optical communication path could also be another advantage.
Radio is very leaky and easily disrupted and scattered by a plethora of different things.
Light is much more reliable (though it also has its environmental enemies).Yeah, sounds like a nice alternative to crowded wireless medium.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964688</id>
	<title>Windows</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264883640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;  Traditional radio frequency systems (Wi-Fi , WiMAX etc.) do not require line of sight transmission, but can pass through some substances and so present a security problem.  Light, in a room without windows, will not escape the room, improving security.</p><p>Geeze, there you guys go again, always blaming windows for being so insecure!</p><p>Doors are a part of the problem, too, you know!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Traditional radio frequency systems ( Wi-Fi , WiMAX etc .
) do not require line of sight transmission , but can pass through some substances and so present a security problem .
Light , in a room without windows , will not escape the room , improving security.Geeze , there you guys go again , always blaming windows for being so insecure ! Doors are a part of the problem , too , you know !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;  Traditional radio frequency systems (Wi-Fi , WiMAX etc.
) do not require line of sight transmission, but can pass through some substances and so present a security problem.
Light, in a room without windows, will not escape the room, improving security.Geeze, there you guys go again, always blaming windows for being so insecure!Doors are a part of the problem, too, you know!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30968900</id>
	<title>Re:Ah, and is it Useful?</title>
	<author>binaryspiral</author>
	<datestamp>1264930980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We're looking for such a solution for a lecture room that also is used for online testing. Do we deploy three wireless AP's to handle the load of sixty to seventy wireless laptops or just one of these optical devices? Then account for modification or addition of optical wireless gear to each of the laptops and my costs are now far beyond that of the three APs.</p><p>Pretty cool solution - but not very practical for most situations.</p><p>It's an answer looking for a question.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're looking for such a solution for a lecture room that also is used for online testing .
Do we deploy three wireless AP 's to handle the load of sixty to seventy wireless laptops or just one of these optical devices ?
Then account for modification or addition of optical wireless gear to each of the laptops and my costs are now far beyond that of the three APs.Pretty cool solution - but not very practical for most situations.It 's an answer looking for a question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're looking for such a solution for a lecture room that also is used for online testing.
Do we deploy three wireless AP's to handle the load of sixty to seventy wireless laptops or just one of these optical devices?
Then account for modification or addition of optical wireless gear to each of the laptops and my costs are now far beyond that of the three APs.Pretty cool solution - but not very practical for most situations.It's an answer looking for a question.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964606</id>
	<title>Useless for me</title>
	<author>aBaldrich</author>
	<datestamp>1264883100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I like to shut the door of my room while watching my movies and other stuff.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like to shut the door of my room while watching my movies and other stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like to shut the door of my room while watching my movies and other stuff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965546</id>
	<title>Mirrors.</title>
	<author>Toze</author>
	<datestamp>1264846560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny thing about light. You can reflect it, direct it, quick rewrite it- er, anyway. It'll be like that scene in the Mummy sequel, only instead of mirrors, gold, and flesh-eating scarabs, it'll be mirrors, internet, and botnets.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D
</p><p>Disco ball of internet! Woo!
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny thing about light .
You can reflect it , direct it , quick rewrite it- er , anyway .
It 'll be like that scene in the Mummy sequel , only instead of mirrors , gold , and flesh-eating scarabs , it 'll be mirrors , internet , and botnets .
: D Disco ball of internet !
Woo !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny thing about light.
You can reflect it, direct it, quick rewrite it- er, anyway.
It'll be like that scene in the Mummy sequel, only instead of mirrors, gold, and flesh-eating scarabs, it'll be mirrors, internet, and botnets.
:D
Disco ball of internet!
Woo!
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30976516</id>
	<title>Re:Windows = A security hazard</title>
	<author>ErkDemon</author>
	<datestamp>1264950420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course, if you want to ensure that the optical links between your devices are more secure, you could try networking your room with a collection of long, thin, hollow, flexible cylindrical light-guards. A system of tubes, if you will.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , if you want to ensure that the optical links between your devices are more secure , you could try networking your room with a collection of long , thin , hollow , flexible cylindrical light-guards .
A system of tubes , if you will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, if you want to ensure that the optical links between your devices are more secure, you could try networking your room with a collection of long, thin, hollow, flexible cylindrical light-guards.
A system of tubes, if you will.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964674</id>
	<title>security</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264883580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How many homes don't have windows?  Of those homes, how often is it that there is a need to connect with a computer inside a closed room?  Any system that can connect to a computer inside a closed room can also be connected to from outside the house.  Any system that can't be connected to from outside the house also can not connect to a system with the door shut.  The number of times the signal can bounce off walls would significantly affect the range of the system.  So while a direct path between floors of a house may be 10 meters, the path through the house from the top floor going around everything that is opaque to the system might be 50-60 meters and quite possibly out of range.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many homes do n't have windows ?
Of those homes , how often is it that there is a need to connect with a computer inside a closed room ?
Any system that can connect to a computer inside a closed room can also be connected to from outside the house .
Any system that ca n't be connected to from outside the house also can not connect to a system with the door shut .
The number of times the signal can bounce off walls would significantly affect the range of the system .
So while a direct path between floors of a house may be 10 meters , the path through the house from the top floor going around everything that is opaque to the system might be 50-60 meters and quite possibly out of range .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many homes don't have windows?
Of those homes, how often is it that there is a need to connect with a computer inside a closed room?
Any system that can connect to a computer inside a closed room can also be connected to from outside the house.
Any system that can't be connected to from outside the house also can not connect to a system with the door shut.
The number of times the signal can bounce off walls would significantly affect the range of the system.
So while a direct path between floors of a house may be 10 meters, the path through the house from the top floor going around everything that is opaque to the system might be 50-60 meters and quite possibly out of range.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30967790</id>
	<title>Re:What happens if...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1264868580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just like with a remote control, or with the radio, the receiver always has a frequency filter, and then demodulates it. (Because it&rsquo;s likely to be FM or AM or something.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just like with a remote control , or with the radio , the receiver always has a frequency filter , and then demodulates it .
( Because it    s likely to be FM or AM or something .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just like with a remote control, or with the radio, the receiver always has a frequency filter, and then demodulates it.
(Because it’s likely to be FM or AM or something.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965450</id>
	<title>Re:HP used to sell a product like this</title>
	<author>atamido</author>
	<datestamp>1264845780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The opposite of this has actually been used with casinos and hospitals for tracking things in rooms.  Employees and/or patients wear IR transmitting badges or wristbands that transmit a burst every so often, which are picked up by receivers in every room.  It's a simple method for tracking people's movements over time.  It's a good way to find out about employee theft in a casino.  Also, for example, they would place wristband transmitters around an infant's wrist.  If someone tried to cut off the band (so as to kidnap the infant) it would immediately begin transmitting at max power, alerting the staff.</p><p>Of course this was probably 15 years ago that I can confirm it being used, so I don't know that it's still being used.  It's not a bad idea either at the transmitters/receivers are easily room specific, so it's probably much simpler than trying to triangulate with signal strength.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The opposite of this has actually been used with casinos and hospitals for tracking things in rooms .
Employees and/or patients wear IR transmitting badges or wristbands that transmit a burst every so often , which are picked up by receivers in every room .
It 's a simple method for tracking people 's movements over time .
It 's a good way to find out about employee theft in a casino .
Also , for example , they would place wristband transmitters around an infant 's wrist .
If someone tried to cut off the band ( so as to kidnap the infant ) it would immediately begin transmitting at max power , alerting the staff.Of course this was probably 15 years ago that I can confirm it being used , so I do n't know that it 's still being used .
It 's not a bad idea either at the transmitters/receivers are easily room specific , so it 's probably much simpler than trying to triangulate with signal strength .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The opposite of this has actually been used with casinos and hospitals for tracking things in rooms.
Employees and/or patients wear IR transmitting badges or wristbands that transmit a burst every so often, which are picked up by receivers in every room.
It's a simple method for tracking people's movements over time.
It's a good way to find out about employee theft in a casino.
Also, for example, they would place wristband transmitters around an infant's wrist.
If someone tried to cut off the band (so as to kidnap the infant) it would immediately begin transmitting at max power, alerting the staff.Of course this was probably 15 years ago that I can confirm it being used, so I don't know that it's still being used.
It's not a bad idea either at the transmitters/receivers are easily room specific, so it's probably much simpler than trying to triangulate with signal strength.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30973680</id>
	<title>Re:Point to point</title>
	<author>zill</author>
	<datestamp>1264932300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Just recently there was someone who was messing about with a "made in china" class 3B laser device that draws animated and decorative patterns, the idiot was pointing it at everyone in the room I was in. I told him to stop but he kept playing with it. Sure a class 3B does not automatically make you blind, but you don't go positioning it where it can hit people in the eye directly. And you should stop doing that when people tell you to stop.</p></div><p>Actually class 3B lasers causes <b>immediate and permanent</b> damage to eyes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just recently there was someone who was messing about with a " made in china " class 3B laser device that draws animated and decorative patterns , the idiot was pointing it at everyone in the room I was in .
I told him to stop but he kept playing with it .
Sure a class 3B does not automatically make you blind , but you do n't go positioning it where it can hit people in the eye directly .
And you should stop doing that when people tell you to stop.Actually class 3B lasers causes immediate and permanent damage to eyes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just recently there was someone who was messing about with a "made in china" class 3B laser device that draws animated and decorative patterns, the idiot was pointing it at everyone in the room I was in.
I told him to stop but he kept playing with it.
Sure a class 3B does not automatically make you blind, but you don't go positioning it where it can hit people in the eye directly.
And you should stop doing that when people tell you to stop.Actually class 3B lasers causes immediate and permanent damage to eyes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30970350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30969832</id>
	<title>Re:Or, you could just use cables</title>
	<author>CastrTroy</author>
	<datestamp>1264947480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We already tried this.  It was called irda.  That's right.  Infra red data transfer.  Palm pilots used to support it back in the day.  A lot of laptops had it also.  It wasn't a bad thing. About the same speed as a serial port, which was the standard back then anyway.  If you need 1 GBPS speeds, and you have to be in the same room, you might as well use cables.  That way, you can get 1 GBPS x Number of cables, whereas things travelling over the electromagnetic spectrum seem to always have problems with interference, so the bandwidth has to be shared.  I can't think of too many devices where I would need 1 GBPS transfer speeds, but where I couldn't bother with a cable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We already tried this .
It was called irda .
That 's right .
Infra red data transfer .
Palm pilots used to support it back in the day .
A lot of laptops had it also .
It was n't a bad thing .
About the same speed as a serial port , which was the standard back then anyway .
If you need 1 GBPS speeds , and you have to be in the same room , you might as well use cables .
That way , you can get 1 GBPS x Number of cables , whereas things travelling over the electromagnetic spectrum seem to always have problems with interference , so the bandwidth has to be shared .
I ca n't think of too many devices where I would need 1 GBPS transfer speeds , but where I could n't bother with a cable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We already tried this.
It was called irda.
That's right.
Infra red data transfer.
Palm pilots used to support it back in the day.
A lot of laptops had it also.
It wasn't a bad thing.
About the same speed as a serial port, which was the standard back then anyway.
If you need 1 GBPS speeds, and you have to be in the same room, you might as well use cables.
That way, you can get 1 GBPS x Number of cables, whereas things travelling over the electromagnetic spectrum seem to always have problems with interference, so the bandwidth has to be shared.
I can't think of too many devices where I would need 1 GBPS transfer speeds, but where I couldn't bother with a cable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965108</id>
	<title>I'm curious of the on affect people with seizures</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264843260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm wondering what frequency this will oscillate at and if this will potentially effect people proned to seizures ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm wondering what frequency this will oscillate at and if this will potentially effect people proned to seizures ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm wondering what frequency this will oscillate at and if this will potentially effect people proned to seizures ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964632</id>
	<title>Of course often the room *does* have windows.</title>
	<author>mrjb</author>
	<datestamp>1264883280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's only more secure if it implements the same security measures (encryption, key based access) as current wireless (okay, if the light is infrared it may be stopped by windows.
<br> <br>
I don't think it will be a big contender for wireless though. The killer feature of wireless is that you don't have to drill holes in your walls to have network connectivity in the entire house. But if the network is optical, it will essentially be limited to the room where the base station is. Personally, I'd stick to my trusty old wires then. Reliable, secure, fast and low-cost, what more do you want?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's only more secure if it implements the same security measures ( encryption , key based access ) as current wireless ( okay , if the light is infrared it may be stopped by windows .
I do n't think it will be a big contender for wireless though .
The killer feature of wireless is that you do n't have to drill holes in your walls to have network connectivity in the entire house .
But if the network is optical , it will essentially be limited to the room where the base station is .
Personally , I 'd stick to my trusty old wires then .
Reliable , secure , fast and low-cost , what more do you want ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's only more secure if it implements the same security measures (encryption, key based access) as current wireless (okay, if the light is infrared it may be stopped by windows.
I don't think it will be a big contender for wireless though.
The killer feature of wireless is that you don't have to drill holes in your walls to have network connectivity in the entire house.
But if the network is optical, it will essentially be limited to the room where the base station is.
Personally, I'd stick to my trusty old wires then.
Reliable, secure, fast and low-cost, what more do you want?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964678</id>
	<title>Naturally</title>
	<author>Junta</author>
	<datestamp>1264883580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Light, in a room without windows, will not escape the room, improving security.</p></div><p>As usual, Windows makes networking less secure, why am I not surprised.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Light , in a room without windows , will not escape the room , improving security.As usual , Windows makes networking less secure , why am I not surprised .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Light, in a room without windows, will not escape the room, improving security.As usual, Windows makes networking less secure, why am I not surprised.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30970350</id>
	<title>Re:Point to point</title>
	<author>TheLink</author>
	<datestamp>1264953420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they geek it too much someone might go blind... Seriously.</p><p>The design might be safe since they'd be spreading out the laser, but it could become unsafe if someone starts collimating the light (or removing the "decollimator"). Especially since the "laser" in such devices is likely to be invisible to the eye (but still able to damage retinas).</p><p>The risk of someone making the "wifi" replacement into something dangerous is low, but too many people don't realize the dangers of lasers, so it might not be low enough.</p><p>Just recently there was someone who was messing about with a "made in china" class 3B laser device that draws animated and decorative patterns, the idiot was pointing it at everyone in the room I was in. I told him to stop but he kept playing with it. Sure a class 3B does not automatically make you blind, but you don't go positioning it where it can hit people in the eye directly. And you should stop doing that when people tell you to stop.</p><p>It's not the same as pointing a bright spotlight at someone. Evidence that it is much riskier is shown by articles like: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audience\_scanning" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audience\_scanning</a> [wikipedia.org]<br><a href="http://www.laserist.org/2008-07\_Russian-incident.htm" title="laserist.org">http://www.laserist.org/2008-07\_Russian-incident.htm</a> [laserist.org]</p><p>The amount of precautions you have to take to make it safe show that it's not like some normal bright light (more like light from an arc-welder - or even brighter).</p><p>So it's closer to pointing a loaded gun at someone, nobody gets hurt if there are no screw ups, but you've just made things a lot more dangerous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they geek it too much someone might go blind... Seriously.The design might be safe since they 'd be spreading out the laser , but it could become unsafe if someone starts collimating the light ( or removing the " decollimator " ) .
Especially since the " laser " in such devices is likely to be invisible to the eye ( but still able to damage retinas ) .The risk of someone making the " wifi " replacement into something dangerous is low , but too many people do n't realize the dangers of lasers , so it might not be low enough.Just recently there was someone who was messing about with a " made in china " class 3B laser device that draws animated and decorative patterns , the idiot was pointing it at everyone in the room I was in .
I told him to stop but he kept playing with it .
Sure a class 3B does not automatically make you blind , but you do n't go positioning it where it can hit people in the eye directly .
And you should stop doing that when people tell you to stop.It 's not the same as pointing a bright spotlight at someone .
Evidence that it is much riskier is shown by articles like : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audience \ _scanning [ wikipedia.org ] http : //www.laserist.org/2008-07 \ _Russian-incident.htm [ laserist.org ] The amount of precautions you have to take to make it safe show that it 's not like some normal bright light ( more like light from an arc-welder - or even brighter ) .So it 's closer to pointing a loaded gun at someone , nobody gets hurt if there are no screw ups , but you 've just made things a lot more dangerous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they geek it too much someone might go blind... Seriously.The design might be safe since they'd be spreading out the laser, but it could become unsafe if someone starts collimating the light (or removing the "decollimator").
Especially since the "laser" in such devices is likely to be invisible to the eye (but still able to damage retinas).The risk of someone making the "wifi" replacement into something dangerous is low, but too many people don't realize the dangers of lasers, so it might not be low enough.Just recently there was someone who was messing about with a "made in china" class 3B laser device that draws animated and decorative patterns, the idiot was pointing it at everyone in the room I was in.
I told him to stop but he kept playing with it.
Sure a class 3B does not automatically make you blind, but you don't go positioning it where it can hit people in the eye directly.
And you should stop doing that when people tell you to stop.It's not the same as pointing a bright spotlight at someone.
Evidence that it is much riskier is shown by articles like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audience\_scanning [wikipedia.org]http://www.laserist.org/2008-07\_Russian-incident.htm [laserist.org]The amount of precautions you have to take to make it safe show that it's not like some normal bright light (more like light from an arc-welder - or even brighter).So it's closer to pointing a loaded gun at someone, nobody gets hurt if there are no screw ups, but you've just made things a lot more dangerous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30966772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965920</id>
	<title>Re:Self interference</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264849860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://live.psu.edu/story/44147/rss68" title="psu.edu" rel="nofollow">Original press release by PSU</a> [psu.edu]</p><p>One of the researchers, <a href="http://www.ee.psu.edu/faculty/kavehrad/kavehrad1.html" title="psu.edu" rel="nofollow">Professor Mohsen Kavehrad</a> [psu.edu], has also worked on 100Gbps transmissions over 100m long Cat7, for example, so these people are not noobs playing with laser diodes from DVD-drives. The article mentions that "the researchers chose to take a different approach using multi-element transmitters and multi-branch optical receivers in a quasi-diffuse configuration." <a href="http://cictr.ee.psu.edu/research/wc/index.html" title="psu.edu" rel="nofollow">This article</a> [psu.edu] gives slightly more details: "The challenges regarding attenuation and multipath distortion can be overcome by using multi-spot diffuse configuration and fly-eye reception ( Kavehrad &amp; Yun, 1992 ). In this configuration, the transmitted beam is split in a control manner into several narrower beams by means of holographic beam-splitters. The narrower beams illuminate selected spots on a reflecting surface. Thus, path loss due to diffusion is reduced, and fly-eye receivers can use diversity combining techniques to increase signal-to-noise ratio."</p><p>What this means is that each receiver only works with one narrow beam which is unlikely to be affected by different path lengths in the same signal and the signal from multiple receiver pairs is aligned and combined to increase the signal to noise ratio.</p><p>To the guy who can't help but laugh at the notion of pulsing a little light on and off at 1GHz: That's exactly what they're doing. The magic is in the receiver.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Original press release by PSU [ psu.edu ] One of the researchers , Professor Mohsen Kavehrad [ psu.edu ] , has also worked on 100Gbps transmissions over 100m long Cat7 , for example , so these people are not noobs playing with laser diodes from DVD-drives .
The article mentions that " the researchers chose to take a different approach using multi-element transmitters and multi-branch optical receivers in a quasi-diffuse configuration .
" This article [ psu.edu ] gives slightly more details : " The challenges regarding attenuation and multipath distortion can be overcome by using multi-spot diffuse configuration and fly-eye reception ( Kavehrad &amp; Yun , 1992 ) .
In this configuration , the transmitted beam is split in a control manner into several narrower beams by means of holographic beam-splitters .
The narrower beams illuminate selected spots on a reflecting surface .
Thus , path loss due to diffusion is reduced , and fly-eye receivers can use diversity combining techniques to increase signal-to-noise ratio .
" What this means is that each receiver only works with one narrow beam which is unlikely to be affected by different path lengths in the same signal and the signal from multiple receiver pairs is aligned and combined to increase the signal to noise ratio.To the guy who ca n't help but laugh at the notion of pulsing a little light on and off at 1GHz : That 's exactly what they 're doing .
The magic is in the receiver .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Original press release by PSU [psu.edu]One of the researchers, Professor Mohsen Kavehrad [psu.edu], has also worked on 100Gbps transmissions over 100m long Cat7, for example, so these people are not noobs playing with laser diodes from DVD-drives.
The article mentions that "the researchers chose to take a different approach using multi-element transmitters and multi-branch optical receivers in a quasi-diffuse configuration.
" This article [psu.edu] gives slightly more details: "The challenges regarding attenuation and multipath distortion can be overcome by using multi-spot diffuse configuration and fly-eye reception ( Kavehrad &amp; Yun, 1992 ).
In this configuration, the transmitted beam is split in a control manner into several narrower beams by means of holographic beam-splitters.
The narrower beams illuminate selected spots on a reflecting surface.
Thus, path loss due to diffusion is reduced, and fly-eye receivers can use diversity combining techniques to increase signal-to-noise ratio.
"What this means is that each receiver only works with one narrow beam which is unlikely to be affected by different path lengths in the same signal and the signal from multiple receiver pairs is aligned and combined to increase the signal to noise ratio.To the guy who can't help but laugh at the notion of pulsing a little light on and off at 1GHz: That's exactly what they're doing.
The magic is in the receiver.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965452</id>
	<title>I always knew one day I would find a scientific</title>
	<author>hellop2</author>
	<datestamp>1264845780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>reason for living in my mom's basement.</htmltext>
<tokenext>reason for living in my mom 's basement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>reason for living in my mom's basement.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965606</id>
	<title>Re:Headaches...</title>
	<author>Shatrat</author>
	<datestamp>1264847040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It won't be.  It will either be 1310nm or 1550nm.<br>
I doubt that anything lower than 1310 would be used due to increased attenuation of higher frequencies.<br>
By the way 1310 is more than double the wavelength that you can see with your eyes, and if this thing is made with APD receivers then it will not be cheap.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It wo n't be .
It will either be 1310nm or 1550nm .
I doubt that anything lower than 1310 would be used due to increased attenuation of higher frequencies .
By the way 1310 is more than double the wavelength that you can see with your eyes , and if this thing is made with APD receivers then it will not be cheap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It won't be.
It will either be 1310nm or 1550nm.
I doubt that anything lower than 1310 would be used due to increased attenuation of higher frequencies.
By the way 1310 is more than double the wavelength that you can see with your eyes, and if this thing is made with APD receivers then it will not be cheap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965910</id>
	<title>Sounds like a great idea...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264849800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...for Raves or Dance parties, but less so for those with epilepsy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...for Raves or Dance parties , but less so for those with epilepsy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...for Raves or Dance parties, but less so for those with epilepsy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30967378</id>
	<title>Tower to tower</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264862820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok so I'm not seeing this mentioned anywhere...</p><p>Suppose you stick this tech on a nice tall cell tower, and beam it (not to users) to another cell tower. You've just created a gigabit network between your towers with absolute minimal infrastructure. This would make a great com backbone, wouldn't it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok so I 'm not seeing this mentioned anywhere...Suppose you stick this tech on a nice tall cell tower , and beam it ( not to users ) to another cell tower .
You 've just created a gigabit network between your towers with absolute minimal infrastructure .
This would make a great com backbone , would n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok so I'm not seeing this mentioned anywhere...Suppose you stick this tech on a nice tall cell tower, and beam it (not to users) to another cell tower.
You've just created a gigabit network between your towers with absolute minimal infrastructure.
This would make a great com backbone, wouldn't it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964696</id>
	<title>Good for site-to-site</title>
	<author>arndawg</author>
	<datestamp>1264883700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seams like a good way to connect multiple buildings when you don't have any cabled infrastructure between them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seams like a good way to connect multiple buildings when you do n't have any cabled infrastructure between them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seams like a good way to connect multiple buildings when you don't have any cabled infrastructure between them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30966772</id>
	<title>Point to point</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1264857480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a laser so the beam can be tight.  That lends itself to geeking it to reflective targets mutually visible in outdoor applications.  If people can get wifi at <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2007/06/19/venezuelans-set-new-wifi-distance-record-237-miles/" title="engadget.com" rel="nofollow">237 miles</a> [engadget.com], this tech may be capable of extending both the range and bandwidth of point to point communications.  That would extend the reach of the Internet to a lot of people isolated by distance and infrastructure.  That would be cool.
</p><p>And then there's the neighborhood network thing.  I can gather maybe 250 single family homes into a network with a fenceline network without crossing a right-of-way with a cable.  Leveraging this tech I could probably extend that reach to 30,000 families.  If you can build a 1 Gbps network that large in the US, the Internet will beat a path to you because you've got something they want: earners with eyeballs.  Real bandwidth becomes free, which changes a whole bunch of things in a totally positive way</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a laser so the beam can be tight .
That lends itself to geeking it to reflective targets mutually visible in outdoor applications .
If people can get wifi at 237 miles [ engadget.com ] , this tech may be capable of extending both the range and bandwidth of point to point communications .
That would extend the reach of the Internet to a lot of people isolated by distance and infrastructure .
That would be cool .
And then there 's the neighborhood network thing .
I can gather maybe 250 single family homes into a network with a fenceline network without crossing a right-of-way with a cable .
Leveraging this tech I could probably extend that reach to 30,000 families .
If you can build a 1 Gbps network that large in the US , the Internet will beat a path to you because you 've got something they want : earners with eyeballs .
Real bandwidth becomes free , which changes a whole bunch of things in a totally positive way</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a laser so the beam can be tight.
That lends itself to geeking it to reflective targets mutually visible in outdoor applications.
If people can get wifi at 237 miles [engadget.com], this tech may be capable of extending both the range and bandwidth of point to point communications.
That would extend the reach of the Internet to a lot of people isolated by distance and infrastructure.
That would be cool.
And then there's the neighborhood network thing.
I can gather maybe 250 single family homes into a network with a fenceline network without crossing a right-of-way with a cable.
Leveraging this tech I could probably extend that reach to 30,000 families.
If you can build a 1 Gbps network that large in the US, the Internet will beat a path to you because you've got something they want: earners with eyeballs.
Real bandwidth becomes free, which changes a whole bunch of things in a totally positive way</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30967172</id>
	<title>Re:security</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264860900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That might be the range WITHOUT the 10o KiloWatt amplifier hooked up.  The advantage of the amp is that it doubles as a disco ball.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That might be the range WITHOUT the 10o KiloWatt amplifier hooked up .
The advantage of the amp is that it doubles as a disco ball .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That might be the range WITHOUT the 10o KiloWatt amplifier hooked up.
The advantage of the amp is that it doubles as a disco ball.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965326</id>
	<title>Re:I'm curious of the on affect people with seizur</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264844880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I'm wondering what frequency this will oscillate at and if this will potentially effect people proned to seizures ?</i></p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; I don't think they would be so silly as to use a visible part of the spectrum. Rather I expect them to use the same frequencies used by say the remote control for your television. If it's invisible, it won't cause seizures because, well, it's invisible - the brain will not detect it. I have yet to read about television remote control induced seizures. Also if you're transmitting data, the "pulses" will be far too fast for you to notice even if it WAS visible light. Heck you can't even see your regular incandescent bulb turning on and off at 50/60Hz (depending which continent you live on). Now imagine the gigahertz range...</p><p>Of course if there are people willing to claim that radio wi-fi causes all sorts of "allergies", I'm sure there will be even more crackpots faking seizures (but somehow never wetting themselves) to prove how terrible THIS technology is. Luddites are everywhere...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm wondering what frequency this will oscillate at and if this will potentially effect people proned to seizures ?
      I do n't think they would be so silly as to use a visible part of the spectrum .
Rather I expect them to use the same frequencies used by say the remote control for your television .
If it 's invisible , it wo n't cause seizures because , well , it 's invisible - the brain will not detect it .
I have yet to read about television remote control induced seizures .
Also if you 're transmitting data , the " pulses " will be far too fast for you to notice even if it WAS visible light .
Heck you ca n't even see your regular incandescent bulb turning on and off at 50/60Hz ( depending which continent you live on ) .
Now imagine the gigahertz range...Of course if there are people willing to claim that radio wi-fi causes all sorts of " allergies " , I 'm sure there will be even more crackpots faking seizures ( but somehow never wetting themselves ) to prove how terrible THIS technology is .
Luddites are everywhere.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm wondering what frequency this will oscillate at and if this will potentially effect people proned to seizures ?
      I don't think they would be so silly as to use a visible part of the spectrum.
Rather I expect them to use the same frequencies used by say the remote control for your television.
If it's invisible, it won't cause seizures because, well, it's invisible - the brain will not detect it.
I have yet to read about television remote control induced seizures.
Also if you're transmitting data, the "pulses" will be far too fast for you to notice even if it WAS visible light.
Heck you can't even see your regular incandescent bulb turning on and off at 50/60Hz (depending which continent you live on).
Now imagine the gigahertz range...Of course if there are people willing to claim that radio wi-fi causes all sorts of "allergies", I'm sure there will be even more crackpots faking seizures (but somehow never wetting themselves) to prove how terrible THIS technology is.
Luddites are everywhere...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964618</id>
	<title>wait...</title>
	<author>charlener</author>
	<datestamp>1264883160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what if you open the door? Will internet leak out of the room?</p><p>I suppose a double door or, more entertainingly, a revolving door, could help with this...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what if you open the door ?
Will internet leak out of the room ? I suppose a double door or , more entertainingly , a revolving door , could help with this.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what if you open the door?
Will internet leak out of the room?I suppose a double door or, more entertainingly, a revolving door, could help with this...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964968</id>
	<title>Re:Or, you could just use cables</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1264842240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the hand-off is fast then it could be good.  You'll need a base station in each room, but at that speed you can just mount them on door frames with an endpoint in each room and they can relay between the rooms.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the hand-off is fast then it could be good .
You 'll need a base station in each room , but at that speed you can just mount them on door frames with an endpoint in each room and they can relay between the rooms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the hand-off is fast then it could be good.
You'll need a base station in each room, but at that speed you can just mount them on door frames with an endpoint in each room and they can relay between the rooms.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965520</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong on one count</title>
	<author>mindstrm</author>
	<datestamp>1264846320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly - wiring up  an office building with Cat5 costs a fair bundle... and is fairly inflexible.  Wireless is flexible, but too slow and leaks.</p><p>Give me a wireless signal that's easier to keep from leaking out of the room, and that operates closer to GigE, and it's an instant win all over the place... maybe not in your house, but in any business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly - wiring up an office building with Cat5 costs a fair bundle... and is fairly inflexible .
Wireless is flexible , but too slow and leaks.Give me a wireless signal that 's easier to keep from leaking out of the room , and that operates closer to GigE , and it 's an instant win all over the place... maybe not in your house , but in any business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly - wiring up  an office building with Cat5 costs a fair bundle... and is fairly inflexible.
Wireless is flexible, but too slow and leaks.Give me a wireless signal that's easier to keep from leaking out of the room, and that operates closer to GigE, and it's an instant win all over the place... maybe not in your house, but in any business.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30966870</id>
	<title>Re:stop closing that door</title>
	<author>MobileTatsu-NJG</author>
	<datestamp>1264858380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stop opening my door! The download is done!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stop opening my door !
The download is done !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stop opening my door!
The download is done!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30966102</id>
	<title>Replace Bluetooth?</title>
	<author>amchugh</author>
	<datestamp>1264851000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This seems like a good solution for replacing bluetooth, or bridging a room full of machines to one ethernet drop for a low cost office network solution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This seems like a good solution for replacing bluetooth , or bridging a room full of machines to one ethernet drop for a low cost office network solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This seems like a good solution for replacing bluetooth, or bridging a room full of machines to one ethernet drop for a low cost office network solution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965306</id>
	<title>gonna let you in on something</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1264844820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know this is like super-secret insider knowledge in the IT consulting circles, but it's something that I just have to make public no matter what the consequences are.</p><p>If you have computers in the same room that need to talk to each other, there's actually a really easy solution that is almost 100\% reliable, doesn't require fiddling around with transmitters and sensors, and best of all only costs <a href="http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=crossover+cable&amp;oe=utf-8&amp;hl=en&amp;cid=7351752239335347952&amp;sa=title#p" title="google.com">a cool $2</a> [google.com] for the whole solution.</p><p>Just remember, you didn't hear this from me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know this is like super-secret insider knowledge in the IT consulting circles , but it 's something that I just have to make public no matter what the consequences are.If you have computers in the same room that need to talk to each other , there 's actually a really easy solution that is almost 100 \ % reliable , does n't require fiddling around with transmitters and sensors , and best of all only costs a cool $ 2 [ google.com ] for the whole solution.Just remember , you did n't hear this from me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know this is like super-secret insider knowledge in the IT consulting circles, but it's something that I just have to make public no matter what the consequences are.If you have computers in the same room that need to talk to each other, there's actually a really easy solution that is almost 100\% reliable, doesn't require fiddling around with transmitters and sensors, and best of all only costs a cool $2 [google.com] for the whole solution.Just remember, you didn't hear this from me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30983312</id>
	<title>Re:security</title>
	<author>DigitalCrackPipe</author>
	<datestamp>1265048340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The only rooms in my house without windows are the bathrooms.  So, if I want to get a wireless signal from one side of the bathroom to the other, this technology would be great.  Otherwise, not so much.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only rooms in my house without windows are the bathrooms .
So , if I want to get a wireless signal from one side of the bathroom to the other , this technology would be great .
Otherwise , not so much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only rooms in my house without windows are the bathrooms.
So, if I want to get a wireless signal from one side of the bathroom to the other, this technology would be great.
Otherwise, not so much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965054</id>
	<title>windowless rooms</title>
	<author>johnrpenner</author>
	<datestamp>1264842900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>great - so now millions of drones will have to sit in windowless rooms so the network wont leak out... and the air and the trees and the birds cant leak in... dismal existence... borg colony bleah!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>great - so now millions of drones will have to sit in windowless rooms so the network wont leak out... and the air and the trees and the birds cant leak in... dismal existence... borg colony bleah !
: -P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>great - so now millions of drones will have to sit in windowless rooms so the network wont leak out... and the air and the trees and the birds cant leak in... dismal existence... borg colony bleah!
:-P</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965550</id>
	<title>Re:Ah, and is it Useful?</title>
	<author>Flwyd</author>
	<datestamp>1264846560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also conferences with a could hundred livebloggers in an auditorium.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also conferences with a could hundred livebloggers in an auditorium .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also conferences with a could hundred livebloggers in an auditorium.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964790</id>
	<title>HP used to sell a product like this</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1264884360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
IR office networks were popular around 15 years ago.  HP used to have a "NetBeame" IR access point product line. (<a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&amp;item=330399248522&amp;rvr\_id=&amp;crlp=1\_263602\_263622&amp;UA=WKF\%3F&amp;GUID=456966941260a0b58351e831ffce793d&amp;itemid=330399248522&amp;ff4=263602\_263622" title="ebay.com">There's one on eBay for $49.</a> [ebay.com])  There's Linux support for IRNet.  The Infrared Data Association is already promoting gigabit IrDA.
</p><p>
The concept of diffuse IR networking works fine, but it never really caught on.  You can usually get a signal with one bounce, typically off the ceiling, but more than one bounce and it tends not to work.  You don't get any useful diffraction around obstacles at IR frequencies, so shadows are a problem.  If you populate the ceiling with little IR domes, it works fine, and I've seen that done, but it's obsolete technology now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IR office networks were popular around 15 years ago .
HP used to have a " NetBeame " IR access point product line .
( There 's one on eBay for $ 49 .
[ ebay.com ] ) There 's Linux support for IRNet .
The Infrared Data Association is already promoting gigabit IrDA .
The concept of diffuse IR networking works fine , but it never really caught on .
You can usually get a signal with one bounce , typically off the ceiling , but more than one bounce and it tends not to work .
You do n't get any useful diffraction around obstacles at IR frequencies , so shadows are a problem .
If you populate the ceiling with little IR domes , it works fine , and I 've seen that done , but it 's obsolete technology now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
IR office networks were popular around 15 years ago.
HP used to have a "NetBeame" IR access point product line.
(There's one on eBay for $49.
[ebay.com])  There's Linux support for IRNet.
The Infrared Data Association is already promoting gigabit IrDA.
The concept of diffuse IR networking works fine, but it never really caught on.
You can usually get a signal with one bounce, typically off the ceiling, but more than one bounce and it tends not to work.
You don't get any useful diffraction around obstacles at IR frequencies, so shadows are a problem.
If you populate the ceiling with little IR domes, it works fine, and I've seen that done, but it's obsolete technology now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965684</id>
	<title>Re:What happens if...</title>
	<author>MartinSchou</author>
	<datestamp>1264847820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's what happens when you read stuff and you're a bit drunk:</p><blockquote><div><p>What happens if... a friend of mine runs into the room in the middle of a download and starts playing with a <b>fleshlight</b>?</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's what happens when you read stuff and you 're a bit drunk : What happens if... a friend of mine runs into the room in the middle of a download and starts playing with a fleshlight ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's what happens when you read stuff and you're a bit drunk:What happens if... a friend of mine runs into the room in the middle of a download and starts playing with a fleshlight?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30967688</id>
	<title>Not line of sight, but still need same room</title>
	<author>physburn</author>
	<datestamp>1264867200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>  Can't see this being any use for replacing WI-FI in a room, it might just
bounce into the hallwall, but its not going though closed doors. Radio WI-FI
happily connects the whole house, plus the garden. The optical network
would connect one room, and if you lucky an nearby room though open
doors. I could imagine the optical wireless to an alternative for a large
open plan office, especially if each office area was on a different network,
other than that radio waves and wires will continue to rule.
<p>
---
</p><p>
<a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/blogs/Network/feed.html" title="feeddistiller.com">Network</a> [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ <a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/" title="feeddistiller.com">Feed Distiller</a> [feeddistiller.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't see this being any use for replacing WI-FI in a room , it might just bounce into the hallwall , but its not going though closed doors .
Radio WI-FI happily connects the whole house , plus the garden .
The optical network would connect one room , and if you lucky an nearby room though open doors .
I could imagine the optical wireless to an alternative for a large open plan office , especially if each office area was on a different network , other than that radio waves and wires will continue to rule .
--- Network [ feeddistiller.com ] Feed @ Feed Distiller [ feeddistiller.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  Can't see this being any use for replacing WI-FI in a room, it might just
bounce into the hallwall, but its not going though closed doors.
Radio WI-FI
happily connects the whole house, plus the garden.
The optical network
would connect one room, and if you lucky an nearby room though open
doors.
I could imagine the optical wireless to an alternative for a large
open plan office, especially if each office area was on a different network,
other than that radio waves and wires will continue to rule.
---

Network [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964694</id>
	<title>Is this part of the EF spectrum</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264883700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I always thought radio frequency was light...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I always thought radio frequency was light.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always thought radio frequency was light...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965548</id>
	<title>a room without Windows</title>
	<author>frovingslosh</author>
	<datestamp>1264846560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Light, in a room without windows, will not escape the room, improving security. </p><p>
That would be great, if that was what wifi was used for. But it is not. If the connection was limited to a single room, ethernet cables could be used, which would give even better security. Far more wifi systems are set up to get the network connection between rooms, even between floors of a house, than for networks in windowless rooms.  </p><p>

Besides, everyone already knows that a computer room without Windows is more secure than one with Windows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Light , in a room without windows , will not escape the room , improving security .
That would be great , if that was what wifi was used for .
But it is not .
If the connection was limited to a single room , ethernet cables could be used , which would give even better security .
Far more wifi systems are set up to get the network connection between rooms , even between floors of a house , than for networks in windowless rooms .
Besides , everyone already knows that a computer room without Windows is more secure than one with Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Light, in a room without windows, will not escape the room, improving security.
That would be great, if that was what wifi was used for.
But it is not.
If the connection was limited to a single room, ethernet cables could be used, which would give even better security.
Far more wifi systems are set up to get the network connection between rooms, even between floors of a house, than for networks in windowless rooms.
Besides, everyone already knows that a computer room without Windows is more secure than one with Windows.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30966020</id>
	<title>Re:Or, you could just use cables</title>
	<author>hedwards</author>
	<datestamp>1264850640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It depends what you're wanting it for. This has tremendous potential in areas like NY City and Tokyo where there's enough population density that traditional wireless is hard to do. Even here in a relatively sparsely populated part of Seattle, there's something like 8 access points in use at most times. The added security would be a bonus, just pull down black out curtains when you want to block it completely rather than mostly.<br> <br>

But you still get the mobility to move around the room. I suppose in the future you could even get a mesh set up as well for going room to room.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It depends what you 're wanting it for .
This has tremendous potential in areas like NY City and Tokyo where there 's enough population density that traditional wireless is hard to do .
Even here in a relatively sparsely populated part of Seattle , there 's something like 8 access points in use at most times .
The added security would be a bonus , just pull down black out curtains when you want to block it completely rather than mostly .
But you still get the mobility to move around the room .
I suppose in the future you could even get a mesh set up as well for going room to room .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It depends what you're wanting it for.
This has tremendous potential in areas like NY City and Tokyo where there's enough population density that traditional wireless is hard to do.
Even here in a relatively sparsely populated part of Seattle, there's something like 8 access points in use at most times.
The added security would be a bonus, just pull down black out curtains when you want to block it completely rather than mostly.
But you still get the mobility to move around the room.
I suppose in the future you could even get a mesh set up as well for going room to room.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30967106</id>
	<title>Re:Ah, and is it Useful?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264860360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I bet some dumbass comes up with an idea to improve signal by upping the amps on the diode and we'll all die.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I bet some dumbass comes up with an idea to improve signal by upping the amps on the diode and we 'll all die .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bet some dumbass comes up with an idea to improve signal by upping the amps on the diode and we'll all die.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965324</id>
	<title>Re:security</title>
	<author>imroy</author>
	<datestamp>1264844880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How many homes don't have windows?</p></div><p>I may be wrong on this, but I seem to remember our Australian building code requiring a minimum amount of ventilation for any room that will be occupied by people, and the same may apply in other countries. So you have a few options - usually a window or an exhaust fan. People tend to favour windows (note the lower case 'w'). So I'm guessing there aren't many rooms in homes that don't have windows (again, lower case 'w'), for strictly legal reasons.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How many homes do n't have windows ? I may be wrong on this , but I seem to remember our Australian building code requiring a minimum amount of ventilation for any room that will be occupied by people , and the same may apply in other countries .
So you have a few options - usually a window or an exhaust fan .
People tend to favour windows ( note the lower case 'w ' ) .
So I 'm guessing there are n't many rooms in homes that do n't have windows ( again , lower case 'w ' ) , for strictly legal reasons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many homes don't have windows?I may be wrong on this, but I seem to remember our Australian building code requiring a minimum amount of ventilation for any room that will be occupied by people, and the same may apply in other countries.
So you have a few options - usually a window or an exhaust fan.
People tend to favour windows (note the lower case 'w').
So I'm guessing there aren't many rooms in homes that don't have windows (again, lower case 'w'), for strictly legal reasons.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964616</id>
	<title>The Asian Advantage.</title>
	<author>Rothron the Wise</author>
	<datestamp>1264883160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So if I want wireless in my whole apartment I guess rice paper partitions is the way to go.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So if I want wireless in my whole apartment I guess rice paper partitions is the way to go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if I want wireless in my whole apartment I guess rice paper partitions is the way to go.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965986</id>
	<title>Somebody has to say it...</title>
	<author>Angst Badger</author>
	<datestamp>1264850340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do not check network signal with remaining eye.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do not check network signal with remaining eye .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do not check network signal with remaining eye.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965460</id>
	<title>Re:Self interference</title>
	<author>pclminion</author>
	<datestamp>1264845900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, we have no fucking idea how to deal with echoes. It's not like we have a cellular network that handles multi-path, selective fading, and moving transmitters... Light is a bit harder to modulate than radio frequency, but it's still just a wave, and we actually do have a few years (somewhere around 100) of experience with modulation schemes.</p><p>The idea that you think they are pulsing a little light on and off at 1 GHz made me laugh out loud.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , we have no fucking idea how to deal with echoes .
It 's not like we have a cellular network that handles multi-path , selective fading , and moving transmitters... Light is a bit harder to modulate than radio frequency , but it 's still just a wave , and we actually do have a few years ( somewhere around 100 ) of experience with modulation schemes.The idea that you think they are pulsing a little light on and off at 1 GHz made me laugh out loud .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, we have no fucking idea how to deal with echoes.
It's not like we have a cellular network that handles multi-path, selective fading, and moving transmitters... Light is a bit harder to modulate than radio frequency, but it's still just a wave, and we actually do have a few years (somewhere around 100) of experience with modulation schemes.The idea that you think they are pulsing a little light on and off at 1 GHz made me laugh out loud.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30966046</id>
	<title>Re:Ah, and is it Useful?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264850820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>just put mirrors at 45deg angles in the corners of hallways. Problem solved</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>just put mirrors at 45deg angles in the corners of hallways .
Problem solved</tokentext>
<sentencetext>just put mirrors at 45deg angles in the corners of hallways.
Problem solved</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964620</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1858244_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30966532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1858244_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1858244_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30967164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1858244_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30966058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1858244_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30967142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1858244_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1858244_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30967790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1858244_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1858244_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30966870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1858244_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30966772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30970350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30973680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1858244_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1858244_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30967952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1858244_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1858244_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30969832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1858244_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1858244_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30966258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1858244_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1858244_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30967780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1858244_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30968970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1858244_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1858244_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30971262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1858244_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30966348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1858244_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1858244_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30966756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1858244_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1858244_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30966010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1858244_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1858244_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1858244_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1858244_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30967104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1858244_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30967106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1858244_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.31008428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1858244_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30966046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1858244_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1858244_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30976516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1858244_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30967268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1858244_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30966020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1858244_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30968900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1858244_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1858244_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1858244_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30966502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1858244_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30966702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30967152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1858244_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30973798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1858244_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30967172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1858244_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30967712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1858244_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30983312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1858244_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30966316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_1858244.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30966058
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_1858244.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965326
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30966316
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_1858244.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30967268
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_1858244.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30966756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.31008428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30967790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965684
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_1858244.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964678
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_1858244.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964674
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30967172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30983312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30967952
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30967104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30966348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30966258
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965324
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_1858244.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30966772
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30970350
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30973680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30971262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30969832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30966020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964968
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_1858244.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30967142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965450
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_1858244.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964886
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30968970
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_1858244.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30967378
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_1858244.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965606
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30966702
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30967152
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30973798
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_1858244.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30967780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30976516
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_1858244.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964918
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30966532
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965920
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_1858244.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965306
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_1858244.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30966046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964746
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965520
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965040
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30967164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965550
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30968900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30965546
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30967106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964984
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30966502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30966010
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_1858244.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964618
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_1858244.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30966102
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_1858244.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964688
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_1858244.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964696
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_1858244.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30966870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30967712
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_1858244.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964732
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_1858244.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1858244.30964606
</commentlist>
</conversation>
