<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_17_1627240</id>
	<title>Cisco's New Router &mdash; Trouble For Hollywood</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1268845860000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Shakrai writes <i>"Time Magazine has published an article about <a href="http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1972540,00.html">the impact of Cisco's new CRS-3 router on the business practices of the MAFIAA</a>.  This new router was <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/03/09/197226/Cisco-Introduces-a-322-Tbitsec-Router">previously mentioned</a> here on Slashdot and is expected to alleviate internet bottlenecks that currently impede steaming video-on-demand services.  Some of the highlights from the article: 'The ability to download albums and films in a matter of seconds is a harbinger of deep trouble for the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), which would prefer to turn the clock back, way back. ... The hard fact is that the latest developments at Cisco, Google and elsewhere may do more than kill the DVD and CD and further upset entertainment-business models that have changed little since the Mesozoic Era. With superfast streaming and downloading, indie filmmakers will soon be able to effectively distribute feature films online and promote them using social media such as Facebook and Twitter. ... Meanwhile, both the MPAA and the RIAA continue to fight emerging technologies like peer-to-peer file sharing with costly court battles rather than figuring out how to appeal to the next generation of movie enthusiasts and still make a buck."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Shakrai writes " Time Magazine has published an article about the impact of Cisco 's new CRS-3 router on the business practices of the MAFIAA .
This new router was previously mentioned here on Slashdot and is expected to alleviate internet bottlenecks that currently impede steaming video-on-demand services .
Some of the highlights from the article : 'The ability to download albums and films in a matter of seconds is a harbinger of deep trouble for the Motion Picture Association of America ( MPAA ) and the Recording Industry Association of America ( RIAA ) , which would prefer to turn the clock back , way back .
... The hard fact is that the latest developments at Cisco , Google and elsewhere may do more than kill the DVD and CD and further upset entertainment-business models that have changed little since the Mesozoic Era .
With superfast streaming and downloading , indie filmmakers will soon be able to effectively distribute feature films online and promote them using social media such as Facebook and Twitter .
... Meanwhile , both the MPAA and the RIAA continue to fight emerging technologies like peer-to-peer file sharing with costly court battles rather than figuring out how to appeal to the next generation of movie enthusiasts and still make a buck .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shakrai writes "Time Magazine has published an article about the impact of Cisco's new CRS-3 router on the business practices of the MAFIAA.
This new router was previously mentioned here on Slashdot and is expected to alleviate internet bottlenecks that currently impede steaming video-on-demand services.
Some of the highlights from the article: 'The ability to download albums and films in a matter of seconds is a harbinger of deep trouble for the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), which would prefer to turn the clock back, way back.
... The hard fact is that the latest developments at Cisco, Google and elsewhere may do more than kill the DVD and CD and further upset entertainment-business models that have changed little since the Mesozoic Era.
With superfast streaming and downloading, indie filmmakers will soon be able to effectively distribute feature films online and promote them using social media such as Facebook and Twitter.
... Meanwhile, both the MPAA and the RIAA continue to fight emerging technologies like peer-to-peer file sharing with costly court battles rather than figuring out how to appeal to the next generation of movie enthusiasts and still make a buck.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31515014</id>
	<title>Re:Same meme different author</title>
	<author>crono\_deus</author>
	<datestamp>1268819400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Eventually it all comes around but for now we don't need the middle man anymore.</p></div><p>I'm actually not sure about this. We may not need middle-men for distribution anymore, but we may need them to separate the wheat from the chaff. The problem I foresee with direct distribution is that there's no easy way to know what's good or bad out there (where "good" and "bad" are, of course, defined by one's personal tastes). There's value in being able to say to a consumer "hey, you liked artist X a lot, why not try artist Y?", which function, among others, I think "middle-men" could perform admirably.
</p><p>
To use your albeit cliched (and ill-fiitting; you're comparing about a business model to a product; the product hasn't really changed, but the business model certainly will) analogy, it may force the "middle-men" (RIAA etc. here) to change from being buggy accessory manufacturers to information clearinghouses about "buggies" and their various capabilities and relationships. A sort of edmunds.com for music, if you will. There's still a role to be played at that level, but it's no longer the one of art distributor.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Eventually it all comes around but for now we do n't need the middle man anymore.I 'm actually not sure about this .
We may not need middle-men for distribution anymore , but we may need them to separate the wheat from the chaff .
The problem I foresee with direct distribution is that there 's no easy way to know what 's good or bad out there ( where " good " and " bad " are , of course , defined by one 's personal tastes ) .
There 's value in being able to say to a consumer " hey , you liked artist X a lot , why not try artist Y ?
" , which function , among others , I think " middle-men " could perform admirably .
To use your albeit cliched ( and ill-fiitting ; you 're comparing about a business model to a product ; the product has n't really changed , but the business model certainly will ) analogy , it may force the " middle-men " ( RIAA etc .
here ) to change from being buggy accessory manufacturers to information clearinghouses about " buggies " and their various capabilities and relationships .
A sort of edmunds.com for music , if you will .
There 's still a role to be played at that level , but it 's no longer the one of art distributor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eventually it all comes around but for now we don't need the middle man anymore.I'm actually not sure about this.
We may not need middle-men for distribution anymore, but we may need them to separate the wheat from the chaff.
The problem I foresee with direct distribution is that there's no easy way to know what's good or bad out there (where "good" and "bad" are, of course, defined by one's personal tastes).
There's value in being able to say to a consumer "hey, you liked artist X a lot, why not try artist Y?
", which function, among others, I think "middle-men" could perform admirably.
To use your albeit cliched (and ill-fiitting; you're comparing about a business model to a product; the product hasn't really changed, but the business model certainly will) analogy, it may force the "middle-men" (RIAA etc.
here) to change from being buggy accessory manufacturers to information clearinghouses about "buggies" and their various capabilities and relationships.
A sort of edmunds.com for music, if you will.
There's still a role to be played at that level, but it's no longer the one of art distributor.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512290</id>
	<title>Re:Slanted Wording</title>
	<author>kindbud</author>
	<datestamp>1268853120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did you read the Time article linked in the article summary?   The language you complain about in the summary came directly from the Time article, or is a paraphrase of it.   And that's just the beginning.</p><blockquote><div><p>The CRS-3, a network routing system, is able to stream every film ever made, from Hollywood to Bombay, in under four minutes.</p></div></blockquote><blockquote><div><p>Cisco's superrouter is expected to turn what is now the equivalent of a country road into an eight-late superhighway for Internet data traffic, including 3-D video, university lectures and feature films such as Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince and The Twilight Saga: New Moon.</p></div></blockquote><blockquote><div><p>This would allow consumers to complete a PC download of a Hollywood blockbuster like Avatar in about 72 seconds.</p></div> </blockquote><blockquote><div><p>The ability to download albums and films in a matter of seconds is a harbinger of deep trouble for the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), which would prefer to turn the clock back, way back.</p><p>Consider that the MPAA, whose members include Disney and Universal, attacked the VCR in congressional hearings in the 1980s with a Darth Vader-like zeal, predicting box-office receipts would collapse if consumers were allowed to freely share and copy VHS tapes of Hollywood movies.</p></div> </blockquote><blockquote><div><p>Today the film and recording industries maintain an iron grip over distribution of their intellectual property through megaplexes and national retailers such as Best Buy, Tower Records and Walmart.</p></div> </blockquote><blockquote><div><p>The hard fact is that the latest developments at Cisco, Google and elsewhere may do more than kill the DVD and CD and further upset entertainment-business models that have changed little since the Mesozoic Era.</p></div></blockquote><blockquote><div><p>The upshot is that the high castle walls built over the past 100 years by the film industry to establish privilege and protect monopolistic profits may soon come tumbling down, just as they have for the music industry.</p></div></blockquote><p>Your problem is not with<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. editors, it's with Time Magazine.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you read the Time article linked in the article summary ?
The language you complain about in the summary came directly from the Time article , or is a paraphrase of it .
And that 's just the beginning.The CRS-3 , a network routing system , is able to stream every film ever made , from Hollywood to Bombay , in under four minutes.Cisco 's superrouter is expected to turn what is now the equivalent of a country road into an eight-late superhighway for Internet data traffic , including 3-D video , university lectures and feature films such as Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince and The Twilight Saga : New Moon.This would allow consumers to complete a PC download of a Hollywood blockbuster like Avatar in about 72 seconds .
The ability to download albums and films in a matter of seconds is a harbinger of deep trouble for the Motion Picture Association of America ( MPAA ) and the Recording Industry Association of America ( RIAA ) , which would prefer to turn the clock back , way back.Consider that the MPAA , whose members include Disney and Universal , attacked the VCR in congressional hearings in the 1980s with a Darth Vader-like zeal , predicting box-office receipts would collapse if consumers were allowed to freely share and copy VHS tapes of Hollywood movies .
Today the film and recording industries maintain an iron grip over distribution of their intellectual property through megaplexes and national retailers such as Best Buy , Tower Records and Walmart .
The hard fact is that the latest developments at Cisco , Google and elsewhere may do more than kill the DVD and CD and further upset entertainment-business models that have changed little since the Mesozoic Era.The upshot is that the high castle walls built over the past 100 years by the film industry to establish privilege and protect monopolistic profits may soon come tumbling down , just as they have for the music industry.Your problem is not with / .
editors , it 's with Time Magazine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you read the Time article linked in the article summary?
The language you complain about in the summary came directly from the Time article, or is a paraphrase of it.
And that's just the beginning.The CRS-3, a network routing system, is able to stream every film ever made, from Hollywood to Bombay, in under four minutes.Cisco's superrouter is expected to turn what is now the equivalent of a country road into an eight-late superhighway for Internet data traffic, including 3-D video, university lectures and feature films such as Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince and The Twilight Saga: New Moon.This would allow consumers to complete a PC download of a Hollywood blockbuster like Avatar in about 72 seconds.
The ability to download albums and films in a matter of seconds is a harbinger of deep trouble for the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), which would prefer to turn the clock back, way back.Consider that the MPAA, whose members include Disney and Universal, attacked the VCR in congressional hearings in the 1980s with a Darth Vader-like zeal, predicting box-office receipts would collapse if consumers were allowed to freely share and copy VHS tapes of Hollywood movies.
Today the film and recording industries maintain an iron grip over distribution of their intellectual property through megaplexes and national retailers such as Best Buy, Tower Records and Walmart.
The hard fact is that the latest developments at Cisco, Google and elsewhere may do more than kill the DVD and CD and further upset entertainment-business models that have changed little since the Mesozoic Era.The upshot is that the high castle walls built over the past 100 years by the film industry to establish privilege and protect monopolistic profits may soon come tumbling down, just as they have for the music industry.Your problem is not with /.
editors, it's with Time Magazine.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31519696</id>
	<title>Re:Music labels starting to get it right</title>
	<author>FrameRotBlues</author>
	<datestamp>1268855940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The fact that they offer it in not just MP3, but ANY semi-modern format (FLAC and vinyl = awesome), just goes to show that they have a very firm grasp on modern marketing techniques.  <br> <br>

I've never even heard of them, but for $7 I bought it on principle alone.  I now have a perfectly lossless DRM-free album, and I didn't even have to get my ass out of the chair.<br> <br>

(As a side note, thanks for building PG; I've used it in the past and it worked great.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that they offer it in not just MP3 , but ANY semi-modern format ( FLAC and vinyl = awesome ) , just goes to show that they have a very firm grasp on modern marketing techniques .
I 've never even heard of them , but for $ 7 I bought it on principle alone .
I now have a perfectly lossless DRM-free album , and I did n't even have to get my ass out of the chair .
( As a side note , thanks for building PG ; I 've used it in the past and it worked great .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that they offer it in not just MP3, but ANY semi-modern format (FLAC and vinyl = awesome), just goes to show that they have a very firm grasp on modern marketing techniques.
I've never even heard of them, but for $7 I bought it on principle alone.
I now have a perfectly lossless DRM-free album, and I didn't even have to get my ass out of the chair.
(As a side note, thanks for building PG; I've used it in the past and it worked great.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31513590</id>
	<title>Re:The Last Mile</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268857260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pretty much.</p><p>Of course, this will just lead to more reason for some idiot businesses to move entirely to digital distribution because "THE BACKBONE CAN TAKE IT CAP'N, STROLL IN THE PARK"<br>This is the real idiocy with all these companies, they think they need to either have it ONE way or the other.</p><p>Cross-ISP connections are a big issue.<br>And with ISPs trying to keep an artificial duo- / tri / (even) quadopolies on the ISP busines, their is no real competition to improve infrastructure.<br>Worse yet is when the regulatory committees, who supposedly care for competition, just let them off entirely!</p><p>It'd be nice if ISPs were forced in to regional networks (counties, similar regional separations), with each unit being responsible for their own grid.<br>Allowing ISPs to become countrywide systems is just completely backwards.<br>Some say it is a step too far, but the gains far outweigh the moral component of whether or not it is right to "dismantle" a company in to regional units.<br>To hell with morals, i just went my damn porn to be downloaded by the time the page finishes loading, rather than "STREAMING [spinny little icon here]"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pretty much.Of course , this will just lead to more reason for some idiot businesses to move entirely to digital distribution because " THE BACKBONE CAN TAKE IT CAP'N , STROLL IN THE PARK " This is the real idiocy with all these companies , they think they need to either have it ONE way or the other.Cross-ISP connections are a big issue.And with ISPs trying to keep an artificial duo- / tri / ( even ) quadopolies on the ISP busines , their is no real competition to improve infrastructure.Worse yet is when the regulatory committees , who supposedly care for competition , just let them off entirely ! It 'd be nice if ISPs were forced in to regional networks ( counties , similar regional separations ) , with each unit being responsible for their own grid.Allowing ISPs to become countrywide systems is just completely backwards.Some say it is a step too far , but the gains far outweigh the moral component of whether or not it is right to " dismantle " a company in to regional units.To hell with morals , i just went my damn porn to be downloaded by the time the page finishes loading , rather than " STREAMING [ spinny little icon here ] "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pretty much.Of course, this will just lead to more reason for some idiot businesses to move entirely to digital distribution because "THE BACKBONE CAN TAKE IT CAP'N, STROLL IN THE PARK"This is the real idiocy with all these companies, they think they need to either have it ONE way or the other.Cross-ISP connections are a big issue.And with ISPs trying to keep an artificial duo- / tri / (even) quadopolies on the ISP busines, their is no real competition to improve infrastructure.Worse yet is when the regulatory committees, who supposedly care for competition, just let them off entirely!It'd be nice if ISPs were forced in to regional networks (counties, similar regional separations), with each unit being responsible for their own grid.Allowing ISPs to become countrywide systems is just completely backwards.Some say it is a step too far, but the gains far outweigh the moral component of whether or not it is right to "dismantle" a company in to regional units.To hell with morals, i just went my damn porn to be downloaded by the time the page finishes loading, rather than "STREAMING [spinny little icon here]"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511244</id>
	<title>MAFIAA</title>
	<author>wjousts</author>
	<datestamp>1268850180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I fail to see how childish name calling in the summary helps advance the debate.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I fail to see how childish name calling in the summary helps advance the debate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I fail to see how childish name calling in the summary helps advance the debate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511074</id>
	<title>The wrong model.</title>
	<author>InsaneProcessor</author>
	<datestamp>1268849760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The MPAA and the RIAA continue to use the lawyer model.  They are operated by lawyers for lawyers.  Remember "I would rather fight than switch"?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The MPAA and the RIAA continue to use the lawyer model .
They are operated by lawyers for lawyers .
Remember " I would rather fight than switch " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The MPAA and the RIAA continue to use the lawyer model.
They are operated by lawyers for lawyers.
Remember "I would rather fight than switch"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31513128</id>
	<title>Re:MAFIAA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268855580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I fail to see how childish name calling in the summary helps advance the debate.</p></div><p>Debate about what?  There's a debate going on?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I fail to see how childish name calling in the summary helps advance the debate.Debate about what ?
There 's a debate going on ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I fail to see how childish name calling in the summary helps advance the debate.Debate about what?
There's a debate going on?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511060</id>
	<title>They are not worried</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268849700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This won't increase speed to your or my house.  It wont remove bandwidth caps.  All this will do is relieve congestion at the main gates.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This wo n't increase speed to your or my house .
It wont remove bandwidth caps .
All this will do is relieve congestion at the main gates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This won't increase speed to your or my house.
It wont remove bandwidth caps.
All this will do is relieve congestion at the main gates.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511558</id>
	<title>Bullcrap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268850960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only thing holding back streaming services is licensing, not technology. Content distribution networks are in every internet exchange and can deliver without clogging up backbones. The router in question is not last mile technology. The thing that would really spell trouble for Hollywood is multicasting. Think P2P, but instead of needing as much upload bandwidth as download bandwidth on average, multicast-P2P would need only as much upstream bandwidth as the fastest downloader can download to deliver the goods to all downloaders at the same time. Multicasting would also instantly make the likes of Akamai jobless. With multicasting, everybody could run a TV station from their home. Wake me when <b>that</b> arrives.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only thing holding back streaming services is licensing , not technology .
Content distribution networks are in every internet exchange and can deliver without clogging up backbones .
The router in question is not last mile technology .
The thing that would really spell trouble for Hollywood is multicasting .
Think P2P , but instead of needing as much upload bandwidth as download bandwidth on average , multicast-P2P would need only as much upstream bandwidth as the fastest downloader can download to deliver the goods to all downloaders at the same time .
Multicasting would also instantly make the likes of Akamai jobless .
With multicasting , everybody could run a TV station from their home .
Wake me when that arrives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only thing holding back streaming services is licensing, not technology.
Content distribution networks are in every internet exchange and can deliver without clogging up backbones.
The router in question is not last mile technology.
The thing that would really spell trouble for Hollywood is multicasting.
Think P2P, but instead of needing as much upload bandwidth as download bandwidth on average, multicast-P2P would need only as much upstream bandwidth as the fastest downloader can download to deliver the goods to all downloaders at the same time.
Multicasting would also instantly make the likes of Akamai jobless.
With multicasting, everybody could run a TV station from their home.
Wake me when that arrives.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511610</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing new</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268851140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Its not like this is anything new... MPAA and RIAA are <b>QQing</b> because they are just like the newspaper industry: Behind the times and refusing to change.</p></div><p>Editor's note: "QQ" is internet slang for "cry". The little lines are supposed to be tears, while the O's are eyes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its not like this is anything new... MPAA and RIAA are QQing because they are just like the newspaper industry : Behind the times and refusing to change.Editor 's note : " QQ " is internet slang for " cry " .
The little lines are supposed to be tears , while the O 's are eyes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its not like this is anything new... MPAA and RIAA are QQing because they are just like the newspaper industry: Behind the times and refusing to change.Editor's note: "QQ" is internet slang for "cry".
The little lines are supposed to be tears, while the O's are eyes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512572</id>
	<title>Re:"MAFIAA" Sure, You Want to be Taken Seriously..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268853780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hulu no only serves up 5 episodes of Firefly at a time, the whole show is only 12 episodes, limiting which I can watch at any given moment is just stupid. I doubt this is the desire of Hulu, and is most likely the desire of the 'rights holder' so I wont complain to hulu, but if I want to watch something legitimately and they are letting me, then what am I supposed to do?</p><p>Full disclosure: I have not pirated any of the Firefly episodes, nor have I pirated anything since college.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hulu no only serves up 5 episodes of Firefly at a time , the whole show is only 12 episodes , limiting which I can watch at any given moment is just stupid .
I doubt this is the desire of Hulu , and is most likely the desire of the 'rights holder ' so I wont complain to hulu , but if I want to watch something legitimately and they are letting me , then what am I supposed to do ? Full disclosure : I have not pirated any of the Firefly episodes , nor have I pirated anything since college .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hulu no only serves up 5 episodes of Firefly at a time, the whole show is only 12 episodes, limiting which I can watch at any given moment is just stupid.
I doubt this is the desire of Hulu, and is most likely the desire of the 'rights holder' so I wont complain to hulu, but if I want to watch something legitimately and they are letting me, then what am I supposed to do?Full disclosure: I have not pirated any of the Firefly episodes, nor have I pirated anything since college.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511802</id>
	<title>I can't imagine a worthier party...</title>
	<author>magus\_melchior</author>
	<datestamp>1268851620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, let's see here. The RIAA member companies, when they sign contracts with artists, typically promise some big up-front sum for a number of records to be cut in a specified amount of time-- turns out that this sum is just barely enough to cover expenses and often leaves very little for the artist/band to make a living, forcing them to recoup the difference on live tours (if they have a big enough audience) where the RIAA takes less of a cut. Meanwhile, the record companies take for themselves all reproduction and distribution rights (unless the artist was smart and insisted on keeping those rights), so they have a short leash on their artists while at the same time have the means to harass and financially destroy anyone who dares sample their wares without their express permission.</p><p>And that's the recording industry. It often gets worse in motion pictures, where big studios take the American insurance company method of cutting costs-- find every excuse known to man to avoid paying the very people who worked on their blockbuster titles.</p><p>These are the people who have the gall to say that they're losing money, and throw up bullshit numbers that essentially say "X downloads of our stuff means X*30 lost sales, therefore all internet downloaders are thieves who owe us X*30000 dollars." Really, you'd think that they'd figure out sooner that treating their own employees/contractors/customers like the filth and grime from <i>Dirty Jobs</i> wouldn't be such a great business strategy?</p><p>They picked a fight with a technology that can only grow stronger and faster with time. Honestly, with the new stuff Cisco and Google are putting forward, I can't help but think that this media cartel's comeuppance is here.</p><p>Don't even get me started on the authoritarian twits who run MLB and NFL...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , let 's see here .
The RIAA member companies , when they sign contracts with artists , typically promise some big up-front sum for a number of records to be cut in a specified amount of time-- turns out that this sum is just barely enough to cover expenses and often leaves very little for the artist/band to make a living , forcing them to recoup the difference on live tours ( if they have a big enough audience ) where the RIAA takes less of a cut .
Meanwhile , the record companies take for themselves all reproduction and distribution rights ( unless the artist was smart and insisted on keeping those rights ) , so they have a short leash on their artists while at the same time have the means to harass and financially destroy anyone who dares sample their wares without their express permission.And that 's the recording industry .
It often gets worse in motion pictures , where big studios take the American insurance company method of cutting costs-- find every excuse known to man to avoid paying the very people who worked on their blockbuster titles.These are the people who have the gall to say that they 're losing money , and throw up bullshit numbers that essentially say " X downloads of our stuff means X * 30 lost sales , therefore all internet downloaders are thieves who owe us X * 30000 dollars .
" Really , you 'd think that they 'd figure out sooner that treating their own employees/contractors/customers like the filth and grime from Dirty Jobs would n't be such a great business strategy ? They picked a fight with a technology that can only grow stronger and faster with time .
Honestly , with the new stuff Cisco and Google are putting forward , I ca n't help but think that this media cartel 's comeuppance is here.Do n't even get me started on the authoritarian twits who run MLB and NFL.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, let's see here.
The RIAA member companies, when they sign contracts with artists, typically promise some big up-front sum for a number of records to be cut in a specified amount of time-- turns out that this sum is just barely enough to cover expenses and often leaves very little for the artist/band to make a living, forcing them to recoup the difference on live tours (if they have a big enough audience) where the RIAA takes less of a cut.
Meanwhile, the record companies take for themselves all reproduction and distribution rights (unless the artist was smart and insisted on keeping those rights), so they have a short leash on their artists while at the same time have the means to harass and financially destroy anyone who dares sample their wares without their express permission.And that's the recording industry.
It often gets worse in motion pictures, where big studios take the American insurance company method of cutting costs-- find every excuse known to man to avoid paying the very people who worked on their blockbuster titles.These are the people who have the gall to say that they're losing money, and throw up bullshit numbers that essentially say "X downloads of our stuff means X*30 lost sales, therefore all internet downloaders are thieves who owe us X*30000 dollars.
" Really, you'd think that they'd figure out sooner that treating their own employees/contractors/customers like the filth and grime from Dirty Jobs wouldn't be such a great business strategy?They picked a fight with a technology that can only grow stronger and faster with time.
Honestly, with the new stuff Cisco and Google are putting forward, I can't help but think that this media cartel's comeuppance is here.Don't even get me started on the authoritarian twits who run MLB and NFL...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31514026</id>
	<title>The router isn't the death knell, time is.</title>
	<author>Graham J - XVI</author>
	<datestamp>1268858940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The router is impressive and all but bandwidth will inevitably increase with time anyway so really it's time that is the death knell for Hollywood, not any particular bit of gear.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The router is impressive and all but bandwidth will inevitably increase with time anyway so really it 's time that is the death knell for Hollywood , not any particular bit of gear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The router is impressive and all but bandwidth will inevitably increase with time anyway so really it's time that is the death knell for Hollywood, not any particular bit of gear.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511014</id>
	<title>sweet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268849640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>THANK YOU CISCO!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>THANK YOU CISCO ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>THANK YOU CISCO!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511250</id>
	<title>Re:They are not worried</title>
	<author>BeardedChimp</author>
	<datestamp>1268850180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh didn't you know? The real reason the US broadband lags so far behind the rest of the developed world is because they don't have the latest and greatest cisco routers!
<br>
<br>
It's not like Sweden has been able to offer 100mbit connections for years without these new very expensive routers or anything...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh did n't you know ?
The real reason the US broadband lags so far behind the rest of the developed world is because they do n't have the latest and greatest cisco routers !
It 's not like Sweden has been able to offer 100mbit connections for years without these new very expensive routers or anything.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh didn't you know?
The real reason the US broadband lags so far behind the rest of the developed world is because they don't have the latest and greatest cisco routers!
It's not like Sweden has been able to offer 100mbit connections for years without these new very expensive routers or anything...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31515532</id>
	<title>Re:bandwidth costs</title>
	<author>steelfood</author>
	<datestamp>1268821200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's possible that you won't see a cost decrease. But you'll probably see a speed increase in general (though rollout may be so slow you won't really notice it). You may end up maxing out your cap more often though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's possible that you wo n't see a cost decrease .
But you 'll probably see a speed increase in general ( though rollout may be so slow you wo n't really notice it ) .
You may end up maxing out your cap more often though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's possible that you won't see a cost decrease.
But you'll probably see a speed increase in general (though rollout may be so slow you won't really notice it).
You may end up maxing out your cap more often though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511328</id>
	<title>Childish</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268850360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Calling them the MAFIAA puts you on the same level as those that spell Microsoft as Micro$oft.  People know not to take you seriously, it's just childish.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Calling them the MAFIAA puts you on the same level as those that spell Microsoft as Micro $ oft .
People know not to take you seriously , it 's just childish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Calling them the MAFIAA puts you on the same level as those that spell Microsoft as Micro$oft.
People know not to take you seriously, it's just childish.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31517774</id>
	<title>Re:Steaming?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268834760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is obviously reference to the steaming piles of crap they call movies that are currently coming out of Hollywood.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is obviously reference to the steaming piles of crap they call movies that are currently coming out of Hollywood .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is obviously reference to the steaming piles of crap they call movies that are currently coming out of Hollywood.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511382</id>
	<title>embrace the pain</title>
	<author>bugi</author>
	<datestamp>1268850540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it improves the situation for indie filmmakers, then it can't be bad for the film industry.  It may be painful for the entrenched interests, but they should be embracing that pain as a learning tool rather than amplifying it and passing it on to innocent bystanders.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it improves the situation for indie filmmakers , then it ca n't be bad for the film industry .
It may be painful for the entrenched interests , but they should be embracing that pain as a learning tool rather than amplifying it and passing it on to innocent bystanders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it improves the situation for indie filmmakers, then it can't be bad for the film industry.
It may be painful for the entrenched interests, but they should be embracing that pain as a learning tool rather than amplifying it and passing it on to innocent bystanders.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31514860</id>
	<title>Re:MAFIAA</title>
	<author>wjousts</author>
	<datestamp>1268818800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ah....I see your point. Well done.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah....I see your point .
Well done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah....I see your point.
Well done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512352</id>
	<title>mesozoic era?</title>
	<author>hitmark</author>
	<datestamp>1268853240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i thought that copyright, the basis for all media corps, can at best be traced back to the 1700s.</p><p>also, i wonder how much of the current issue is that laws, at least i parts of the world, is mixing the rights of the creator as being named as just that creator, and the issue of who can make copies. As long as this is under one set of law, one can argue for time frames to benefit the former while its real effect will be seen in relation to the latter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i thought that copyright , the basis for all media corps , can at best be traced back to the 1700s.also , i wonder how much of the current issue is that laws , at least i parts of the world , is mixing the rights of the creator as being named as just that creator , and the issue of who can make copies .
As long as this is under one set of law , one can argue for time frames to benefit the former while its real effect will be seen in relation to the latter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i thought that copyright, the basis for all media corps, can at best be traced back to the 1700s.also, i wonder how much of the current issue is that laws, at least i parts of the world, is mixing the rights of the creator as being named as just that creator, and the issue of who can make copies.
As long as this is under one set of law, one can argue for time frames to benefit the former while its real effect will be seen in relation to the latter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511654</id>
	<title>distribution...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268851320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only problem here is that the companies that make up the RIAA and MPAA have put on a facade of being the producers of entertainment. It's a facade because they got into producing only after the fact, and usually what they produce can hardly be considered original or creative in any way.  They are not artists.</p><p>Their original business model was distribution.  The internet has opened up communication between any two people on the earth from the narrow confines of voice and fax to just about anything that can be digitized (music, images, etc, but not chairs, for example).  Distribution has become a moot point, and the foundation of the business model of those companies has been yanked out from under them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only problem here is that the companies that make up the RIAA and MPAA have put on a facade of being the producers of entertainment .
It 's a facade because they got into producing only after the fact , and usually what they produce can hardly be considered original or creative in any way .
They are not artists.Their original business model was distribution .
The internet has opened up communication between any two people on the earth from the narrow confines of voice and fax to just about anything that can be digitized ( music , images , etc , but not chairs , for example ) .
Distribution has become a moot point , and the foundation of the business model of those companies has been yanked out from under them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only problem here is that the companies that make up the RIAA and MPAA have put on a facade of being the producers of entertainment.
It's a facade because they got into producing only after the fact, and usually what they produce can hardly be considered original or creative in any way.
They are not artists.Their original business model was distribution.
The internet has opened up communication between any two people on the earth from the narrow confines of voice and fax to just about anything that can be digitized (music, images, etc, but not chairs, for example).
Distribution has become a moot point, and the foundation of the business model of those companies has been yanked out from under them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511766</id>
	<title>Re:Time does blow hot air sometimes</title>
	<author>Aeros</author>
	<datestamp>1268851560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>right people that pirate dont kill the connection if they dont get their data right away.  They go away and make a sandwich, watch another pirated movie then come back when its done..rinse and repeat!</htmltext>
<tokenext>right people that pirate dont kill the connection if they dont get their data right away .
They go away and make a sandwich , watch another pirated movie then come back when its done..rinse and repeat !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>right people that pirate dont kill the connection if they dont get their data right away.
They go away and make a sandwich, watch another pirated movie then come back when its done..rinse and repeat!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512620</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268853960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The less bandwidth costs your ISP, the less they <i>have</i> to charge you for using it.</p></div><p>I don't think that's going to make much difference for the customers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The less bandwidth costs your ISP , the less they have to charge you for using it.I do n't think that 's going to make much difference for the customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The less bandwidth costs your ISP, the less they have to charge you for using it.I don't think that's going to make much difference for the customers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511352</id>
	<title>that's a backbone router, stupid.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268850420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the whole thing of "downloading DVD in a few seconds" is a complete nonsense. We're talking about a backbone router. You download speed is limited by the bandwidth of the either end point of your connection, whichever is slower. *That's* your major bottleneck, and not a bottleneck on a backbone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the whole thing of " downloading DVD in a few seconds " is a complete nonsense .
We 're talking about a backbone router .
You download speed is limited by the bandwidth of the either end point of your connection , whichever is slower .
* That 's * your major bottleneck , and not a bottleneck on a backbone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the whole thing of "downloading DVD in a few seconds" is a complete nonsense.
We're talking about a backbone router.
You download speed is limited by the bandwidth of the either end point of your connection, whichever is slower.
*That's* your major bottleneck, and not a bottleneck on a backbone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31513150</id>
	<title>Re:The Last Mile</title>
	<author>pdxp</author>
	<datestamp>1268855700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It can sometimes be the backbones but it's more often that the Last Mile is the source of bandwidth/latency issues. You can thank our telecoms for not doing The Right Thing(TM) with all of the government subsidization that many telecoms in other countries used to fix the obviously expensive problems.<br>
<br>

In the cases where we do pay through the nose for reasonably fast connections, the problem becomes centered around load on servers. You can't stream HD content to 100,000 users from one machine, so there's a point when you need to build out your services to meet the capacity of the network.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It can sometimes be the backbones but it 's more often that the Last Mile is the source of bandwidth/latency issues .
You can thank our telecoms for not doing The Right Thing ( TM ) with all of the government subsidization that many telecoms in other countries used to fix the obviously expensive problems .
In the cases where we do pay through the nose for reasonably fast connections , the problem becomes centered around load on servers .
You ca n't stream HD content to 100,000 users from one machine , so there 's a point when you need to build out your services to meet the capacity of the network .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It can sometimes be the backbones but it's more often that the Last Mile is the source of bandwidth/latency issues.
You can thank our telecoms for not doing The Right Thing(TM) with all of the government subsidization that many telecoms in other countries used to fix the obviously expensive problems.
In the cases where we do pay through the nose for reasonably fast connections, the problem becomes centered around load on servers.
You can't stream HD content to 100,000 users from one machine, so there's a point when you need to build out your services to meet the capacity of the network.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511340</id>
	<title>bandwidth costs</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1268850360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So does this mean that we'll be able to have less expensive bandwidth and/or pipe costs in the near future? No? I didn't think so.</p><p>I find it highly unlikely this will do much more than shave the costs of operation a bit for larger organizations which might actually need something like this: hosting providers, pipe providers, colo providers, and the like. I'd say the chances are slim that the common man would gain much benefit from this change.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So does this mean that we 'll be able to have less expensive bandwidth and/or pipe costs in the near future ?
No ? I did n't think so.I find it highly unlikely this will do much more than shave the costs of operation a bit for larger organizations which might actually need something like this : hosting providers , pipe providers , colo providers , and the like .
I 'd say the chances are slim that the common man would gain much benefit from this change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So does this mean that we'll be able to have less expensive bandwidth and/or pipe costs in the near future?
No? I didn't think so.I find it highly unlikely this will do much more than shave the costs of operation a bit for larger organizations which might actually need something like this: hosting providers, pipe providers, colo providers, and the like.
I'd say the chances are slim that the common man would gain much benefit from this change.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512098</id>
	<title>The first step is to TRY</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268852580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Meanwhile, both the MPAA and the RIAA continue to fight emerging technologies like peer-to-peer file sharing with costly court battles rather than figuring out how to appeal to the next generation of movie enthusiasts and still make a buck</p></div></blockquote><p>Fighting tech: dumb.  Failing to try to get anything out of tech: dumber.  Where can I buy non-DRMed high def movies?  Oh, I can't; they aren't for sale <em>at any price</em>.  Only pirates have them.  What part of "not for sale at any price" meaning "$0 projected revenue" do they still fail to understand?  What is even the <em>point</em> of fighting, if you don't yourself, want a piece of the pie?  Yo, MPAA, are you <em>sure</em> you don't want to enter the market?</p><p>As long as these so-called "businesses" aren't selling, it's hard to see how this can "spell trouble" for them.  When you have 0.00\% marketshare, what can really threaten you?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Meanwhile , both the MPAA and the RIAA continue to fight emerging technologies like peer-to-peer file sharing with costly court battles rather than figuring out how to appeal to the next generation of movie enthusiasts and still make a buckFighting tech : dumb .
Failing to try to get anything out of tech : dumber .
Where can I buy non-DRMed high def movies ?
Oh , I ca n't ; they are n't for sale at any price .
Only pirates have them .
What part of " not for sale at any price " meaning " $ 0 projected revenue " do they still fail to understand ?
What is even the point of fighting , if you do n't yourself , want a piece of the pie ?
Yo , MPAA , are you sure you do n't want to enter the market ? As long as these so-called " businesses " are n't selling , it 's hard to see how this can " spell trouble " for them .
When you have 0.00 \ % marketshare , what can really threaten you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meanwhile, both the MPAA and the RIAA continue to fight emerging technologies like peer-to-peer file sharing with costly court battles rather than figuring out how to appeal to the next generation of movie enthusiasts and still make a buckFighting tech: dumb.
Failing to try to get anything out of tech: dumber.
Where can I buy non-DRMed high def movies?
Oh, I can't; they aren't for sale at any price.
Only pirates have them.
What part of "not for sale at any price" meaning "$0 projected revenue" do they still fail to understand?
What is even the point of fighting, if you don't yourself, want a piece of the pie?
Yo, MPAA, are you sure you don't want to enter the market?As long as these so-called "businesses" aren't selling, it's hard to see how this can "spell trouble" for them.
When you have 0.00\% marketshare, what can really threaten you?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31513216</id>
	<title>Re:Slanted Wording</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268855940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Geeze, thesaurus much?  Bet you creamed at the fact that you managed to shoehorn both 'quagmire and 'fora' into the same sentence there in an attempt to sound smart.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Geeze , thesaurus much ?
Bet you creamed at the fact that you managed to shoehorn both 'quagmire and 'fora ' into the same sentence there in an attempt to sound smart .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Geeze, thesaurus much?
Bet you creamed at the fact that you managed to shoehorn both 'quagmire and 'fora' into the same sentence there in an attempt to sound smart.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512862</id>
	<title>MAFIAA = Music and Film Association fo America</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268854680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MAFIAA = Music and Film Association fo America</p><p>It's not all hate speech ya know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MAFIAA = Music and Film Association fo AmericaIt 's not all hate speech ya know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MAFIAA = Music and Film Association fo AmericaIt's not all hate speech ya know.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31513048</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't really effect bittorent</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1268855280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why then do for example the people that have fiber normally get "only" 10-50 Mbit/s, even though the cable can easily carry &gt;1 Gbit? Because it costs lots of money to actually deliver gigabit internet speed, and routers like this are vital to cutting down costs. It might not matter for those that enjoy the "free" market in the US, but the rest of the world cares. Already 10\% of Internet connections here in Norway are fiber and it's rising sharply. Thousand people with gigabit in a central and you're already theoretically at terabyte speeds. Even if just 10\% use it at any time and only 10\% of the capacity on average (easily offset by the few that use 100\%) then it's only enough for 100,000 people. There's 1.8 billion people online and rising.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why then do for example the people that have fiber normally get " only " 10-50 Mbit/s , even though the cable can easily carry &gt; 1 Gbit ?
Because it costs lots of money to actually deliver gigabit internet speed , and routers like this are vital to cutting down costs .
It might not matter for those that enjoy the " free " market in the US , but the rest of the world cares .
Already 10 \ % of Internet connections here in Norway are fiber and it 's rising sharply .
Thousand people with gigabit in a central and you 're already theoretically at terabyte speeds .
Even if just 10 \ % use it at any time and only 10 \ % of the capacity on average ( easily offset by the few that use 100 \ % ) then it 's only enough for 100,000 people .
There 's 1.8 billion people online and rising .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why then do for example the people that have fiber normally get "only" 10-50 Mbit/s, even though the cable can easily carry &gt;1 Gbit?
Because it costs lots of money to actually deliver gigabit internet speed, and routers like this are vital to cutting down costs.
It might not matter for those that enjoy the "free" market in the US, but the rest of the world cares.
Already 10\% of Internet connections here in Norway are fiber and it's rising sharply.
Thousand people with gigabit in a central and you're already theoretically at terabyte speeds.
Even if just 10\% use it at any time and only 10\% of the capacity on average (easily offset by the few that use 100\%) then it's only enough for 100,000 people.
There's 1.8 billion people online and rising.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31513302</id>
	<title>Re:Music labels starting to get it right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268856240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, you just financed their lawsuits.</p><p>Also thanks for PeerGuardian.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , you just financed their lawsuits.Also thanks for PeerGuardian .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, you just financed their lawsuits.Also thanks for PeerGuardian.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511116</id>
	<title>Time does blow hot air sometimes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268849880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't buy the more bandwidth equals more piracy angle at all. We already have enough bandwidth to destroy Hollywood if we wanted or if that was even possible.</p><p>The one thing that has changed more that any new pipe size is that world governments are finally taking command and control of the internet. They will shutdown the whole thing at Hollywood's request. They will require the ISPs to provide point-and-click shutdown just like they enable point-and-click spying. Hell, they will require they build anti-piracy into the CRS-3, if they don't already. And internet anonymity will be made illegal and anyone who provides such services will be shutdown or walled off the internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't buy the more bandwidth equals more piracy angle at all .
We already have enough bandwidth to destroy Hollywood if we wanted or if that was even possible.The one thing that has changed more that any new pipe size is that world governments are finally taking command and control of the internet .
They will shutdown the whole thing at Hollywood 's request .
They will require the ISPs to provide point-and-click shutdown just like they enable point-and-click spying .
Hell , they will require they build anti-piracy into the CRS-3 , if they do n't already .
And internet anonymity will be made illegal and anyone who provides such services will be shutdown or walled off the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't buy the more bandwidth equals more piracy angle at all.
We already have enough bandwidth to destroy Hollywood if we wanted or if that was even possible.The one thing that has changed more that any new pipe size is that world governments are finally taking command and control of the internet.
They will shutdown the whole thing at Hollywood's request.
They will require the ISPs to provide point-and-click shutdown just like they enable point-and-click spying.
Hell, they will require they build anti-piracy into the CRS-3, if they don't already.
And internet anonymity will be made illegal and anyone who provides such services will be shutdown or walled off the internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512660</id>
	<title>Time-Warner's Time Warns of Dim Future for Warner</title>
	<author>xee</author>
	<datestamp>1268854080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't Time-Warner the single biggest member of both the MPAA and the RIAA?  Why would anyone listen to their obviously biased opinion on this matter?  The article is full of misinformation, fear, uncertainty, and doubt: just the kind of sensationalism we love here at slashdot.</p><p>First, consider the comparison made at the outset to describe the difference in scale between a home router and a CRS-3.  Rather than using a neutral example, like car horsepower, an example is given which puts none other than the vicious T. Rex dinosaur in the position of the CRS-3.  What is more understandable to the reader, the big violent dinosaur or the car with 1,000,000 horsepower?  Of course both are equally understandable, but they give drastically different impressions.</p><p>"As it turns out, these megarouters sitting inside data centers of major telcos and cablecos are among the biggest bottlenecks of the Internet, because as bandwidth speed to end users has shot up in recent years, router technology has not kept up, resulting in traffic jams that can slow or freeze downloads."</p><p>You know you can trust TIME Magazine to report on the state of the art in core Internet statistical measurements.  Need I say more?  These bozos have the audacity to make such a bold claim, without even a hint of statistical data, without attribution to an outside study, without a quote by a recognized expert or even an industry insider.  Am I supposed to take author Erik Heinrich's word for it?  He's the guy who compares routers to geckos and T. Rexes!</p><p>The real story here should be Time-Warner's blatant use of the TIME publication to further it's corporate overlord agenda in collusion with the other members of the Big Media cartel.  We'll see much more of this coming from all the usual suspects as we get nearer to a vote on ACTA.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't Time-Warner the single biggest member of both the MPAA and the RIAA ?
Why would anyone listen to their obviously biased opinion on this matter ?
The article is full of misinformation , fear , uncertainty , and doubt : just the kind of sensationalism we love here at slashdot.First , consider the comparison made at the outset to describe the difference in scale between a home router and a CRS-3 .
Rather than using a neutral example , like car horsepower , an example is given which puts none other than the vicious T. Rex dinosaur in the position of the CRS-3 .
What is more understandable to the reader , the big violent dinosaur or the car with 1,000,000 horsepower ?
Of course both are equally understandable , but they give drastically different impressions .
" As it turns out , these megarouters sitting inside data centers of major telcos and cablecos are among the biggest bottlenecks of the Internet , because as bandwidth speed to end users has shot up in recent years , router technology has not kept up , resulting in traffic jams that can slow or freeze downloads .
" You know you can trust TIME Magazine to report on the state of the art in core Internet statistical measurements .
Need I say more ?
These bozos have the audacity to make such a bold claim , without even a hint of statistical data , without attribution to an outside study , without a quote by a recognized expert or even an industry insider .
Am I supposed to take author Erik Heinrich 's word for it ?
He 's the guy who compares routers to geckos and T. Rexes ! The real story here should be Time-Warner 's blatant use of the TIME publication to further it 's corporate overlord agenda in collusion with the other members of the Big Media cartel .
We 'll see much more of this coming from all the usual suspects as we get nearer to a vote on ACTA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't Time-Warner the single biggest member of both the MPAA and the RIAA?
Why would anyone listen to their obviously biased opinion on this matter?
The article is full of misinformation, fear, uncertainty, and doubt: just the kind of sensationalism we love here at slashdot.First, consider the comparison made at the outset to describe the difference in scale between a home router and a CRS-3.
Rather than using a neutral example, like car horsepower, an example is given which puts none other than the vicious T. Rex dinosaur in the position of the CRS-3.
What is more understandable to the reader, the big violent dinosaur or the car with 1,000,000 horsepower?
Of course both are equally understandable, but they give drastically different impressions.
"As it turns out, these megarouters sitting inside data centers of major telcos and cablecos are among the biggest bottlenecks of the Internet, because as bandwidth speed to end users has shot up in recent years, router technology has not kept up, resulting in traffic jams that can slow or freeze downloads.
"You know you can trust TIME Magazine to report on the state of the art in core Internet statistical measurements.
Need I say more?
These bozos have the audacity to make such a bold claim, without even a hint of statistical data, without attribution to an outside study, without a quote by a recognized expert or even an industry insider.
Am I supposed to take author Erik Heinrich's word for it?
He's the guy who compares routers to geckos and T. Rexes!The real story here should be Time-Warner's blatant use of the TIME publication to further it's corporate overlord agenda in collusion with the other members of the Big Media cartel.
We'll see much more of this coming from all the usual suspects as we get nearer to a vote on ACTA.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511198</id>
	<title>Same meme different author</title>
	<author>guruevi</author>
	<datestamp>1268850120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Same thing we have been saying for years: Technology advances, get over it, find a better business model or quit. Buggy whips!</p><p>The problem is, the current market doesn't need the middle man anymore. The middle man makes the media crappy and monotone to appeal for a large audience so they can make a quick buck, people want better stuff. Eventually the pendulum is going to swing back as 'indie' filmmakers trying to make a quick buck are going to be distributing their own stuff overloading the consumer with crappy, monotone media - the consumer is going to start looking at a more centralized source which will aggregate several of these media sources and filter out the bad stuff until they see the need to make a quick buck by overloading their loyal customers with crap again.</p><p>Eventually it all comes around but for now we don't need the middle man anymore. Just as we don't need buggy makers anymore but we have wanted fossil-fuel-powered buggy makers for the last few decades and the next few decades we're going to need electric-powered buggy makers. All-in-all, we need buggy's, it's just that the type and kind has changed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Same thing we have been saying for years : Technology advances , get over it , find a better business model or quit .
Buggy whips ! The problem is , the current market does n't need the middle man anymore .
The middle man makes the media crappy and monotone to appeal for a large audience so they can make a quick buck , people want better stuff .
Eventually the pendulum is going to swing back as 'indie ' filmmakers trying to make a quick buck are going to be distributing their own stuff overloading the consumer with crappy , monotone media - the consumer is going to start looking at a more centralized source which will aggregate several of these media sources and filter out the bad stuff until they see the need to make a quick buck by overloading their loyal customers with crap again.Eventually it all comes around but for now we do n't need the middle man anymore .
Just as we do n't need buggy makers anymore but we have wanted fossil-fuel-powered buggy makers for the last few decades and the next few decades we 're going to need electric-powered buggy makers .
All-in-all , we need buggy 's , it 's just that the type and kind has changed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same thing we have been saying for years: Technology advances, get over it, find a better business model or quit.
Buggy whips!The problem is, the current market doesn't need the middle man anymore.
The middle man makes the media crappy and monotone to appeal for a large audience so they can make a quick buck, people want better stuff.
Eventually the pendulum is going to swing back as 'indie' filmmakers trying to make a quick buck are going to be distributing their own stuff overloading the consumer with crappy, monotone media - the consumer is going to start looking at a more centralized source which will aggregate several of these media sources and filter out the bad stuff until they see the need to make a quick buck by overloading their loyal customers with crap again.Eventually it all comes around but for now we don't need the middle man anymore.
Just as we don't need buggy makers anymore but we have wanted fossil-fuel-powered buggy makers for the last few decades and the next few decades we're going to need electric-powered buggy makers.
All-in-all, we need buggy's, it's just that the type and kind has changed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512514</id>
	<title>Re:What's the business model again?</title>
	<author>Locklin</author>
	<datestamp>1268853660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Likely the same business model that allowed networks to broadcast free content over the airwaves for half a century, though, there are other models.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Likely the same business model that allowed networks to broadcast free content over the airwaves for half a century , though , there are other models .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Likely the same business model that allowed networks to broadcast free content over the airwaves for half a century, though, there are other models.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512686</id>
	<title>Still punishing their customers</title>
	<author>kawabago</author>
	<datestamp>1268854140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How the movie industry can have it's best year ever while at the same time claiming to being bled dry by file downloaders is a mystery to me.  In fact the movie industry hasn't lost a thing to downloaders because downloaders aren't their customers, never have been and never will be.  Yes file downloaders will consume content without paying but the industry needs to just accept that and focus on the people who are their customers. I paint watercolors and I want as many people as possible to see my work for free so I can find those few people who actually want to buy, it's them I'm focused on.  When I open a show of my work I provide food and wine to everyone who attends whether they buy my work or not.  The entertainment industry should adopt the same attitude and stop making their products less attractive to the people who do want to buy them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How the movie industry can have it 's best year ever while at the same time claiming to being bled dry by file downloaders is a mystery to me .
In fact the movie industry has n't lost a thing to downloaders because downloaders are n't their customers , never have been and never will be .
Yes file downloaders will consume content without paying but the industry needs to just accept that and focus on the people who are their customers .
I paint watercolors and I want as many people as possible to see my work for free so I can find those few people who actually want to buy , it 's them I 'm focused on .
When I open a show of my work I provide food and wine to everyone who attends whether they buy my work or not .
The entertainment industry should adopt the same attitude and stop making their products less attractive to the people who do want to buy them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How the movie industry can have it's best year ever while at the same time claiming to being bled dry by file downloaders is a mystery to me.
In fact the movie industry hasn't lost a thing to downloaders because downloaders aren't their customers, never have been and never will be.
Yes file downloaders will consume content without paying but the industry needs to just accept that and focus on the people who are their customers.
I paint watercolors and I want as many people as possible to see my work for free so I can find those few people who actually want to buy, it's them I'm focused on.
When I open a show of my work I provide food and wine to everyone who attends whether they buy my work or not.
The entertainment industry should adopt the same attitude and stop making their products less attractive to the people who do want to buy them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512122</id>
	<title>No big deal...</title>
	<author>joelja</author>
	<datestamp>1268852580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is simply the product that needs to be able to support ongoing growth in the core. It is neither revolutionary nor in fact terribly new. Juniper t1600+TXmatrix is roughly the same class of router.</p><p>Big core routers have a service life of around 5 years and the CRS-1 was introduced in 2004.</p><p>The size and complexity of the forwarding table in these mainframe style distributed router platforms is at least as important as their throughput (and speed of the slot interconnects to a non-blocking fabric is the biggest part of that). and of course that's not the part that journalists have been covering since in layman's terms it's almost completely incomprehensible. These boxes are designed for 5-10 million routes spread across a number of VRF (virtual router and forwarding) instances which is going to have to last them until 2015 or so which is potentially a fairly iffy proposition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is simply the product that needs to be able to support ongoing growth in the core .
It is neither revolutionary nor in fact terribly new .
Juniper t1600 + TXmatrix is roughly the same class of router.Big core routers have a service life of around 5 years and the CRS-1 was introduced in 2004.The size and complexity of the forwarding table in these mainframe style distributed router platforms is at least as important as their throughput ( and speed of the slot interconnects to a non-blocking fabric is the biggest part of that ) .
and of course that 's not the part that journalists have been covering since in layman 's terms it 's almost completely incomprehensible .
These boxes are designed for 5-10 million routes spread across a number of VRF ( virtual router and forwarding ) instances which is going to have to last them until 2015 or so which is potentially a fairly iffy proposition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is simply the product that needs to be able to support ongoing growth in the core.
It is neither revolutionary nor in fact terribly new.
Juniper t1600+TXmatrix is roughly the same class of router.Big core routers have a service life of around 5 years and the CRS-1 was introduced in 2004.The size and complexity of the forwarding table in these mainframe style distributed router platforms is at least as important as their throughput (and speed of the slot interconnects to a non-blocking fabric is the biggest part of that).
and of course that's not the part that journalists have been covering since in layman's terms it's almost completely incomprehensible.
These boxes are designed for 5-10 million routes spread across a number of VRF (virtual router and forwarding) instances which is going to have to last them until 2015 or so which is potentially a fairly iffy proposition.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31518854</id>
	<title>Re:The Last Mile</title>
	<author>kzh</author>
	<datestamp>1268844240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>correct. the bottleneck is not from the user to the access node (DSLAM, etc.) but from the DSLAM backhaul into the aggregation point. This is all still within the edge of the network. The core network is in a air-con data centre somewhere with 10GE connections. The connection from the DSLAM (DSL aggregation point) to the edge router is usually still ATM in most places and where the bottleneck usually occurs due to oversubscription, etc.

your complete movie archive in seconds is worthless if everyone in your street is doing it, the traffic never gets as far as the core before congestion occurs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>correct .
the bottleneck is not from the user to the access node ( DSLAM , etc .
) but from the DSLAM backhaul into the aggregation point .
This is all still within the edge of the network .
The core network is in a air-con data centre somewhere with 10GE connections .
The connection from the DSLAM ( DSL aggregation point ) to the edge router is usually still ATM in most places and where the bottleneck usually occurs due to oversubscription , etc .
your complete movie archive in seconds is worthless if everyone in your street is doing it , the traffic never gets as far as the core before congestion occurs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>correct.
the bottleneck is not from the user to the access node (DSLAM, etc.
) but from the DSLAM backhaul into the aggregation point.
This is all still within the edge of the network.
The core network is in a air-con data centre somewhere with 10GE connections.
The connection from the DSLAM (DSL aggregation point) to the edge router is usually still ATM in most places and where the bottleneck usually occurs due to oversubscription, etc.
your complete movie archive in seconds is worthless if everyone in your street is doing it, the traffic never gets as far as the core before congestion occurs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31514478</id>
	<title>Trouble for hollywood</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1268817420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is that they produce crap. Not that there are new distribution channels.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that they produce crap .
Not that there are new distribution channels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that they produce crap.
Not that there are new distribution channels.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31517926</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing new</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1268836200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because shift-q-q is so much less to type than c-r-y.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because shift-q-q is so much less to type than c-r-y .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because shift-q-q is so much less to type than c-r-y.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31513098</id>
	<title>The CRS-3 is a core backbone device</title>
	<author>RichiH</author>
	<datestamp>1268855520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am not sure how the CRS-3 will improve my 1386 kbit/s downstream at home.</p><p>If given the choice, I would gladly take an \_ancient\_ 7206VXR with gigabit at home, but no one will connect me at that speed.</p><p>It's not about the backbone, it's about the curb.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not sure how the CRS-3 will improve my 1386 kbit/s downstream at home.If given the choice , I would gladly take an \ _ancient \ _ 7206VXR with gigabit at home , but no one will connect me at that speed.It 's not about the backbone , it 's about the curb .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not sure how the CRS-3 will improve my 1386 kbit/s downstream at home.If given the choice, I would gladly take an \_ancient\_ 7206VXR with gigabit at home, but no one will connect me at that speed.It's not about the backbone, it's about the curb.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31518884</id>
	<title>Re:Time-Warner's Time Warns of Dim Future for Warn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268844480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The truth is they are definitely not the bottleneck, as someone who has worked in core routing for 15 years. The real bottleneck is the 38mbps docsis2 node you share with you and your closest 200 friends.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The truth is they are definitely not the bottleneck , as someone who has worked in core routing for 15 years .
The real bottleneck is the 38mbps docsis2 node you share with you and your closest 200 friends .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The truth is they are definitely not the bottleneck, as someone who has worked in core routing for 15 years.
The real bottleneck is the 38mbps docsis2 node you share with you and your closest 200 friends.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31530400</id>
	<title>Re:"MAFIAA" Sure, You Want to be Taken Seriously..</title>
	<author>jwhitener</author>
	<datestamp>1268913600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its been my experience that Netflix only gets a movie after it has been out a long time, after rentals, after dvd, etc...and their streaming does not stream their entire collection.  Some of the biggest titles are not available to stream.</p><p>Hulu, in terms of the most popular shows, sometimes has the last few episodes, but no way to start at episode one.  And many popular shows are not on Hulu.  It is actually pretty limited.  Not to mention the absence of British shows like Torchwood hehe.</p><p>And then there is the entire sets of some of the most popular/highest rated shows of all time on the "premium" channels like HBO.  True Blood, The Wire, etc.. None of that is streamed as far as I know.  Maybe much later on Netflix, I'm not sure.</p><p>Streaming is the redheaded step child of entertainment still.  It might get better, but it is no where near ready to be a primary source.</p><p>And don't get me started on "too many people want to do that and not pay for it. "  Thats bullshit.  There is no option to pay "for it", because "it" does not exist.</p><p>The model of pay your cable bill for shows 1,2 and 3, pay your Tivo bill to record 1,2,3 and be able to pause TV, pay HBO to watch 1 show, sign up for netflix to watch movie 4,5,6, etc...</p><p>It is just too scattered, too inconvenient, and did you notice all the PAYING that is going on, and I still can't, say, find a single source to start watching Burn Notice season 1 episode 1 anywhere.  Hulu, nope. Netflix, nope, etc...Or anything on discovery.</p><p>I'd gladly pay 150 bucks a month for basically the "all service".  HBO/Showtime/Cable/Movies, all modern, no delays, all episodes available at all times.</p><p>The days of having to buy DVD's are (well should be) over.  And the artificial scarcity model will eventually fail.  Region limits too.  The first big streaming company to arm wrestle content providers into giving up their content in a timely fashion, and ALL of it, not just a few episodes, is going to make major bucks.</p><p>Who knows, maybe Hulu can someday offer a 100 bucks a month service, that has all shows, including HBO/premium content/Movies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its been my experience that Netflix only gets a movie after it has been out a long time , after rentals , after dvd , etc...and their streaming does not stream their entire collection .
Some of the biggest titles are not available to stream.Hulu , in terms of the most popular shows , sometimes has the last few episodes , but no way to start at episode one .
And many popular shows are not on Hulu .
It is actually pretty limited .
Not to mention the absence of British shows like Torchwood hehe.And then there is the entire sets of some of the most popular/highest rated shows of all time on the " premium " channels like HBO .
True Blood , The Wire , etc.. None of that is streamed as far as I know .
Maybe much later on Netflix , I 'm not sure.Streaming is the redheaded step child of entertainment still .
It might get better , but it is no where near ready to be a primary source.And do n't get me started on " too many people want to do that and not pay for it .
" Thats bullshit .
There is no option to pay " for it " , because " it " does not exist.The model of pay your cable bill for shows 1,2 and 3 , pay your Tivo bill to record 1,2,3 and be able to pause TV , pay HBO to watch 1 show , sign up for netflix to watch movie 4,5,6 , etc...It is just too scattered , too inconvenient , and did you notice all the PAYING that is going on , and I still ca n't , say , find a single source to start watching Burn Notice season 1 episode 1 anywhere .
Hulu , nope .
Netflix , nope , etc...Or anything on discovery.I 'd gladly pay 150 bucks a month for basically the " all service " .
HBO/Showtime/Cable/Movies , all modern , no delays , all episodes available at all times.The days of having to buy DVD 's are ( well should be ) over .
And the artificial scarcity model will eventually fail .
Region limits too .
The first big streaming company to arm wrestle content providers into giving up their content in a timely fashion , and ALL of it , not just a few episodes , is going to make major bucks.Who knows , maybe Hulu can someday offer a 100 bucks a month service , that has all shows , including HBO/premium content/Movies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its been my experience that Netflix only gets a movie after it has been out a long time, after rentals, after dvd, etc...and their streaming does not stream their entire collection.
Some of the biggest titles are not available to stream.Hulu, in terms of the most popular shows, sometimes has the last few episodes, but no way to start at episode one.
And many popular shows are not on Hulu.
It is actually pretty limited.
Not to mention the absence of British shows like Torchwood hehe.And then there is the entire sets of some of the most popular/highest rated shows of all time on the "premium" channels like HBO.
True Blood, The Wire, etc.. None of that is streamed as far as I know.
Maybe much later on Netflix, I'm not sure.Streaming is the redheaded step child of entertainment still.
It might get better, but it is no where near ready to be a primary source.And don't get me started on "too many people want to do that and not pay for it.
"  Thats bullshit.
There is no option to pay "for it", because "it" does not exist.The model of pay your cable bill for shows 1,2 and 3, pay your Tivo bill to record 1,2,3 and be able to pause TV, pay HBO to watch 1 show, sign up for netflix to watch movie 4,5,6, etc...It is just too scattered, too inconvenient, and did you notice all the PAYING that is going on, and I still can't, say, find a single source to start watching Burn Notice season 1 episode 1 anywhere.
Hulu, nope.
Netflix, nope, etc...Or anything on discovery.I'd gladly pay 150 bucks a month for basically the "all service".
HBO/Showtime/Cable/Movies, all modern, no delays, all episodes available at all times.The days of having to buy DVD's are (well should be) over.
And the artificial scarcity model will eventually fail.
Region limits too.
The first big streaming company to arm wrestle content providers into giving up their content in a timely fashion, and ALL of it, not just a few episodes, is going to make major bucks.Who knows, maybe Hulu can someday offer a 100 bucks a month service, that has all shows, including HBO/premium content/Movies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31514766</id>
	<title>So that's all the Internet was waiting for ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268818440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really, the Internet was waiting for this router to expand? Really ?</p><p>So Cisco is telling us their customers have maxed out all the possibilities with the CSR-1/2 and couldn't expand any more ?</p><p>I doubt that this is the case. You can think of a thousand of ways to expand your network bandwidth in a scalable way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really , the Internet was waiting for this router to expand ?
Really ? So Cisco is telling us their customers have maxed out all the possibilities with the CSR-1/2 and could n't expand any more ? I doubt that this is the case .
You can think of a thousand of ways to expand your network bandwidth in a scalable way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really, the Internet was waiting for this router to expand?
Really ?So Cisco is telling us their customers have maxed out all the possibilities with the CSR-1/2 and couldn't expand any more ?I doubt that this is the case.
You can think of a thousand of ways to expand your network bandwidth in a scalable way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31514846</id>
	<title>Re:The Last Mile</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268818680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The backbones are usually not the problems.   It is usually the lines from the backbones to your neighborhood.   However even though these new routers can do insane total capacity they also are making faster lines(10gb - 100gb) and routing much cheaper.    Think of a neighborhood that was previously served by a 1gb line is now going to a 10gb line or even 100gb line.    These telecom companies are very adverse to installing new fiber lines, but when for $10k-$100k they can upgrade the routers and get 10 times the speed?   Their eyes light up when they figure they can charge double for the service.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The backbones are usually not the problems .
It is usually the lines from the backbones to your neighborhood .
However even though these new routers can do insane total capacity they also are making faster lines ( 10gb - 100gb ) and routing much cheaper .
Think of a neighborhood that was previously served by a 1gb line is now going to a 10gb line or even 100gb line .
These telecom companies are very adverse to installing new fiber lines , but when for $ 10k- $ 100k they can upgrade the routers and get 10 times the speed ?
Their eyes light up when they figure they can charge double for the service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The backbones are usually not the problems.
It is usually the lines from the backbones to your neighborhood.
However even though these new routers can do insane total capacity they also are making faster lines(10gb - 100gb) and routing much cheaper.
Think of a neighborhood that was previously served by a 1gb line is now going to a 10gb line or even 100gb line.
These telecom companies are very adverse to installing new fiber lines, but when for $10k-$100k they can upgrade the routers and get 10 times the speed?
Their eyes light up when they figure they can charge double for the service.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31514234</id>
	<title>!Death of DVD</title>
	<author>edraven</author>
	<datestamp>1268816520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shoot, our connection to the internet is down. What can we do for fun now?<br>Want to watch a mo... oh, shoot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Shoot , our connection to the internet is down .
What can we do for fun now ? Want to watch a mo... oh , shoot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shoot, our connection to the internet is down.
What can we do for fun now?Want to watch a mo... oh, shoot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511694</id>
	<title>Re:MAFIAA</title>
	<author>Sir\_Lewk</author>
	<datestamp>1268851380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I fail to see how childish whining helps do anything to further this debate...</p><p>Besides, everyone here with half a braincell already knows the MPAA/RIAA is evil.  The 'debate' (really a discussion) is over whether or not this new router hurts them.</p><p>But hey, never pass up a chance to bitch about slashdot right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I fail to see how childish whining helps do anything to further this debate...Besides , everyone here with half a braincell already knows the MPAA/RIAA is evil .
The 'debate ' ( really a discussion ) is over whether or not this new router hurts them.But hey , never pass up a chance to bitch about slashdot right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I fail to see how childish whining helps do anything to further this debate...Besides, everyone here with half a braincell already knows the MPAA/RIAA is evil.
The 'debate' (really a discussion) is over whether or not this new router hurts them.But hey, never pass up a chance to bitch about slashdot right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31514178</id>
	<title>Re:How is this "trouble for Hollywood?"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268859480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;the FCC is going to magically solve the last-mile</p><p>Yeah it's called "spend until you go bankrupt" and then wonder why it happened.  Like those $7/hour McDonalds or Walmart employees who can't figure out why they lost their $250,000 homes.  You spend beyond your means, even if you are the U.S. Government, and consequences will occur.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; the FCC is going to magically solve the last-mileYeah it 's called " spend until you go bankrupt " and then wonder why it happened .
Like those $ 7/hour McDonalds or Walmart employees who ca n't figure out why they lost their $ 250,000 homes .
You spend beyond your means , even if you are the U.S. Government , and consequences will occur .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;the FCC is going to magically solve the last-mileYeah it's called "spend until you go bankrupt" and then wonder why it happened.
Like those $7/hour McDonalds or Walmart employees who can't figure out why they lost their $250,000 homes.
You spend beyond your means, even if you are the U.S. Government, and consequences will occur.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511888</id>
	<title>Cisco</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1268851860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cicso, I'm still waiting for a giant TV that:</p><p>
&nbsp; - Sits outdoors<br>
&nbsp; - Is visible in direct sunlight<br>
&nbsp; - Has a built-in camera<br>
&nbsp; - Shows a live feed of another TV on the other side of the planet<br>
&nbsp; - Feeds it's own live feed to said other TV<br>
&nbsp; - Has both sides of the planet in broad daylight at the same time<br>
&nbsp; - Sends the feed using tachyons to get around that pesky delay</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cicso , I 'm still waiting for a giant TV that :   - Sits outdoors   - Is visible in direct sunlight   - Has a built-in camera   - Shows a live feed of another TV on the other side of the planet   - Feeds it 's own live feed to said other TV   - Has both sides of the planet in broad daylight at the same time   - Sends the feed using tachyons to get around that pesky delay</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cicso, I'm still waiting for a giant TV that:
  - Sits outdoors
  - Is visible in direct sunlight
  - Has a built-in camera
  - Shows a live feed of another TV on the other side of the planet
  - Feeds it's own live feed to said other TV
  - Has both sides of the planet in broad daylight at the same time
  - Sends the feed using tachyons to get around that pesky delay</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511152</id>
	<title>Doesn't really effect bittorent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268849940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The speed of most downloads is bandwidth limited by the computer it is being downloaded from, not by the network. This new router isn't going to make peer-to-peer networks noticeably faster. It's not going to make downloads from servers with thousands of concurrent connections noticeably faster either.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The speed of most downloads is bandwidth limited by the computer it is being downloaded from , not by the network .
This new router is n't going to make peer-to-peer networks noticeably faster .
It 's not going to make downloads from servers with thousands of concurrent connections noticeably faster either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The speed of most downloads is bandwidth limited by the computer it is being downloaded from, not by the network.
This new router isn't going to make peer-to-peer networks noticeably faster.
It's not going to make downloads from servers with thousands of concurrent connections noticeably faster either.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31513944</id>
	<title>MAFIA?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268858580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>have you retarded little thieves not worked out that the minute you say "MAFIAAAAA" 99\% of people with more than one brain cell dismiss you as childish little pricks?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>have you retarded little thieves not worked out that the minute you say " MAFIAAAAA " 99 \ % of people with more than one brain cell dismiss you as childish little pricks ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>have you retarded little thieves not worked out that the minute you say "MAFIAAAAA" 99\% of people with more than one brain cell dismiss you as childish little pricks?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31519000</id>
	<title>Re:How is this "trouble for Hollywood?"</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1268845620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, rural electrification and the interstate highway system were all unmitigated failures.</p><p>And then there's the airports. What a dreadful idea those were.</p><p>The FCCs problem is more along the lines of get in bed with the enemy and then wonder how that dagger got in your back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , rural electrification and the interstate highway system were all unmitigated failures.And then there 's the airports .
What a dreadful idea those were.The FCCs problem is more along the lines of get in bed with the enemy and then wonder how that dagger got in your back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, rural electrification and the interstate highway system were all unmitigated failures.And then there's the airports.
What a dreadful idea those were.The FCCs problem is more along the lines of get in bed with the enemy and then wonder how that dagger got in your back.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31514178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512650</id>
	<title>Hollywood is Hollywood's problem</title>
	<author>Dan667</author>
	<datestamp>1268854020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This headline is just wrong. Hollywood's failed business model is a threat to their own profits. It is nobody's problem, but theirs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This headline is just wrong .
Hollywood 's failed business model is a threat to their own profits .
It is nobody 's problem , but theirs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This headline is just wrong.
Hollywood's failed business model is a threat to their own profits.
It is nobody's problem, but theirs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31517272</id>
	<title>Re:Same meme different author</title>
	<author>cgenman</author>
	<datestamp>1268830740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We still need the middleman.  We just need a different middle man.  Steam does a great job of selling video games digitally, showing relative user ratings between them and letting people choose their needs.  iTunes / Amazon / eMusic / etc do a great job of presenting new options to purchasers.  Hulu / Netflix / iTunes all present different revenue models between the filmmakers and the end users to provide funding for the filmmakers.</p><p>And at the other end of middlemen, we still need studios.  If you're going to make a movie that requires 30 million in special effects, you need a team of people experienced with managing that kind of scratch.  People who can sell overseas distribution, have connections to toy licensing, etc.  An all-in-one talent-and-financing congealing shop.  In Music, this floor is much lower, and can be entirely in the hand of your band's manager.  In movies or games, this still requires a large team of dedicated individuals.</p><p>The nature of both of these has changed, and that's a problem for the industry.  If the music industry had embraced digitial distribution middlemen in the napster era, piracy wouldn't be nearly as prevalent as it is today.  But that doesn't mean we don't need middlemen.  We just need new middlemen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We still need the middleman .
We just need a different middle man .
Steam does a great job of selling video games digitally , showing relative user ratings between them and letting people choose their needs .
iTunes / Amazon / eMusic / etc do a great job of presenting new options to purchasers .
Hulu / Netflix / iTunes all present different revenue models between the filmmakers and the end users to provide funding for the filmmakers.And at the other end of middlemen , we still need studios .
If you 're going to make a movie that requires 30 million in special effects , you need a team of people experienced with managing that kind of scratch .
People who can sell overseas distribution , have connections to toy licensing , etc .
An all-in-one talent-and-financing congealing shop .
In Music , this floor is much lower , and can be entirely in the hand of your band 's manager .
In movies or games , this still requires a large team of dedicated individuals.The nature of both of these has changed , and that 's a problem for the industry .
If the music industry had embraced digitial distribution middlemen in the napster era , piracy would n't be nearly as prevalent as it is today .
But that does n't mean we do n't need middlemen .
We just need new middlemen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We still need the middleman.
We just need a different middle man.
Steam does a great job of selling video games digitally, showing relative user ratings between them and letting people choose their needs.
iTunes / Amazon / eMusic / etc do a great job of presenting new options to purchasers.
Hulu / Netflix / iTunes all present different revenue models between the filmmakers and the end users to provide funding for the filmmakers.And at the other end of middlemen, we still need studios.
If you're going to make a movie that requires 30 million in special effects, you need a team of people experienced with managing that kind of scratch.
People who can sell overseas distribution, have connections to toy licensing, etc.
An all-in-one talent-and-financing congealing shop.
In Music, this floor is much lower, and can be entirely in the hand of your band's manager.
In movies or games, this still requires a large team of dedicated individuals.The nature of both of these has changed, and that's a problem for the industry.
If the music industry had embraced digitial distribution middlemen in the napster era, piracy wouldn't be nearly as prevalent as it is today.
But that doesn't mean we don't need middlemen.
We just need new middlemen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512240</id>
	<title>Re:Slanted Wording</title>
	<author>MtHuurne</author>
	<datestamp>1268853000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree that "MAFIAA" does not belong in the summary. The "Mesozoic Era" is a quote from the article though, so that's not something the editor is responsible for.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree that " MAFIAA " does not belong in the summary .
The " Mesozoic Era " is a quote from the article though , so that 's not something the editor is responsible for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree that "MAFIAA" does not belong in the summary.
The "Mesozoic Era" is a quote from the article though, so that's not something the editor is responsible for.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31513566</id>
	<title>This will be *good* for movies</title>
	<author>egarland</author>
	<datestamp>1268857140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The author is crazy.  Streaming HD to the home is barely possible under the best of conditions right now.  A 3x overall internet capacity increase would make this realistic and selling movies on the internet is going to make the movie companies billions.  It's going to destroy some businesses but it won't be the movie companies.

Personally, I think it's time for <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZ9qcp6Lcno" title="youtube.com">the old Qwest commercial</a> [youtube.com] to become reality.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The author is crazy .
Streaming HD to the home is barely possible under the best of conditions right now .
A 3x overall internet capacity increase would make this realistic and selling movies on the internet is going to make the movie companies billions .
It 's going to destroy some businesses but it wo n't be the movie companies .
Personally , I think it 's time for the old Qwest commercial [ youtube.com ] to become reality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The author is crazy.
Streaming HD to the home is barely possible under the best of conditions right now.
A 3x overall internet capacity increase would make this realistic and selling movies on the internet is going to make the movie companies billions.
It's going to destroy some businesses but it won't be the movie companies.
Personally, I think it's time for the old Qwest commercial [youtube.com] to become reality.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512010</id>
	<title>Re:"MAFIAA" Sure, You Want to be Taken Seriously..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268852280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt;&gt;The problem is that too many people want to do that and not pay for it.
<br> <br>
I agree with most of what you said, but take Netflix as you mentioned, I DO pay yet I still download movies online.  I have the $16.99 a month plan (3 DVDs and unlimited watch instantly). <br> <br>
Here's the thing, I often download a new release rather than waiting for it in the mail.  Sometimes the DVD is not available right away, but mostly because if I want to watch it tonight I have to wait for the mail.

<br> <br>
If I want to watch that new-release, that I technically have already paid for, who cares/does it hurt if I download it and watch it before it arrives in my mail box?
<br> <br>
I think that is a good example of people that do pay for unlimited access to all movies, but still have to spend their own time going to download them.   Why does anyone care if I download it and watch it as opposed to if I wait for the disc in my mail box?  I paid either way.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; The problem is that too many people want to do that and not pay for it .
I agree with most of what you said , but take Netflix as you mentioned , I DO pay yet I still download movies online .
I have the $ 16.99 a month plan ( 3 DVDs and unlimited watch instantly ) .
Here 's the thing , I often download a new release rather than waiting for it in the mail .
Sometimes the DVD is not available right away , but mostly because if I want to watch it tonight I have to wait for the mail .
If I want to watch that new-release , that I technically have already paid for , who cares/does it hurt if I download it and watch it before it arrives in my mail box ?
I think that is a good example of people that do pay for unlimited access to all movies , but still have to spend their own time going to download them .
Why does anyone care if I download it and watch it as opposed to if I wait for the disc in my mail box ?
I paid either way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;The problem is that too many people want to do that and not pay for it.
I agree with most of what you said, but take Netflix as you mentioned, I DO pay yet I still download movies online.
I have the $16.99 a month plan (3 DVDs and unlimited watch instantly).
Here's the thing, I often download a new release rather than waiting for it in the mail.
Sometimes the DVD is not available right away, but mostly because if I want to watch it tonight I have to wait for the mail.
If I want to watch that new-release, that I technically have already paid for, who cares/does it hurt if I download it and watch it before it arrives in my mail box?
I think that is a good example of people that do pay for unlimited access to all movies, but still have to spend their own time going to download them.
Why does anyone care if I download it and watch it as opposed to if I wait for the disc in my mail box?
I paid either way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512670</id>
	<title>It can watch all movies ever made in 4m</title>
	<author>bugs2squash</author>
	<datestamp>1268854080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's going to get very bored after the first 4 minutes. Seriously, this really highlights to me just how little content there is out there, and how much of the internet must be people fetching the same old things over and over. If there is that little content and that much capacity then maybe the content owners can justify reasonably high fees. I don't mind paying a reasonable fee to access something, I mostly abhor not being able to access things like out of print books and music to suit my arcane tastes. By all means charge for access to content, but allow access in a flexible way in return.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's going to get very bored after the first 4 minutes .
Seriously , this really highlights to me just how little content there is out there , and how much of the internet must be people fetching the same old things over and over .
If there is that little content and that much capacity then maybe the content owners can justify reasonably high fees .
I do n't mind paying a reasonable fee to access something , I mostly abhor not being able to access things like out of print books and music to suit my arcane tastes .
By all means charge for access to content , but allow access in a flexible way in return .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's going to get very bored after the first 4 minutes.
Seriously, this really highlights to me just how little content there is out there, and how much of the internet must be people fetching the same old things over and over.
If there is that little content and that much capacity then maybe the content owners can justify reasonably high fees.
I don't mind paying a reasonable fee to access something, I mostly abhor not being able to access things like out of print books and music to suit my arcane tastes.
By all means charge for access to content, but allow access in a flexible way in return.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512538</id>
	<title>Re:Slanted Wording</title>
	<author>DMUTPeregrine</author>
	<datestamp>1268853720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Geeknet, Inc.<br>
650 Castro St.<br>
Suite 450<br>
Mountain View, CA 94041<br>
US<br>
<br>
You may want to complain to them. They own<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/., a comment posted here is less likely to be taken seriously than a letter to the corporate masters.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Geeknet , Inc . 650 Castro St . Suite 450 Mountain View , CA 94041 US You may want to complain to them .
They own /. , a comment posted here is less likely to be taken seriously than a letter to the corporate masters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Geeknet, Inc.
650 Castro St.
Suite 450
Mountain View, CA 94041
US

You may want to complain to them.
They own /., a comment posted here is less likely to be taken seriously than a letter to the corporate masters.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31517020</id>
	<title>Re:"MAFIAA" Sure, You Want to be Taken Seriously..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268829180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The problem is that too many people want to do that and not pay for it. To keep their self-righteous indignation and justification alive, they continue to bitch that "Hollywood is not delivering stuff the way I want to get it (so I'll just take it)"</p></div><p>no, the problem is not my stealing from them. it's the consideration received from my provider for providing a la carte services. for instance: cable will run you 20$ - 125$ a month for a package service of some sort or another. internet access which will stream video at far less resolution than a hd broadcast -reliably- is anywhere from 20 - 100$ a month. so we already see a convergence on pricing for 2 different flavours of similar materials using the same delivery medium in many cases, but one comes with a cap while the other wears a diaper.</p><p>the gross profiteering of monopolistic practices staring each other down is the problem.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that too many people want to do that and not pay for it .
To keep their self-righteous indignation and justification alive , they continue to bitch that " Hollywood is not delivering stuff the way I want to get it ( so I 'll just take it ) " no , the problem is not my stealing from them .
it 's the consideration received from my provider for providing a la carte services .
for instance : cable will run you 20 $ - 125 $ a month for a package service of some sort or another .
internet access which will stream video at far less resolution than a hd broadcast -reliably- is anywhere from 20 - 100 $ a month .
so we already see a convergence on pricing for 2 different flavours of similar materials using the same delivery medium in many cases , but one comes with a cap while the other wears a diaper.the gross profiteering of monopolistic practices staring each other down is the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that too many people want to do that and not pay for it.
To keep their self-righteous indignation and justification alive, they continue to bitch that "Hollywood is not delivering stuff the way I want to get it (so I'll just take it)"no, the problem is not my stealing from them.
it's the consideration received from my provider for providing a la carte services.
for instance: cable will run you 20$ - 125$ a month for a package service of some sort or another.
internet access which will stream video at far less resolution than a hd broadcast -reliably- is anywhere from 20 - 100$ a month.
so we already see a convergence on pricing for 2 different flavours of similar materials using the same delivery medium in many cases, but one comes with a cap while the other wears a diaper.the gross profiteering of monopolistic practices staring each other down is the problem.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511126</id>
	<title>Steaming?</title>
	<author>Anonymusing</author>
	<datestamp>1268849940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the summary: "<b>steaming</b> video-on-demand services"
</p><p>Does the new router dry-clean and iron the services, too? Or do they mean "steaming" as in "pile of stuff that my dog just left behind on a cold day"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the summary : " steaming video-on-demand services " Does the new router dry-clean and iron the services , too ?
Or do they mean " steaming " as in " pile of stuff that my dog just left behind on a cold day " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the summary: "steaming video-on-demand services"
Does the new router dry-clean and iron the services, too?
Or do they mean "steaming" as in "pile of stuff that my dog just left behind on a cold day"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511962</id>
	<title>Re:They are not worried</title>
	<author>calibre-not-output</author>
	<datestamp>1268852100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In theory, this means that the ISPs could offer higher speeds / download limits at the same price, since they no longer have to worry about the bottlenecks. In practice, they'll just keep the higher profits for themselves, and perhaps offer a symbolic increase to shut the customers up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In theory , this means that the ISPs could offer higher speeds / download limits at the same price , since they no longer have to worry about the bottlenecks .
In practice , they 'll just keep the higher profits for themselves , and perhaps offer a symbolic increase to shut the customers up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In theory, this means that the ISPs could offer higher speeds / download limits at the same price, since they no longer have to worry about the bottlenecks.
In practice, they'll just keep the higher profits for themselves, and perhaps offer a symbolic increase to shut the customers up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31524848</id>
	<title>Re:MAFIAA</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1268936820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How can one mod a comment that starts "I fail to see" as being insightful? But to answer your question, MAFIAA is an acronym (you must be new here) for Music And Film Association of America. A fitting name for an industry that cheats its artists and sues its best customers and bribes legislators with campaign contributions.</p><p>If you want a citation, Google is your friend.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How can one mod a comment that starts " I fail to see " as being insightful ?
But to answer your question , MAFIAA is an acronym ( you must be new here ) for Music And Film Association of America .
A fitting name for an industry that cheats its artists and sues its best customers and bribes legislators with campaign contributions.If you want a citation , Google is your friend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can one mod a comment that starts "I fail to see" as being insightful?
But to answer your question, MAFIAA is an acronym (you must be new here) for Music And Film Association of America.
A fitting name for an industry that cheats its artists and sues its best customers and bribes legislators with campaign contributions.If you want a citation, Google is your friend.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512548</id>
	<title>Re:The Last Mile</title>
	<author>Bengie</author>
	<datestamp>1268853720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>During peak hours(5-10pm) I get these speeds typically<br>Me to ISP: ~30mbit sub 10ms ping 1ms jitter<br>Wisconsin to Wisconsin(Another ISP): 28mbit sub 10ms ping 1ms jitter<br>Wisconsin to Chicago: ~15mbit ~20ms ping 2ms jitter<br>Wisconsin to New York: ~10mbit ~40ms ping ~5ms jitter<br>Wisconsin to LA: ~8mbit ~40ms ping ~5ms jitter</p><p>My ISP seems quite good, but obviously the back bone starts to bottle neck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>During peak hours ( 5-10pm ) I get these speeds typicallyMe to ISP : ~ 30mbit sub 10ms ping 1ms jitterWisconsin to Wisconsin ( Another ISP ) : 28mbit sub 10ms ping 1ms jitterWisconsin to Chicago : ~ 15mbit ~ 20ms ping 2ms jitterWisconsin to New York : ~ 10mbit ~ 40ms ping ~ 5ms jitterWisconsin to LA : ~ 8mbit ~ 40ms ping ~ 5ms jitterMy ISP seems quite good , but obviously the back bone starts to bottle neck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>During peak hours(5-10pm) I get these speeds typicallyMe to ISP: ~30mbit sub 10ms ping 1ms jitterWisconsin to Wisconsin(Another ISP): 28mbit sub 10ms ping 1ms jitterWisconsin to Chicago: ~15mbit ~20ms ping 2ms jitterWisconsin to New York: ~10mbit ~40ms ping ~5ms jitterWisconsin to LA: ~8mbit ~40ms ping ~5ms jitterMy ISP seems quite good, but obviously the back bone starts to bottle neck.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512972</id>
	<title>Re:Time does blow hot air sometimes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268855100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't buy the more bandwidth equals more piracy angle at all. We already have enough bandwidth to destroy Hollywood if we wanted or if that was even possible.</p></div><p>You are incorrectly assuming that the MPAA/RIAA want to shutdown *only* illegal downloads of their media.</p><p>They also desire all legal downloads to stop, and competition to drop to zero.<br>Piracy is just their excuse to make the rest not look as horrible as it is.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't buy the more bandwidth equals more piracy angle at all .
We already have enough bandwidth to destroy Hollywood if we wanted or if that was even possible.You are incorrectly assuming that the MPAA/RIAA want to shutdown * only * illegal downloads of their media.They also desire all legal downloads to stop , and competition to drop to zero.Piracy is just their excuse to make the rest not look as horrible as it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't buy the more bandwidth equals more piracy angle at all.
We already have enough bandwidth to destroy Hollywood if we wanted or if that was even possible.You are incorrectly assuming that the MPAA/RIAA want to shutdown *only* illegal downloads of their media.They also desire all legal downloads to stop, and competition to drop to zero.Piracy is just their excuse to make the rest not look as horrible as it is.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31513998</id>
	<title>Re:What's the business model again?</title>
	<author>Graham J - XVI</author>
	<datestamp>1268858760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well let's see, Avatar just made a billion dollars in the theaters. So there's that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well let 's see , Avatar just made a billion dollars in the theaters .
So there 's that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well let's see, Avatar just made a billion dollars in the theaters.
So there's that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31515214</id>
	<title>Or Valve Software's Steam?</title>
	<author>antdude</author>
	<datestamp>1268820060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://steampowered.com/" title="steampowered.com">Steam</a> [steampowered.com]ing from <a href="http://www.valvesoftware.com/" title="valvesoftware.com">Valve Software</a> [valvesoftware.com]'s?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Steam [ steampowered.com ] ing from Valve Software [ valvesoftware.com ] 's ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Steam [steampowered.com]ing from Valve Software [valvesoftware.com]'s?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31520860</id>
	<title>MPAA/RIAA's next target</title>
	<author>jseale</author>
	<datestamp>1268915640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>MPAA/RIAA's next target will be Cisco, and then where will we be? No new tech, no Linksys routers, no Ellen Page ads. Buhbye Lunenburg!</htmltext>
<tokenext>MPAA/RIAA 's next target will be Cisco , and then where will we be ?
No new tech , no Linksys routers , no Ellen Page ads .
Buhbye Lunenburg !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MPAA/RIAA's next target will be Cisco, and then where will we be?
No new tech, no Linksys routers, no Ellen Page ads.
Buhbye Lunenburg!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511986</id>
	<title>Not really</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1268852220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Coaxial cable has loads of bandwidth (in the analogue spectrum sense). On a typical modern HFC network you are talking probably 1GHz of bandwidth to the home. Now DOCSIS 2 doesn't make real good use of that as you can use only 1 6MHz channel which gives you about 38mbits total effective throughput shared among all users on the segment. However segments are getting smaller as the fibre part of the network is built out, and there is the possibility of having different kinds of users on different channels.</p><p>All that isn't a big deal though, as DOCSIS 3 is up and operational. It can bond an arbitrary number of channels together to increase bandwidth. Currently, DOCSIS modems out there can do 4 or 8 channels giving you 152-304mbps.</p><p>Also, there's going to be a lot of that cable space available rather soon. Currently you find that most of the spectrum is taken up by analogue TV. 6MHz per channel, often as much as 100 channels. 600MHz of the spectrum can go to that. In the remaining 400MHz comes all the HDTV and so on plus usually a digital version of said analogue channels these days. So, get rid of that, you've got 600MHz of space for data.</p><p>That gives you in the realm of 3.8gbps per segment.</p><p>Last mile is capable of much more than we see right now, and can be scaled up even further. The reason you don't tend to see it is the bandwidth higher up. If a cable company suddenly switched everyone over to 300mbps DOCSIS 3 service they'd get slammed. Customers wouldn't get anywhere near their supposed service because there just isn't the bandwidth for it high up stream.</p><p>If you want more speed to the house, there's got to be more speed higher up. That's just how it goes with any network. Also the more a router can handle the less the bandwidth costs. If 10gbps takes up a whole line card on a router and the router can only handle a few of those cards, it is going to be pretty expensive. If 10gbps can be packed in by the hundreds of ports, it costs a hell of a lot less.</p><p>The less bandwidth costs your ISP, the less they have to charge you for using it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Coaxial cable has loads of bandwidth ( in the analogue spectrum sense ) .
On a typical modern HFC network you are talking probably 1GHz of bandwidth to the home .
Now DOCSIS 2 does n't make real good use of that as you can use only 1 6MHz channel which gives you about 38mbits total effective throughput shared among all users on the segment .
However segments are getting smaller as the fibre part of the network is built out , and there is the possibility of having different kinds of users on different channels.All that is n't a big deal though , as DOCSIS 3 is up and operational .
It can bond an arbitrary number of channels together to increase bandwidth .
Currently , DOCSIS modems out there can do 4 or 8 channels giving you 152-304mbps.Also , there 's going to be a lot of that cable space available rather soon .
Currently you find that most of the spectrum is taken up by analogue TV .
6MHz per channel , often as much as 100 channels .
600MHz of the spectrum can go to that .
In the remaining 400MHz comes all the HDTV and so on plus usually a digital version of said analogue channels these days .
So , get rid of that , you 've got 600MHz of space for data.That gives you in the realm of 3.8gbps per segment.Last mile is capable of much more than we see right now , and can be scaled up even further .
The reason you do n't tend to see it is the bandwidth higher up .
If a cable company suddenly switched everyone over to 300mbps DOCSIS 3 service they 'd get slammed .
Customers would n't get anywhere near their supposed service because there just is n't the bandwidth for it high up stream.If you want more speed to the house , there 's got to be more speed higher up .
That 's just how it goes with any network .
Also the more a router can handle the less the bandwidth costs .
If 10gbps takes up a whole line card on a router and the router can only handle a few of those cards , it is going to be pretty expensive .
If 10gbps can be packed in by the hundreds of ports , it costs a hell of a lot less.The less bandwidth costs your ISP , the less they have to charge you for using it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Coaxial cable has loads of bandwidth (in the analogue spectrum sense).
On a typical modern HFC network you are talking probably 1GHz of bandwidth to the home.
Now DOCSIS 2 doesn't make real good use of that as you can use only 1 6MHz channel which gives you about 38mbits total effective throughput shared among all users on the segment.
However segments are getting smaller as the fibre part of the network is built out, and there is the possibility of having different kinds of users on different channels.All that isn't a big deal though, as DOCSIS 3 is up and operational.
It can bond an arbitrary number of channels together to increase bandwidth.
Currently, DOCSIS modems out there can do 4 or 8 channels giving you 152-304mbps.Also, there's going to be a lot of that cable space available rather soon.
Currently you find that most of the spectrum is taken up by analogue TV.
6MHz per channel, often as much as 100 channels.
600MHz of the spectrum can go to that.
In the remaining 400MHz comes all the HDTV and so on plus usually a digital version of said analogue channels these days.
So, get rid of that, you've got 600MHz of space for data.That gives you in the realm of 3.8gbps per segment.Last mile is capable of much more than we see right now, and can be scaled up even further.
The reason you don't tend to see it is the bandwidth higher up.
If a cable company suddenly switched everyone over to 300mbps DOCSIS 3 service they'd get slammed.
Customers wouldn't get anywhere near their supposed service because there just isn't the bandwidth for it high up stream.If you want more speed to the house, there's got to be more speed higher up.
That's just how it goes with any network.
Also the more a router can handle the less the bandwidth costs.
If 10gbps takes up a whole line card on a router and the router can only handle a few of those cards, it is going to be pretty expensive.
If 10gbps can be packed in by the hundreds of ports, it costs a hell of a lot less.The less bandwidth costs your ISP, the less they have to charge you for using it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31516878</id>
	<title>Why does everything have to be political?</title>
	<author>Zymophideth</author>
	<datestamp>1268828160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This article is sensationalized garbage, it's just a router!! Why do we have to invoke a bunch of MAFIAA BS? I was disappointed in Digg when I saw this on their front page, but I wasn't surprised. When I saw this on Slashdot my jaw literally dropped, have we sunken this low?</htmltext>
<tokenext>This article is sensationalized garbage , it 's just a router ! !
Why do we have to invoke a bunch of MAFIAA BS ?
I was disappointed in Digg when I saw this on their front page , but I was n't surprised .
When I saw this on Slashdot my jaw literally dropped , have we sunken this low ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article is sensationalized garbage, it's just a router!!
Why do we have to invoke a bunch of MAFIAA BS?
I was disappointed in Digg when I saw this on their front page, but I wasn't surprised.
When I saw this on Slashdot my jaw literally dropped, have we sunken this low?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511136</id>
	<title>The Last Mile</title>
	<author>The Redwin</author>
	<datestamp>1268849940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was under the impression that the backbones where these routers are used was never the "bottleneck" for streaming video and such. Isn't the connection from each user's home to the ISP more the issue?

I mean its great to triple the backbone bandwidth, but is it really accurate to say doing so is going to make it easier for the average user to download movies?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was under the impression that the backbones where these routers are used was never the " bottleneck " for streaming video and such .
Is n't the connection from each user 's home to the ISP more the issue ?
I mean its great to triple the backbone bandwidth , but is it really accurate to say doing so is going to make it easier for the average user to download movies ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was under the impression that the backbones where these routers are used was never the "bottleneck" for streaming video and such.
Isn't the connection from each user's home to the ISP more the issue?
I mean its great to triple the backbone bandwidth, but is it really accurate to say doing so is going to make it easier for the average user to download movies?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511972</id>
	<title>YOU FAI@L IT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268852160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">insisted that Wasn't on Steve's F1le was opened</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>insisted that Was n't on Steve 's F1le was opened [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>insisted that Wasn't on Steve's F1le was opened [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512824</id>
	<title>Music and film industry associations</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1268854500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>What is a more precise term to refer to both the <strong>m</strong>usic <strong>a</strong>nd <strong>f</strong>ilm <strong>i</strong>ndustry <strong>a</strong>ssociations of <strong>A</strong>merica? Granted, it would have been more effective had it been coined before Vivendi sold Universal City Studios and Time Warner spun off Warner Music Group, but Sony is still in both organizations, and the other movie studios still distribute their soundtracks through one of these major record labels.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What is a more precise term to refer to both the music and film industry associations of America ?
Granted , it would have been more effective had it been coined before Vivendi sold Universal City Studios and Time Warner spun off Warner Music Group , but Sony is still in both organizations , and the other movie studios still distribute their soundtracks through one of these major record labels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is a more precise term to refer to both the music and film industry associations of America?
Granted, it would have been more effective had it been coined before Vivendi sold Universal City Studios and Time Warner spun off Warner Music Group, but Sony is still in both organizations, and the other movie studios still distribute their soundtracks through one of these major record labels.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31513346</id>
	<title>Like a fish with a bicycle.</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1268856420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>With superfast streaming and downloading, indie filmmakers will soon be able to effectively distribute feature films online and promote them using social media such as Facebook and Twitter.</p></div></blockquote><p>Which means their already minuscule audience will be minuscule audiences who can stream and download faster.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>With superfast streaming and downloading , indie filmmakers will soon be able to effectively distribute feature films online and promote them using social media such as Facebook and Twitter.Which means their already minuscule audience will be minuscule audiences who can stream and download faster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With superfast streaming and downloading, indie filmmakers will soon be able to effectively distribute feature films online and promote them using social media such as Facebook and Twitter.Which means their already minuscule audience will be minuscule audiences who can stream and download faster.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511584</id>
	<title>RTFS</title>
	<author>schon</author>
	<datestamp>1268851080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't buy the more bandwidth equals more piracy angle at all.</p></div><p>Who said anything about "piracy"?  If you read the <b>summary</b> (not even the article) you'll see this:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>With superfast streaming and downloading, indie filmmakers will soon be able to effectively distribute feature films online</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't buy the more bandwidth equals more piracy angle at all.Who said anything about " piracy " ?
If you read the summary ( not even the article ) you 'll see this : With superfast streaming and downloading , indie filmmakers will soon be able to effectively distribute feature films online</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't buy the more bandwidth equals more piracy angle at all.Who said anything about "piracy"?
If you read the summary (not even the article) you'll see this:With superfast streaming and downloading, indie filmmakers will soon be able to effectively distribute feature films online
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511200</id>
	<title>Re:They are not worried</title>
	<author>ircmaxell</author>
	<datestamp>1268850120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, it won't directly increase the speed to your house, but it would likely open the door for ISPs to offer cheaper and faster packages (Considering the cost of the uplink would theoretically be less).  So while you wouldn't be putting one of these in your house, you would receive the trickle down effect from it...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , it wo n't directly increase the speed to your house , but it would likely open the door for ISPs to offer cheaper and faster packages ( Considering the cost of the uplink would theoretically be less ) .
So while you would n't be putting one of these in your house , you would receive the trickle down effect from it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, it won't directly increase the speed to your house, but it would likely open the door for ISPs to offer cheaper and faster packages (Considering the cost of the uplink would theoretically be less).
So while you wouldn't be putting one of these in your house, you would receive the trickle down effect from it...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511662</id>
	<title>Fuzzy words</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268851320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If DVDs are from the Mesozoic, peer-to-peer file sharing is not an "emerging technology."  The new routers and Internet speeds you're talking about are an emerging technology;  P-t-P has pretty darn well emerged.  Protip: if you're going to use hyperbole for a good semi-comedic/sarcastic effect, don't mush the meanings of terms in the "straight" part.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If DVDs are from the Mesozoic , peer-to-peer file sharing is not an " emerging technology .
" The new routers and Internet speeds you 're talking about are an emerging technology ; P-t-P has pretty darn well emerged .
Protip : if you 're going to use hyperbole for a good semi-comedic/sarcastic effect , do n't mush the meanings of terms in the " straight " part .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If DVDs are from the Mesozoic, peer-to-peer file sharing is not an "emerging technology.
"  The new routers and Internet speeds you're talking about are an emerging technology;  P-t-P has pretty darn well emerged.
Protip: if you're going to use hyperbole for a good semi-comedic/sarcastic effect, don't mush the meanings of terms in the "straight" part.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511502</id>
	<title>entitlement-business model</title>
	<author>xs650</author>
	<datestamp>1268850840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>"The hard fact is that the latest developments at Cisco, Google and elsewhere may do more than kill the DVD and CD and further upset entertainment-business models"<br><br>I read that as entitlement-business model the first time. Made more sense.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The hard fact is that the latest developments at Cisco , Google and elsewhere may do more than kill the DVD and CD and further upset entertainment-business models " I read that as entitlement-business model the first time .
Made more sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The hard fact is that the latest developments at Cisco, Google and elsewhere may do more than kill the DVD and CD and further upset entertainment-business models"I read that as entitlement-business model the first time.
Made more sense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31513050</id>
	<title>Re:Slanted Wording</title>
	<author>roman\_mir</author>
	<datestamp>1268855340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mr. RAMMS+EIN (578166), that is a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out objection.</p><p>(at this point you should say 'Thank you, sir'.)</p><p>Overruled.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mr. RAMMS + EIN ( 578166 ) , that is a lucid , intelligent , well thought-out objection .
( at this point you should say 'Thank you , sir' .
) Overruled .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mr. RAMMS+EIN (578166), that is a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out objection.
(at this point you should say 'Thank you, sir'.
)Overruled.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511582</id>
	<title>Slanted Wording</title>
	<author>RAMMS+EIN</author>
	<datestamp>1268851080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dear editors,</p><p>I have been reading and posting on Slashdot for years. The reason I have stuck around for so long is that I appreciate Slashdot as a place where interesting discussions take place. There are many sites on the World Wide Web where everyone is free to comment, but Slashdot stands out from the crowds by making interesting and well-worded messages visible amid the quagmire of nonsense, insults, spam, and other noise people are bound to post to public fora.</p><p>The summary posted for this story, unfortunately, is full of slanted wording. Without wanting to defend the RIAA and the MPAA or their business practices, I will simply note that calling them "MAFIAA" or claiming their business models "have changed little since the Mesozoic Era" is not very conductive to having a civilized discussion. Since having or witnessing such a discussion is what I come to Slashdot for, summaries such as the present one are not up to the standards I like Slashdot to aspire to.</p><p>Let's have discussions based on rational arguments, so that we may all benefit from what everybody has to say. Insults buy us nothing. Moderators mod down comments that consult them, and I would like for the editors to not post summaries that contain them. If the story is interesting, someone can submit a summary without such or other noise.</p><p>Thank you for your consideration, and please keep Slashdot above the level of other fora.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>A Faithful Slashdotter</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear editors,I have been reading and posting on Slashdot for years .
The reason I have stuck around for so long is that I appreciate Slashdot as a place where interesting discussions take place .
There are many sites on the World Wide Web where everyone is free to comment , but Slashdot stands out from the crowds by making interesting and well-worded messages visible amid the quagmire of nonsense , insults , spam , and other noise people are bound to post to public fora.The summary posted for this story , unfortunately , is full of slanted wording .
Without wanting to defend the RIAA and the MPAA or their business practices , I will simply note that calling them " MAFIAA " or claiming their business models " have changed little since the Mesozoic Era " is not very conductive to having a civilized discussion .
Since having or witnessing such a discussion is what I come to Slashdot for , summaries such as the present one are not up to the standards I like Slashdot to aspire to.Let 's have discussions based on rational arguments , so that we may all benefit from what everybody has to say .
Insults buy us nothing .
Moderators mod down comments that consult them , and I would like for the editors to not post summaries that contain them .
If the story is interesting , someone can submit a summary without such or other noise.Thank you for your consideration , and please keep Slashdot above the level of other fora.Sincerely,A Faithful Slashdotter</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear editors,I have been reading and posting on Slashdot for years.
The reason I have stuck around for so long is that I appreciate Slashdot as a place where interesting discussions take place.
There are many sites on the World Wide Web where everyone is free to comment, but Slashdot stands out from the crowds by making interesting and well-worded messages visible amid the quagmire of nonsense, insults, spam, and other noise people are bound to post to public fora.The summary posted for this story, unfortunately, is full of slanted wording.
Without wanting to defend the RIAA and the MPAA or their business practices, I will simply note that calling them "MAFIAA" or claiming their business models "have changed little since the Mesozoic Era" is not very conductive to having a civilized discussion.
Since having or witnessing such a discussion is what I come to Slashdot for, summaries such as the present one are not up to the standards I like Slashdot to aspire to.Let's have discussions based on rational arguments, so that we may all benefit from what everybody has to say.
Insults buy us nothing.
Moderators mod down comments that consult them, and I would like for the editors to not post summaries that contain them.
If the story is interesting, someone can submit a summary without such or other noise.Thank you for your consideration, and please keep Slashdot above the level of other fora.Sincerely,A Faithful Slashdotter</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511604</id>
	<title>Marketing Fluff</title>
	<author>macintard</author>
	<datestamp>1268851140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is all marketing fluff, and Time gets sucked into it badly.  Crisco is great at acquiring companies, but they hardly innovate much anymore.

"The claim of 12 times the traffic capacity of the nearest competing system is based on a theoretical maximum of 72 interconnected CRS-3 chassis in order to achieve the 322Tbps total capacity -- this will likely never be deployed in practice due to space, power, and manageability realities," he said. "With its new T-Series chipset  announced in early February, Juniper will deliver a four Terabit system in a half rack configuration while the CRS-3 requires a full rack to deliver four Terabits.' That's a real space and power savings for every unit deployed."</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is all marketing fluff , and Time gets sucked into it badly .
Crisco is great at acquiring companies , but they hardly innovate much anymore .
" The claim of 12 times the traffic capacity of the nearest competing system is based on a theoretical maximum of 72 interconnected CRS-3 chassis in order to achieve the 322Tbps total capacity -- this will likely never be deployed in practice due to space , power , and manageability realities , " he said .
" With its new T-Series chipset announced in early February , Juniper will deliver a four Terabit system in a half rack configuration while the CRS-3 requires a full rack to deliver four Terabits .
' That 's a real space and power savings for every unit deployed .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is all marketing fluff, and Time gets sucked into it badly.
Crisco is great at acquiring companies, but they hardly innovate much anymore.
"The claim of 12 times the traffic capacity of the nearest competing system is based on a theoretical maximum of 72 interconnected CRS-3 chassis in order to achieve the 322Tbps total capacity -- this will likely never be deployed in practice due to space, power, and manageability realities," he said.
"With its new T-Series chipset  announced in early February, Juniper will deliver a four Terabit system in a half rack configuration while the CRS-3 requires a full rack to deliver four Terabits.
' That's a real space and power savings for every unit deployed.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31522830</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>kenp2002</author>
	<datestamp>1268927160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In short:</p><p>Do not scale to meet the needs of your customers but rather scale your customer's to meet your capacity.</p><p>It's sound but only works in a monopoly....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In short : Do not scale to meet the needs of your customers but rather scale your customer 's to meet your capacity.It 's sound but only works in a monopoly... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In short:Do not scale to meet the needs of your customers but rather scale your customer's to meet your capacity.It's sound but only works in a monopoly....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512498</id>
	<title>Re:"MAFIAA" Sure, You Want to be Taken Seriously..</title>
	<author>Maxo-Texas</author>
	<datestamp>1268853600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I agree and disagree with parts of your post, I don't see a line of it that is a troll.</p><p>Someone mod him back up.</p><p>--</p><p>I think the prices are too high.   You can easily drop the price of a *good* new car in under 10 years.  That's insane.</p><p>I watch and listen to indie stuff, I play the service changing game (now on directv and back at $34 a month again.  I cut my service repeatedly at Dish to get it down to 60 and they kept raising the price back to over $70 for less and less product).</p><p>I watch shows on the free sites (hulu, network, etc.)</p><p>There is a price point where it is more convenient to let them hold the content and serve it to me- but it's somewhere about $40 a month and they want triple that (or more).</p><p>And they've completely hijacked the copyright rules.  Anything over 28 years, I don't respect.  However- I keep my head on straight that it's potentially illegal so I don't act like an idiot.  And there are legal ways to get a lot of copyrighted content free.</p><p>There is an increasingly large glut of entertainment now tho.  I skip things all the time.  I'm years behind on some shows.  Which will make them cheaper when I finally watch them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I agree and disagree with parts of your post , I do n't see a line of it that is a troll.Someone mod him back up.--I think the prices are too high .
You can easily drop the price of a * good * new car in under 10 years .
That 's insane.I watch and listen to indie stuff , I play the service changing game ( now on directv and back at $ 34 a month again .
I cut my service repeatedly at Dish to get it down to 60 and they kept raising the price back to over $ 70 for less and less product ) .I watch shows on the free sites ( hulu , network , etc .
) There is a price point where it is more convenient to let them hold the content and serve it to me- but it 's somewhere about $ 40 a month and they want triple that ( or more ) .And they 've completely hijacked the copyright rules .
Anything over 28 years , I do n't respect .
However- I keep my head on straight that it 's potentially illegal so I do n't act like an idiot .
And there are legal ways to get a lot of copyrighted content free.There is an increasingly large glut of entertainment now tho .
I skip things all the time .
I 'm years behind on some shows .
Which will make them cheaper when I finally watch them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I agree and disagree with parts of your post, I don't see a line of it that is a troll.Someone mod him back up.--I think the prices are too high.
You can easily drop the price of a *good* new car in under 10 years.
That's insane.I watch and listen to indie stuff, I play the service changing game (now on directv and back at $34 a month again.
I cut my service repeatedly at Dish to get it down to 60 and they kept raising the price back to over $70 for less and less product).I watch shows on the free sites (hulu, network, etc.
)There is a price point where it is more convenient to let them hold the content and serve it to me- but it's somewhere about $40 a month and they want triple that (or more).And they've completely hijacked the copyright rules.
Anything over 28 years, I don't respect.
However- I keep my head on straight that it's potentially illegal so I don't act like an idiot.
And there are legal ways to get a lot of copyrighted content free.There is an increasingly large glut of entertainment now tho.
I skip things all the time.
I'm years behind on some shows.
Which will make them cheaper when I finally watch them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31525450</id>
	<title>Re:Slanted Wording</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1268939400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As I said in another response to a comment very similar to yours (redundant, anyone?), MAFIAA is an acronym and actually does reflect their business model -- extortion. "Changed little since the Mesozoic Era" is an artistic exageration that simply illustrates the point; their business model pretty much stayed the same since talking pictures came to be, and they fought every technological innovation along the way; witness the head of the MPAA saying that the VCR was to the movie industry what Jack the Ripper was to women (it would have been more ironic if he'd been more accurate about the Ripper and said VCR was to the movie industry what Jack the Ripper was to whores).</p><p>The RIAA cheats its artists and sues its best customers. It fights "piracy" through fear, making the MAFIAA acronym lucid and truthful.</p><p>The industry is full of evil people and little good can be seen in it. You might as well say about a story abourt Al Quaida "The summary posted for this story, unfortunately, is full of slanted wording."</p><p>Are those arguments rational enough for you, Mr. Valenti?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As I said in another response to a comment very similar to yours ( redundant , anyone ?
) , MAFIAA is an acronym and actually does reflect their business model -- extortion .
" Changed little since the Mesozoic Era " is an artistic exageration that simply illustrates the point ; their business model pretty much stayed the same since talking pictures came to be , and they fought every technological innovation along the way ; witness the head of the MPAA saying that the VCR was to the movie industry what Jack the Ripper was to women ( it would have been more ironic if he 'd been more accurate about the Ripper and said VCR was to the movie industry what Jack the Ripper was to whores ) .The RIAA cheats its artists and sues its best customers .
It fights " piracy " through fear , making the MAFIAA acronym lucid and truthful.The industry is full of evil people and little good can be seen in it .
You might as well say about a story abourt Al Quaida " The summary posted for this story , unfortunately , is full of slanted wording .
" Are those arguments rational enough for you , Mr. Valenti ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I said in another response to a comment very similar to yours (redundant, anyone?
), MAFIAA is an acronym and actually does reflect their business model -- extortion.
"Changed little since the Mesozoic Era" is an artistic exageration that simply illustrates the point; their business model pretty much stayed the same since talking pictures came to be, and they fought every technological innovation along the way; witness the head of the MPAA saying that the VCR was to the movie industry what Jack the Ripper was to women (it would have been more ironic if he'd been more accurate about the Ripper and said VCR was to the movie industry what Jack the Ripper was to whores).The RIAA cheats its artists and sues its best customers.
It fights "piracy" through fear, making the MAFIAA acronym lucid and truthful.The industry is full of evil people and little good can be seen in it.
You might as well say about a story abourt Al Quaida "The summary posted for this story, unfortunately, is full of slanted wording.
"Are those arguments rational enough for you, Mr. Valenti?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511442</id>
	<title>Re:MAFIAA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268850660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Asshole.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Asshole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Asshole.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511726</id>
	<title>Re:MAFIAA</title>
	<author>Hoplite3</author>
	<datestamp>1268851440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The name-calling helps people read the slashvertisment. It's actually a very well-written bit of guerrilla marketing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The name-calling helps people read the slashvertisment .
It 's actually a very well-written bit of guerrilla marketing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The name-calling helps people read the slashvertisment.
It's actually a very well-written bit of guerrilla marketing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511256</id>
	<title>Accurate summary?</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1268850180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If so, it's interesting that mainstream media is seeing what the Slashdot crowd has seen for some time now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If so , it 's interesting that mainstream media is seeing what the Slashdot crowd has seen for some time now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If so, it's interesting that mainstream media is seeing what the Slashdot crowd has seen for some time now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511164</id>
	<title>Confused</title>
	<author>TSIGabe</author>
	<datestamp>1268850000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think you are confusing core network and last mile. Have Terabits in available backbone bandwidth does not translate to what's delivered to the customer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you are confusing core network and last mile .
Have Terabits in available backbone bandwidth does not translate to what 's delivered to the customer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you are confusing core network and last mile.
Have Terabits in available backbone bandwidth does not translate to what's delivered to the customer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511874</id>
	<title>Re:The Last Mile</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268851800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I was under the impression that the backbones where these routers are used was never the "bottleneck" for streaming video and such. Isn't the connection from each user's home to the ISP more the issue?</p><p>I mean its great to triple the backbone bandwidth, but is it really accurate to say doing so is going to make it easier for the average user to download movies?</p></div><p>I have a 20 mbps connection and on a good day, speed tests will show me in the 15-18 mbps range.  99\% of the time I can't break 6 mbps, though.  Maybe the backbone is my bottleneck.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was under the impression that the backbones where these routers are used was never the " bottleneck " for streaming video and such .
Is n't the connection from each user 's home to the ISP more the issue ? I mean its great to triple the backbone bandwidth , but is it really accurate to say doing so is going to make it easier for the average user to download movies ? I have a 20 mbps connection and on a good day , speed tests will show me in the 15-18 mbps range .
99 \ % of the time I ca n't break 6 mbps , though .
Maybe the backbone is my bottleneck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was under the impression that the backbones where these routers are used was never the "bottleneck" for streaming video and such.
Isn't the connection from each user's home to the ISP more the issue?I mean its great to triple the backbone bandwidth, but is it really accurate to say doing so is going to make it easier for the average user to download movies?I have a 20 mbps connection and on a good day, speed tests will show me in the 15-18 mbps range.
99\% of the time I can't break 6 mbps, though.
Maybe the backbone is my bottleneck.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511954</id>
	<title>Re:MAFIAA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268852100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not really childish name calling, so much as it has become accepted as the name we all use for referring to the MPAA and RIAA, without having to refer to them both individually.  What's easier to type, MPAA/RIAA or MAFIAA?  MAFIAA has become so commonplaced, that I don't even recognize the dig against them anymore.  Even if we did recognize it, the fact that they use organized, yet pseudo-criminal, methods for getting money from people is just that:  a known fact.  It's now beyond debate.</p><p>The term is similar to the way that the terms diva and brat have lost their negative connotations, and simply become the defacto name for those who love attention, and those who have a knack for influencing people to get what they desire, respectively.  It's similar to a certain racial slur which has become common parlance for those in that group to refer to one another.  Remember how it used to be considered embarassing if you were to have your pants pulled down and your underwear exposed to everyone?  Some people now prefer a clothing style wherein they walk around with their pants on the ground.</p><p>MAFIAA isn't name calling.  It's just who they are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not really childish name calling , so much as it has become accepted as the name we all use for referring to the MPAA and RIAA , without having to refer to them both individually .
What 's easier to type , MPAA/RIAA or MAFIAA ?
MAFIAA has become so commonplaced , that I do n't even recognize the dig against them anymore .
Even if we did recognize it , the fact that they use organized , yet pseudo-criminal , methods for getting money from people is just that : a known fact .
It 's now beyond debate.The term is similar to the way that the terms diva and brat have lost their negative connotations , and simply become the defacto name for those who love attention , and those who have a knack for influencing people to get what they desire , respectively .
It 's similar to a certain racial slur which has become common parlance for those in that group to refer to one another .
Remember how it used to be considered embarassing if you were to have your pants pulled down and your underwear exposed to everyone ?
Some people now prefer a clothing style wherein they walk around with their pants on the ground.MAFIAA is n't name calling .
It 's just who they are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not really childish name calling, so much as it has become accepted as the name we all use for referring to the MPAA and RIAA, without having to refer to them both individually.
What's easier to type, MPAA/RIAA or MAFIAA?
MAFIAA has become so commonplaced, that I don't even recognize the dig against them anymore.
Even if we did recognize it, the fact that they use organized, yet pseudo-criminal, methods for getting money from people is just that:  a known fact.
It's now beyond debate.The term is similar to the way that the terms diva and brat have lost their negative connotations, and simply become the defacto name for those who love attention, and those who have a knack for influencing people to get what they desire, respectively.
It's similar to a certain racial slur which has become common parlance for those in that group to refer to one another.
Remember how it used to be considered embarassing if you were to have your pants pulled down and your underwear exposed to everyone?
Some people now prefer a clothing style wherein they walk around with their pants on the ground.MAFIAA isn't name calling.
It's just who they are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511828</id>
	<title>Low cost ISPs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268851740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The trouble for RIAA and MPAA are the ISPs pushing the cost of bandwidth down.<br>That won't be ISPs using CRS-3s.</p><p>There is faster and cheaper gear than the CRS-3 out there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The trouble for RIAA and MPAA are the ISPs pushing the cost of bandwidth down.That wo n't be ISPs using CRS-3s.There is faster and cheaper gear than the CRS-3 out there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The trouble for RIAA and MPAA are the ISPs pushing the cost of bandwidth down.That won't be ISPs using CRS-3s.There is faster and cheaper gear than the CRS-3 out there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511266</id>
	<title>"MAFIAA" Sure, You Want to be Taken Seriously...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268850240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NetFlix is streaming online.  So is Hulu.  Downloads of audio and video are available from iTunes, and, increasingly, Amazon.  Sure, there are some rights issues, region issues, changes won't be made over night (get over it), but they are clearly happening.  The stagnation/fear that followed in Napster's wake is ebbing considerably.</p><p>For the most part, if you want to legitimately download/stream a popular bit of mass culture from/through the Internet, you pretty much can.</p><p>The problem is that too many people want to do that and not pay for it. To keep their self-righteous indignation and justification alive, they continue to bitch that "Hollywood is not delivering stuff the way I want to get it (so I'll just take it)"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NetFlix is streaming online .
So is Hulu .
Downloads of audio and video are available from iTunes , and , increasingly , Amazon .
Sure , there are some rights issues , region issues , changes wo n't be made over night ( get over it ) , but they are clearly happening .
The stagnation/fear that followed in Napster 's wake is ebbing considerably.For the most part , if you want to legitimately download/stream a popular bit of mass culture from/through the Internet , you pretty much can.The problem is that too many people want to do that and not pay for it .
To keep their self-righteous indignation and justification alive , they continue to bitch that " Hollywood is not delivering stuff the way I want to get it ( so I 'll just take it ) "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NetFlix is streaming online.
So is Hulu.
Downloads of audio and video are available from iTunes, and, increasingly, Amazon.
Sure, there are some rights issues, region issues, changes won't be made over night (get over it), but they are clearly happening.
The stagnation/fear that followed in Napster's wake is ebbing considerably.For the most part, if you want to legitimately download/stream a popular bit of mass culture from/through the Internet, you pretty much can.The problem is that too many people want to do that and not pay for it.
To keep their self-righteous indignation and justification alive, they continue to bitch that "Hollywood is not delivering stuff the way I want to get it (so I'll just take it)"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512502</id>
	<title>Re:Steaming?</title>
	<author>SpaghettiPattern</author>
	<datestamp>1268853600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>From the summary: "<b>steaming</b> video-on-demand services"
</p><p>Does the new router dry-clean and iron the services, too? Or do they mean "steaming" as in "pile of stuff that my dog just left behind on a cold day"?</p></div><p>... Is this router<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... A woman?!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br> <br>

<i>Clunk</i> That was the sound of my SO kicking me in the wedding's vegetables.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the summary : " steaming video-on-demand services " Does the new router dry-clean and iron the services , too ?
Or do they mean " steaming " as in " pile of stuff that my dog just left behind on a cold day " ? .. .
Is this router ... A woman ? !
.. . Clunk That was the sound of my SO kicking me in the wedding 's vegetables .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the summary: "steaming video-on-demand services"
Does the new router dry-clean and iron the services, too?
Or do they mean "steaming" as in "pile of stuff that my dog just left behind on a cold day"?...
Is this router ... A woman?!
... 

Clunk That was the sound of my SO kicking me in the wedding's vegetables.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31513314</id>
	<title>give me some</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268856300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I couldn't imagine even trying to download a movie over my 1mbit connection to a crappy oversold ISP that ends up being on average 500kbit with 1-3second latency.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I could n't imagine even trying to download a movie over my 1mbit connection to a crappy oversold ISP that ends up being on average 500kbit with 1-3second latency .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I couldn't imagine even trying to download a movie over my 1mbit connection to a crappy oversold ISP that ends up being on average 500kbit with 1-3second latency.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511352</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511908</id>
	<title>Re:RTFS</title>
	<author>Aeros</author>
	<datestamp>1268851920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Who said anything about "piracy"?  If you read the <b>summary</b> (not even the article) you'll see this:</p></div><p>There were a few more sentences in there other than this. Like this one:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>"They will also need to figure out how to stop people from setting up clone video and music stores with pirated content."</p></div><p>Or there was this one in a comment...</p><p><div class="quote"><p>"We are NOT going to have a wonderful new world when piracy and high-speed access make it possible to quickly download a production that someone put their asses on the line for to the tune of thousands or millions of dollars."</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who said anything about " piracy " ?
If you read the summary ( not even the article ) you 'll see this : There were a few more sentences in there other than this .
Like this one : " They will also need to figure out how to stop people from setting up clone video and music stores with pirated content .
" Or there was this one in a comment... " We are NOT going to have a wonderful new world when piracy and high-speed access make it possible to quickly download a production that someone put their asses on the line for to the tune of thousands or millions of dollars .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who said anything about "piracy"?
If you read the summary (not even the article) you'll see this:There were a few more sentences in there other than this.
Like this one:"They will also need to figure out how to stop people from setting up clone video and music stores with pirated content.
"Or there was this one in a comment..."We are NOT going to have a wonderful new world when piracy and high-speed access make it possible to quickly download a production that someone put their asses on the line for to the tune of thousands or millions of dollars.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512526</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't really effect bittorent</title>
	<author>Andy Dodd</author>
	<datestamp>1268853660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe if this router has improved multicast support and SOMEONE ACTUALLY TURNS IT ON, it might make a difference.</p><p>Increased backbone capacity or downstream capacity isn't nearly as much of a threat to Hollywood as multicast would be...  It would allow torrents to be VERY rapidly seeded to multiple peers.  You could still use "classic" BT techniques for filling in the holes, but if the initial seed were done as multicast, you'd get lots of distrubuted seeds up and running very quickly.</p><p>Similarly, for most video streaming services (legit or not), the bottleneck is at the server itself.  If a company did "live" streaming with multicast, their costs/server requirements would be far less.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe if this router has improved multicast support and SOMEONE ACTUALLY TURNS IT ON , it might make a difference.Increased backbone capacity or downstream capacity is n't nearly as much of a threat to Hollywood as multicast would be... It would allow torrents to be VERY rapidly seeded to multiple peers .
You could still use " classic " BT techniques for filling in the holes , but if the initial seed were done as multicast , you 'd get lots of distrubuted seeds up and running very quickly.Similarly , for most video streaming services ( legit or not ) , the bottleneck is at the server itself .
If a company did " live " streaming with multicast , their costs/server requirements would be far less .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe if this router has improved multicast support and SOMEONE ACTUALLY TURNS IT ON, it might make a difference.Increased backbone capacity or downstream capacity isn't nearly as much of a threat to Hollywood as multicast would be...  It would allow torrents to be VERY rapidly seeded to multiple peers.
You could still use "classic" BT techniques for filling in the holes, but if the initial seed were done as multicast, you'd get lots of distrubuted seeds up and running very quickly.Similarly, for most video streaming services (legit or not), the bottleneck is at the server itself.
If a company did "live" streaming with multicast, their costs/server requirements would be far less.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511576</id>
	<title>Re:Steaming?</title>
	<author>courteaudotbiz</author>
	<datestamp>1268851080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>God, I had a good laugh with your comment! Wish I had mod points for you!</htmltext>
<tokenext>God , I had a good laugh with your comment !
Wish I had mod points for you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>God, I had a good laugh with your comment!
Wish I had mod points for you!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31523944</id>
	<title>Re:"MAFIAA" Sure, You Want to be Taken Seriously..</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1268932560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>For the most part, if you want to legitimately download/stream a popular bit of mass culture from/through the Internet, you pretty much can.</i></p><p>What other purchases are required?</p><p>I can use Hulu and I have Netflix via Roku, and lots of current releases aren't available.  I have to use the mail service for them which has nasty latency.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For the most part , if you want to legitimately download/stream a popular bit of mass culture from/through the Internet , you pretty much can.What other purchases are required ? I can use Hulu and I have Netflix via Roku , and lots of current releases are n't available .
I have to use the mail service for them which has nasty latency .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the most part, if you want to legitimately download/stream a popular bit of mass culture from/through the Internet, you pretty much can.What other purchases are required?I can use Hulu and I have Netflix via Roku, and lots of current releases aren't available.
I have to use the mail service for them which has nasty latency.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511484</id>
	<title>Simple</title>
	<author>brkello</author>
	<datestamp>1268850780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Adapt or die.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Adapt or die .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Adapt or die.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31513518</id>
	<title>Acronyms</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268857020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To anyone over 40 (like me), CRS means "Can't Remember Shit".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To anyone over 40 ( like me ) , CRS means " Ca n't Remember Shit " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To anyone over 40 (like me), CRS means "Can't Remember Shit".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511122</id>
	<title>How is this "trouble for Hollywood?"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268849880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not as long as ISPs offer most of us nothing better than high-latency 1.5 Mbit DSL, or low-rate cable.  If we even get a choice of those two.</p><p>Oh, I forgot, the FCC is going to magically solve the last-mile (or last-500-feet) problem.  Right, there you go.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not as long as ISPs offer most of us nothing better than high-latency 1.5 Mbit DSL , or low-rate cable .
If we even get a choice of those two.Oh , I forgot , the FCC is going to magically solve the last-mile ( or last-500-feet ) problem .
Right , there you go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not as long as ISPs offer most of us nothing better than high-latency 1.5 Mbit DSL, or low-rate cable.
If we even get a choice of those two.Oh, I forgot, the FCC is going to magically solve the last-mile (or last-500-feet) problem.
Right, there you go.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512768</id>
	<title>The key words here are... make enough money</title>
	<author>Anti Cheat</author>
	<datestamp>1268854380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This router won't be sold to the telco's by saying it allows for customers to get more. You're dreaming. It will be sold to telco's claiming it can gain new markets at a huge cost savings and still maintain control of the bulk rates. It also maintains control over their competitors costs and bandwidth limits. It's a win win for telco profits.</p><p>This router will perhaps ease the congestion excuse/claims made by the large providers and ISP's that actually rule the main backbones. I say claim because how much bandwidth is actually available is more of a management issue. If say the telco's were to upgrade to this router what would happen to the cost structure? The manipulation of the trunk fee structure has always been a big money maker for the telco's. This router upsets that balance. Before the telco's were able to make claims based on how much fibre was lit not how much fibre was there and just dark. In Canada at least a few years ago the telco's went dark on 60\% of their fibre and I heard a report of another 40\% of the remaining (See dslreports back then). Since that time I do not know if any was ever re-lit or how it relates to the so called bandwidth crunch, but it gave reason to tell the CRTC they needed to raise/control the wholesale rates if they were to increase/invest in the infrastructure.  I guess the CRTC bought the argument as nothing has changed here and if anything it has become worse. The big fibre lie of 2001 (I think it was 2001 could have been 2002)</p><p>So now here they are without lighting up one single new/old fibre, just changing out some routers the telco's have 3x the bandwidth and the question is how this will effect the MPAA/RIAA business model? Well it won't change anything. It's no longer the argument about how the MPAA/RIAA can make money. That was always about the MPAA/RIAA wanting to make huge obscene amounts of money. The MPAA/RIAA won't change that desire simply because there is more bandwidth. Nor will they change their business model. There won't be anymore bandwidth available even with this router. If anything at all it will allow the telco's to turn off another 30\% of their fibre backbones and still control the pricing just like before if they want too. There is nothing here to affect the MPAA/RIAA. It's not related to nor ever will this relate to the MPAA/RIAA  and their desires. This is about telco's price control. It never was or ever be about anything but that.</p><p>This won't affect the indie guys either. Nothing will change for them either except for perhaps one way. Unless they sign a deal with the telcos for exclusive content. The only people that will ever get in on this supposed improvement are those that the telcos want to use for their premium content services. The rest of the world be damned. There is something new on the horizon and it is a new business plan for the telco's at the price of a few routers. Now they don't need to disclose they had the fibre all along, just sitting dark and so no risk at getting caught in the big lie about how much they physically had. Now they can keep that lie for later and yet keep the rates high for all end of line carriers, well except for their own that is. They suddenly can supply their end users with a unique service but keep the rest the status quo. The MPAA/RIAA will continue to navel gaze and throw tantrums they aren't getting $26 a movie and/or while signing backroom deals with the telco's if they want. Who's to know.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This router wo n't be sold to the telco 's by saying it allows for customers to get more .
You 're dreaming .
It will be sold to telco 's claiming it can gain new markets at a huge cost savings and still maintain control of the bulk rates .
It also maintains control over their competitors costs and bandwidth limits .
It 's a win win for telco profits.This router will perhaps ease the congestion excuse/claims made by the large providers and ISP 's that actually rule the main backbones .
I say claim because how much bandwidth is actually available is more of a management issue .
If say the telco 's were to upgrade to this router what would happen to the cost structure ?
The manipulation of the trunk fee structure has always been a big money maker for the telco 's .
This router upsets that balance .
Before the telco 's were able to make claims based on how much fibre was lit not how much fibre was there and just dark .
In Canada at least a few years ago the telco 's went dark on 60 \ % of their fibre and I heard a report of another 40 \ % of the remaining ( See dslreports back then ) .
Since that time I do not know if any was ever re-lit or how it relates to the so called bandwidth crunch , but it gave reason to tell the CRTC they needed to raise/control the wholesale rates if they were to increase/invest in the infrastructure .
I guess the CRTC bought the argument as nothing has changed here and if anything it has become worse .
The big fibre lie of 2001 ( I think it was 2001 could have been 2002 ) So now here they are without lighting up one single new/old fibre , just changing out some routers the telco 's have 3x the bandwidth and the question is how this will effect the MPAA/RIAA business model ?
Well it wo n't change anything .
It 's no longer the argument about how the MPAA/RIAA can make money .
That was always about the MPAA/RIAA wanting to make huge obscene amounts of money .
The MPAA/RIAA wo n't change that desire simply because there is more bandwidth .
Nor will they change their business model .
There wo n't be anymore bandwidth available even with this router .
If anything at all it will allow the telco 's to turn off another 30 \ % of their fibre backbones and still control the pricing just like before if they want too .
There is nothing here to affect the MPAA/RIAA .
It 's not related to nor ever will this relate to the MPAA/RIAA and their desires .
This is about telco 's price control .
It never was or ever be about anything but that.This wo n't affect the indie guys either .
Nothing will change for them either except for perhaps one way .
Unless they sign a deal with the telcos for exclusive content .
The only people that will ever get in on this supposed improvement are those that the telcos want to use for their premium content services .
The rest of the world be damned .
There is something new on the horizon and it is a new business plan for the telco 's at the price of a few routers .
Now they do n't need to disclose they had the fibre all along , just sitting dark and so no risk at getting caught in the big lie about how much they physically had .
Now they can keep that lie for later and yet keep the rates high for all end of line carriers , well except for their own that is .
They suddenly can supply their end users with a unique service but keep the rest the status quo .
The MPAA/RIAA will continue to navel gaze and throw tantrums they are n't getting $ 26 a movie and/or while signing backroom deals with the telco 's if they want .
Who 's to know .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>This router won't be sold to the telco's by saying it allows for customers to get more.
You're dreaming.
It will be sold to telco's claiming it can gain new markets at a huge cost savings and still maintain control of the bulk rates.
It also maintains control over their competitors costs and bandwidth limits.
It's a win win for telco profits.This router will perhaps ease the congestion excuse/claims made by the large providers and ISP's that actually rule the main backbones.
I say claim because how much bandwidth is actually available is more of a management issue.
If say the telco's were to upgrade to this router what would happen to the cost structure?
The manipulation of the trunk fee structure has always been a big money maker for the telco's.
This router upsets that balance.
Before the telco's were able to make claims based on how much fibre was lit not how much fibre was there and just dark.
In Canada at least a few years ago the telco's went dark on 60\% of their fibre and I heard a report of another 40\% of the remaining (See dslreports back then).
Since that time I do not know if any was ever re-lit or how it relates to the so called bandwidth crunch, but it gave reason to tell the CRTC they needed to raise/control the wholesale rates if they were to increase/invest in the infrastructure.
I guess the CRTC bought the argument as nothing has changed here and if anything it has become worse.
The big fibre lie of 2001 (I think it was 2001 could have been 2002)So now here they are without lighting up one single new/old fibre, just changing out some routers the telco's have 3x the bandwidth and the question is how this will effect the MPAA/RIAA business model?
Well it won't change anything.
It's no longer the argument about how the MPAA/RIAA can make money.
That was always about the MPAA/RIAA wanting to make huge obscene amounts of money.
The MPAA/RIAA won't change that desire simply because there is more bandwidth.
Nor will they change their business model.
There won't be anymore bandwidth available even with this router.
If anything at all it will allow the telco's to turn off another 30\% of their fibre backbones and still control the pricing just like before if they want too.
There is nothing here to affect the MPAA/RIAA.
It's not related to nor ever will this relate to the MPAA/RIAA  and their desires.
This is about telco's price control.
It never was or ever be about anything but that.This won't affect the indie guys either.
Nothing will change for them either except for perhaps one way.
Unless they sign a deal with the telcos for exclusive content.
The only people that will ever get in on this supposed improvement are those that the telcos want to use for their premium content services.
The rest of the world be damned.
There is something new on the horizon and it is a new business plan for the telco's at the price of a few routers.
Now they don't need to disclose they had the fibre all along, just sitting dark and so no risk at getting caught in the big lie about how much they physically had.
Now they can keep that lie for later and yet keep the rates high for all end of line carriers, well except for their own that is.
They suddenly can supply their end users with a unique service but keep the rest the status quo.
The MPAA/RIAA will continue to navel gaze and throw tantrums they aren't getting $26 a movie and/or while signing backroom deals with the telco's if they want.
Who's to know.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511224</id>
	<title>Re:Steaming?</title>
	<author>DSwitz</author>
	<datestamp>1268850120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Everyone sing: The internet is for.... steaming video-on-demand services</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone sing : The internet is for.... steaming video-on-demand services</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone sing: The internet is for.... steaming video-on-demand services</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511054</id>
	<title>First</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268849700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Multicast</htmltext>
<tokenext>Multicast</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Multicast</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511764</id>
	<title>What's the business model again?</title>
	<author>boguslinks</author>
	<datestamp>1268851560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What is this business model that involves distributing movies for free via p2p and still making a buck? Selling t-shirts? It's slipping my mind right now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What is this business model that involves distributing movies for free via p2p and still making a buck ?
Selling t-shirts ?
It 's slipping my mind right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is this business model that involves distributing movies for free via p2p and still making a buck?
Selling t-shirts?
It's slipping my mind right now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511120</id>
	<title>What?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268849880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't this router only three times faster than routers that previously existed? I wouldn't exactly call that a game-changing speed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't this router only three times faster than routers that previously existed ?
I would n't exactly call that a game-changing speed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't this router only three times faster than routers that previously existed?
I wouldn't exactly call that a game-changing speed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511718</id>
	<title>Make the movie bigger!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268851440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, instead of HD, the MPAA should push for a 1920000*1080000 standard so it will be so large that it's not feasible to download from the line. How they are going to distributed it on disc media is a homework left for the reader.</p><p>Accept the fact MPAA! Newspaper didn't die because of the Internet, they just adopt and changes and now I see some newspaper are making money by providing access to the archive, or other link and analysis functions which is not possible with the deadwood media.<br>I believe you can do something more creative than suing people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , instead of HD , the MPAA should push for a 1920000 * 1080000 standard so it will be so large that it 's not feasible to download from the line .
How they are going to distributed it on disc media is a homework left for the reader.Accept the fact MPAA !
Newspaper did n't die because of the Internet , they just adopt and changes and now I see some newspaper are making money by providing access to the archive , or other link and analysis functions which is not possible with the deadwood media.I believe you can do something more creative than suing people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, instead of HD, the MPAA should push for a 1920000*1080000 standard so it will be so large that it's not feasible to download from the line.
How they are going to distributed it on disc media is a homework left for the reader.Accept the fact MPAA!
Newspaper didn't die because of the Internet, they just adopt and changes and now I see some newspaper are making money by providing access to the archive, or other link and analysis functions which is not possible with the deadwood media.I believe you can do something more creative than suing people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31514064</id>
	<title>Re:MAFIAA</title>
	<author>bazorg</author>
	<datestamp>1268859060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I said the same when they called my friend a "pirate"</htmltext>
<tokenext>I said the same when they called my friend a " pirate "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I said the same when they called my friend a "pirate"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512830</id>
	<title>Re:Music labels starting to get it right</title>
	<author>hitmark</author>
	<datestamp>1268854560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>one also see labels branching out to become more then just a pusher of recordings. Now some of them manage all aspects of a artist/group.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>one also see labels branching out to become more then just a pusher of recordings .
Now some of them manage all aspects of a artist/group .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>one also see labels branching out to become more then just a pusher of recordings.
Now some of them manage all aspects of a artist/group.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31516814</id>
	<title>MAFIAA?</title>
	<author>harlows\_monkeys</author>
	<datestamp>1268827680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Come on Slashdot editors. Try actually editing. That kind of crap is just stupid.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Come on Slashdot editors .
Try actually editing .
That kind of crap is just stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come on Slashdot editors.
Try actually editing.
That kind of crap is just stupid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31514088</id>
	<title>Re:How is this "trouble for Hollywood?"</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1268859180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;high-latency 1.5 Mbit DSL, or low-rate cable</p><p>You can watch movies over 1.5 Mbit.<br>Heck I watch them over 0.7 Mbit.  Works just fine.<br>Favorite channel is syfy.com (Caprica, Ghost Hunters and other stuff).</p><p>(I've also tried watching them over 0.05 Mbit/s dialup.  Not so hot..... it take 6 hours of buffering to get 1 hour of show.  Zzzz.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; high-latency 1.5 Mbit DSL , or low-rate cableYou can watch movies over 1.5 Mbit.Heck I watch them over 0.7 Mbit .
Works just fine.Favorite channel is syfy.com ( Caprica , Ghost Hunters and other stuff ) .
( I 've also tried watching them over 0.05 Mbit/s dialup .
Not so hot..... it take 6 hours of buffering to get 1 hour of show .
Zzzz. )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;high-latency 1.5 Mbit DSL, or low-rate cableYou can watch movies over 1.5 Mbit.Heck I watch them over 0.7 Mbit.
Works just fine.Favorite channel is syfy.com (Caprica, Ghost Hunters and other stuff).
(I've also tried watching them over 0.05 Mbit/s dialup.
Not so hot..... it take 6 hours of buffering to get 1 hour of show.
Zzzz.)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31516984</id>
	<title>When an indie can produce an "Avatar" like movie</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268828940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then I'll take this threat seriously - and not before.</p><p>Good movies take talent and collaboration of a lot of people with talent, all through the process, and they're not all going to work for an "indie" producer for rice money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then I 'll take this threat seriously - and not before.Good movies take talent and collaboration of a lot of people with talent , all through the process , and they 're not all going to work for an " indie " producer for rice money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then I'll take this threat seriously - and not before.Good movies take talent and collaboration of a lot of people with talent, all through the process, and they're not all going to work for an "indie" producer for rice money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512666</id>
	<title>Re:Slanted Wording</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268854080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with this Slashdotter. Comparing the methods of an entity engaged in the practice of protecting it's "Intellectual Property" with the Mesozoic Era is a vast insult to said era. Also comparing that same entity to organized crime is an insult to them as well. We must in future refer to the MPAA and RIAA with the proper respect - namely "Thieves, Criminals and Petty Thugs".</p><p>-Thank you!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with this Slashdotter .
Comparing the methods of an entity engaged in the practice of protecting it 's " Intellectual Property " with the Mesozoic Era is a vast insult to said era .
Also comparing that same entity to organized crime is an insult to them as well .
We must in future refer to the MPAA and RIAA with the proper respect - namely " Thieves , Criminals and Petty Thugs " .-Thank you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with this Slashdotter.
Comparing the methods of an entity engaged in the practice of protecting it's "Intellectual Property" with the Mesozoic Era is a vast insult to said era.
Also comparing that same entity to organized crime is an insult to them as well.
We must in future refer to the MPAA and RIAA with the proper respect - namely "Thieves, Criminals and Petty Thugs".-Thank you!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31514002</id>
	<title>Re:The Last Mile</title>
	<author>acohen1</author>
	<datestamp>1268858820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Probably intermediate infrastructure. I've got a 20mb connection that tested at 19.998 or something like at peak times. I regularly get 2.0 MegaBytes/s on bittorrent, which if it downloaded sequentially could probably allow 1080p streaming.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably intermediate infrastructure .
I 've got a 20mb connection that tested at 19.998 or something like at peak times .
I regularly get 2.0 MegaBytes/s on bittorrent , which if it downloaded sequentially could probably allow 1080p streaming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably intermediate infrastructure.
I've got a 20mb connection that tested at 19.998 or something like at peak times.
I regularly get 2.0 MegaBytes/s on bittorrent, which if it downloaded sequentially could probably allow 1080p streaming.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31513364</id>
	<title>Crossed wires in the summary</title>
	<author>KharmaWidow</author>
	<datestamp>1268856480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While it is true the movie, music, and book publishers need to come up with modern business plans, I think the summary wrongly implies that "both the MPAA and the RIAA continue to fight emerging technologies like peer-to-peer file sharing " for the sake of blocking peer to peer sharing.</p><p>***They want you people to stop sharing and distributing their copyrighted material without paying for it***</p><p>They embrace peer to peer systems and networks who don't steal from them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While it is true the movie , music , and book publishers need to come up with modern business plans , I think the summary wrongly implies that " both the MPAA and the RIAA continue to fight emerging technologies like peer-to-peer file sharing " for the sake of blocking peer to peer sharing .
* * * They want you people to stop sharing and distributing their copyrighted material without paying for it * * * They embrace peer to peer systems and networks who do n't steal from them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While it is true the movie, music, and book publishers need to come up with modern business plans, I think the summary wrongly implies that "both the MPAA and the RIAA continue to fight emerging technologies like peer-to-peer file sharing " for the sake of blocking peer to peer sharing.
***They want you people to stop sharing and distributing their copyrighted material without paying for it***They embrace peer to peer systems and networks who don't steal from them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512426</id>
	<title>Re:Slanted Wording</title>
	<author>kindbud</author>
	<datestamp>1268853420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And you people who are moderating the parent up are just as bad as he is.  Didn't read the article before adding your two cents.</p><p>What was parent saying about the contribution of Slashdot moderators to the quality of its "fora?"</p><blockquote><div><p>...but Slashdot stands out from the crowds by making interesting and well-worded messages visible amid the quagmire of nonsense, insults, spam, and other noise people are bound to post to public fora.</p></div></blockquote><p>The author of the parent is one of the same people he complains about, and so are the mods who rated him up.</p><p>Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And you people who are moderating the parent up are just as bad as he is .
Did n't read the article before adding your two cents.What was parent saying about the contribution of Slashdot moderators to the quality of its " fora ?
" ...but Slashdot stands out from the crowds by making interesting and well-worded messages visible amid the quagmire of nonsense , insults , spam , and other noise people are bound to post to public fora.The author of the parent is one of the same people he complains about , and so are the mods who rated him up.Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And you people who are moderating the parent up are just as bad as he is.
Didn't read the article before adding your two cents.What was parent saying about the contribution of Slashdot moderators to the quality of its "fora?
"...but Slashdot stands out from the crowds by making interesting and well-worded messages visible amid the quagmire of nonsense, insults, spam, and other noise people are bound to post to public fora.The author of the parent is one of the same people he complains about, and so are the mods who rated him up.Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31516366</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing new</title>
	<author>jvillain</author>
	<datestamp>1268825040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought the previous story said the new Cisco router was only 3 times faster than the previous model. Hardly game changing if so. Further as the upgrade cost will probably be on par to upgrading from a Saturn 5 rocket to the Space Shuttle I doubt every one will jump on it at once.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought the previous story said the new Cisco router was only 3 times faster than the previous model .
Hardly game changing if so .
Further as the upgrade cost will probably be on par to upgrading from a Saturn 5 rocket to the Space Shuttle I doubt every one will jump on it at once .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought the previous story said the new Cisco router was only 3 times faster than the previous model.
Hardly game changing if so.
Further as the upgrade cost will probably be on par to upgrading from a Saturn 5 rocket to the Space Shuttle I doubt every one will jump on it at once.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31513114</id>
	<title>Great...</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1268855580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So now I can exceed my monthly 60GB cap even faster now? Sweet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So now I can exceed my monthly 60GB cap even faster now ?
Sweet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So now I can exceed my monthly 60GB cap even faster now?
Sweet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31513172</id>
	<title>Weakened position of content industries</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1268855760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
The Time article mentions that one of the major distributors over which the music industry has an "iron grip" is Tower Records.  Tower Records went bankrupt in 2006, and all the US retail outlets were closed.  They still have some online operations, and a few stores around the world use the name, but that's it.
</p><p>
That part of the article leads to a point few have mentioned.  The RIAA and the MPAA used to deal almost entirely with distributors who were weaker than they were - record stores, often small ones, and movie theaters.  That's no longer the case.
The remaining stores that sell CDs and DVDs do so as a sideline. There are DVDs in WalMart, Best Buy, Target, etc., but they're not a big fraction of the business.  Online, the RIAA and MPAA have to deal with Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft.
All of those companies are much bigger than any music industry player, and bigger than most of the film studios.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Time article mentions that one of the major distributors over which the music industry has an " iron grip " is Tower Records .
Tower Records went bankrupt in 2006 , and all the US retail outlets were closed .
They still have some online operations , and a few stores around the world use the name , but that 's it .
That part of the article leads to a point few have mentioned .
The RIAA and the MPAA used to deal almost entirely with distributors who were weaker than they were - record stores , often small ones , and movie theaters .
That 's no longer the case .
The remaining stores that sell CDs and DVDs do so as a sideline .
There are DVDs in WalMart , Best Buy , Target , etc. , but they 're not a big fraction of the business .
Online , the RIAA and MPAA have to deal with Amazon , Apple , and Microsoft .
All of those companies are much bigger than any music industry player , and bigger than most of the film studios .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The Time article mentions that one of the major distributors over which the music industry has an "iron grip" is Tower Records.
Tower Records went bankrupt in 2006, and all the US retail outlets were closed.
They still have some online operations, and a few stores around the world use the name, but that's it.
That part of the article leads to a point few have mentioned.
The RIAA and the MPAA used to deal almost entirely with distributors who were weaker than they were - record stores, often small ones, and movie theaters.
That's no longer the case.
The remaining stores that sell CDs and DVDs do so as a sideline.
There are DVDs in WalMart, Best Buy, Target, etc., but they're not a big fraction of the business.
Online, the RIAA and MPAA have to deal with Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft.
All of those companies are much bigger than any music industry player, and bigger than most of the film studios.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511240</id>
	<title>What a renaissance man</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268850180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First the thong song and now this. Amazing!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First the thong song and now this .
Amazing !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First the thong song and now this.
Amazing!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512358</id>
	<title>Re:Slanted Wording</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268853240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For the MAFIAA part, I'll agree with but if you RTFA, the Mesozoic bit is actually a direct quote from the article.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For the MAFIAA part , I 'll agree with but if you RTFA , the Mesozoic bit is actually a direct quote from the article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the MAFIAA part, I'll agree with but if you RTFA, the Mesozoic bit is actually a direct quote from the article.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511028</id>
	<title>Nothing new</title>
	<author>ihatejobs</author>
	<datestamp>1268849640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Its not like this is anything new... MPAA and RIAA are QQing because they are just like the newspaper industry: Behind the times and refusing to change.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its not like this is anything new... MPAA and RIAA are QQing because they are just like the newspaper industry : Behind the times and refusing to change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its not like this is anything new... MPAA and RIAA are QQing because they are just like the newspaper industry: Behind the times and refusing to change.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31517298</id>
	<title>They could just give it away...</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1268831040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"Meanwhile, both the MPAA and the RIAA continue to fight emerging technologies like peer-to-peer file sharing with costly court battles rather than figuring out how to appeal to the next generation of movie enthusiasts and still make a buck."</p></div><p>Well, they could just start giving away everything for free.  That would work, right?</p><p>The problem is, from the average user's perspective, there are two ways to get a movie today: pay for it, or download it.  Paying for it gets you a variety of different things, like a physical product, streaming from Netflix, or maybe just a rental from Blockbuster.  Downloading it, if they know how, results in the movie being delivered almost as quickly for free.</p><p>So, let's see.  I can pay or I can download.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... checks wallet<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I guess today I'll just download.</p><p>To the user the experience is pretty much the same as long as they know to stay away from files identified with "CAM".  Maybe the download is better, because there are no previews, no ads and no warnings.</p><p>We have pretty much educated everyone under 30 that there is no ethical problem in doing this - the studios are making plenty of money (too much, in some opinions) and therefore it is all OK.  It isn't like you are actually "stealing" anything anyway.  And what is one or two people downloading compared to all the people that are actually paying, right?  Problem with that today is the ratio of paying to downloading is getting smaller and smaller every day.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Meanwhile , both the MPAA and the RIAA continue to fight emerging technologies like peer-to-peer file sharing with costly court battles rather than figuring out how to appeal to the next generation of movie enthusiasts and still make a buck .
" Well , they could just start giving away everything for free .
That would work , right ? The problem is , from the average user 's perspective , there are two ways to get a movie today : pay for it , or download it .
Paying for it gets you a variety of different things , like a physical product , streaming from Netflix , or maybe just a rental from Blockbuster .
Downloading it , if they know how , results in the movie being delivered almost as quickly for free.So , let 's see .
I can pay or I can download .
... checks wallet ... I guess today I 'll just download.To the user the experience is pretty much the same as long as they know to stay away from files identified with " CAM " .
Maybe the download is better , because there are no previews , no ads and no warnings.We have pretty much educated everyone under 30 that there is no ethical problem in doing this - the studios are making plenty of money ( too much , in some opinions ) and therefore it is all OK. It is n't like you are actually " stealing " anything anyway .
And what is one or two people downloading compared to all the people that are actually paying , right ?
Problem with that today is the ratio of paying to downloading is getting smaller and smaller every day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Meanwhile, both the MPAA and the RIAA continue to fight emerging technologies like peer-to-peer file sharing with costly court battles rather than figuring out how to appeal to the next generation of movie enthusiasts and still make a buck.
"Well, they could just start giving away everything for free.
That would work, right?The problem is, from the average user's perspective, there are two ways to get a movie today: pay for it, or download it.
Paying for it gets you a variety of different things, like a physical product, streaming from Netflix, or maybe just a rental from Blockbuster.
Downloading it, if they know how, results in the movie being delivered almost as quickly for free.So, let's see.
I can pay or I can download.
... checks wallet ... I guess today I'll just download.To the user the experience is pretty much the same as long as they know to stay away from files identified with "CAM".
Maybe the download is better, because there are no previews, no ads and no warnings.We have pretty much educated everyone under 30 that there is no ethical problem in doing this - the studios are making plenty of money (too much, in some opinions) and therefore it is all OK.  It isn't like you are actually "stealing" anything anyway.
And what is one or two people downloading compared to all the people that are actually paying, right?
Problem with that today is the ratio of paying to downloading is getting smaller and smaller every day.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512252</id>
	<title>Re:The Last Mile</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268853000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Last mile or no last mile, the providers ain't increasing their bandwidth for us freeloading users. You can bet your hide that even if the routers were free (90,000 USD$ at the lowest tier) and in place everywhere, you still don't have the infrastructure to deliver those speeds. Your pipes aren't that big all throughout your company yet. Circuits connecting offices are expensive, and even 150Mb links were uncommon in my client site diagrams, let alone 1Gbps links, which I assume this router deals with.</p><p>Number two is that the last mile in the US will continue to be a major problem, anyway. Companies will only upgrade after the government mandates it; we have already seen that digital and HDTV is under a major lag, and most TV channels don't even record on HD formats yet because of costs. I digress. There are many people with fiber connections at home, but they won't be getting a fullspeed download from any site, because servers cap you at some level. Service is 50Mb currently for FIOS. My ethernet cables can do twice as much, and home streaming speeds still leaves much to be desired. Even if I rewired my home for Gigabit speed, notice that the USA broadband plan will take 10 years to normalize speeds to *just* 100Mb.</p><p>In short, even if every single pipe were upgraded, including last mile ones, free data won't mean that servers have to upgrade their caps. Ever seen those ISO downloads that start at 600kbps and stabilize and half that speed? Yup. That's what we are in for. You'll still download at 400kbps and charge people to see your better content. Even in charging, you'll just cap each connection to your server at slightly above HD streaming rates, and nothing more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Last mile or no last mile , the providers ai n't increasing their bandwidth for us freeloading users .
You can bet your hide that even if the routers were free ( 90,000 USD $ at the lowest tier ) and in place everywhere , you still do n't have the infrastructure to deliver those speeds .
Your pipes are n't that big all throughout your company yet .
Circuits connecting offices are expensive , and even 150Mb links were uncommon in my client site diagrams , let alone 1Gbps links , which I assume this router deals with.Number two is that the last mile in the US will continue to be a major problem , anyway .
Companies will only upgrade after the government mandates it ; we have already seen that digital and HDTV is under a major lag , and most TV channels do n't even record on HD formats yet because of costs .
I digress .
There are many people with fiber connections at home , but they wo n't be getting a fullspeed download from any site , because servers cap you at some level .
Service is 50Mb currently for FIOS .
My ethernet cables can do twice as much , and home streaming speeds still leaves much to be desired .
Even if I rewired my home for Gigabit speed , notice that the USA broadband plan will take 10 years to normalize speeds to * just * 100Mb.In short , even if every single pipe were upgraded , including last mile ones , free data wo n't mean that servers have to upgrade their caps .
Ever seen those ISO downloads that start at 600kbps and stabilize and half that speed ?
Yup. That 's what we are in for .
You 'll still download at 400kbps and charge people to see your better content .
Even in charging , you 'll just cap each connection to your server at slightly above HD streaming rates , and nothing more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last mile or no last mile, the providers ain't increasing their bandwidth for us freeloading users.
You can bet your hide that even if the routers were free (90,000 USD$ at the lowest tier) and in place everywhere, you still don't have the infrastructure to deliver those speeds.
Your pipes aren't that big all throughout your company yet.
Circuits connecting offices are expensive, and even 150Mb links were uncommon in my client site diagrams, let alone 1Gbps links, which I assume this router deals with.Number two is that the last mile in the US will continue to be a major problem, anyway.
Companies will only upgrade after the government mandates it; we have already seen that digital and HDTV is under a major lag, and most TV channels don't even record on HD formats yet because of costs.
I digress.
There are many people with fiber connections at home, but they won't be getting a fullspeed download from any site, because servers cap you at some level.
Service is 50Mb currently for FIOS.
My ethernet cables can do twice as much, and home streaming speeds still leaves much to be desired.
Even if I rewired my home for Gigabit speed, notice that the USA broadband plan will take 10 years to normalize speeds to *just* 100Mb.In short, even if every single pipe were upgraded, including last mile ones, free data won't mean that servers have to upgrade their caps.
Ever seen those ISO downloads that start at 600kbps and stabilize and half that speed?
Yup. That's what we are in for.
You'll still download at 400kbps and charge people to see your better content.
Even in charging, you'll just cap each connection to your server at slightly above HD streaming rates, and nothing more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31513874</id>
	<title>Why don't you think so?</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1268858340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you not been using the Internet for very long? In the time I've been on it (about 15 years) I've seen the price of bandwidth drop a significant amount. When I first got on 28.8kbps was as good as it got where I lived. That was about $20/month, plus another $20/month for a dedicated phone line. However that number was misleading, as the ISP only had about a 30k CIR frame relay connection for like 8 modems, so you rarely got the full speed. In a couple years time, that was up to 48-53kbps depending on line condition, and the ISP had enough bandwidth that you got that pretty much all the time.</p><p>When I was first able to get DSL the best available was 256k/256k and it ran me about $70/month. I was simply floored by how much better it was than dialup, and quite pleased at the price as the next better thing to dialup in the past was ISDN, which was looking in the range of $150/month for the line and then $50/month or more for the ISP.</p><p>When I moved I decided to go up to business class Internet. I got 640k/640k DSL with 5 usable IPs for about $160/month. Had that for a couple years, then switched to a different provider that got me 4mbps/768k with 8 IPs for about $150/month. Later I switched to business class cable connection as DSL has limits that can't easily be overcome. That was 10mbps/1mbps with 5 IPs for about $160/month. That got upgraded to 12/1.5mbps about a year ago for no extra charge (they just increased the speed of that class of service). Just about a month ago, they called me with a deal that gets me 15/1.5mbps (allegedly, though more like 20/2mbps in my testing) plus a phone line for about $150/month.</p><p>Seems to me that bandwidth continues to get cheaper. On my first business connection I paid about $0.25 per kbit. Now I pay a bit under $0.09 per kbit ($20/month or so is phone cost). You can do much better if you want a consumer grade connection too. 15mbps down would probably run you $50-60/month.</p><p>It's not like the price plummets on a daily basis, but as the years have gone by I see faster and faster connections being available at reasonable rates (time was 1.5mbit was over a grand for line, transport and access and anything past that was near impossible to get) and the price you pay for a given amount of speed has gone down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you not been using the Internet for very long ?
In the time I 've been on it ( about 15 years ) I 've seen the price of bandwidth drop a significant amount .
When I first got on 28.8kbps was as good as it got where I lived .
That was about $ 20/month , plus another $ 20/month for a dedicated phone line .
However that number was misleading , as the ISP only had about a 30k CIR frame relay connection for like 8 modems , so you rarely got the full speed .
In a couple years time , that was up to 48-53kbps depending on line condition , and the ISP had enough bandwidth that you got that pretty much all the time.When I was first able to get DSL the best available was 256k/256k and it ran me about $ 70/month .
I was simply floored by how much better it was than dialup , and quite pleased at the price as the next better thing to dialup in the past was ISDN , which was looking in the range of $ 150/month for the line and then $ 50/month or more for the ISP.When I moved I decided to go up to business class Internet .
I got 640k/640k DSL with 5 usable IPs for about $ 160/month .
Had that for a couple years , then switched to a different provider that got me 4mbps/768k with 8 IPs for about $ 150/month .
Later I switched to business class cable connection as DSL has limits that ca n't easily be overcome .
That was 10mbps/1mbps with 5 IPs for about $ 160/month .
That got upgraded to 12/1.5mbps about a year ago for no extra charge ( they just increased the speed of that class of service ) .
Just about a month ago , they called me with a deal that gets me 15/1.5mbps ( allegedly , though more like 20/2mbps in my testing ) plus a phone line for about $ 150/month.Seems to me that bandwidth continues to get cheaper .
On my first business connection I paid about $ 0.25 per kbit .
Now I pay a bit under $ 0.09 per kbit ( $ 20/month or so is phone cost ) .
You can do much better if you want a consumer grade connection too .
15mbps down would probably run you $ 50-60/month.It 's not like the price plummets on a daily basis , but as the years have gone by I see faster and faster connections being available at reasonable rates ( time was 1.5mbit was over a grand for line , transport and access and anything past that was near impossible to get ) and the price you pay for a given amount of speed has gone down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you not been using the Internet for very long?
In the time I've been on it (about 15 years) I've seen the price of bandwidth drop a significant amount.
When I first got on 28.8kbps was as good as it got where I lived.
That was about $20/month, plus another $20/month for a dedicated phone line.
However that number was misleading, as the ISP only had about a 30k CIR frame relay connection for like 8 modems, so you rarely got the full speed.
In a couple years time, that was up to 48-53kbps depending on line condition, and the ISP had enough bandwidth that you got that pretty much all the time.When I was first able to get DSL the best available was 256k/256k and it ran me about $70/month.
I was simply floored by how much better it was than dialup, and quite pleased at the price as the next better thing to dialup in the past was ISDN, which was looking in the range of $150/month for the line and then $50/month or more for the ISP.When I moved I decided to go up to business class Internet.
I got 640k/640k DSL with 5 usable IPs for about $160/month.
Had that for a couple years, then switched to a different provider that got me 4mbps/768k with 8 IPs for about $150/month.
Later I switched to business class cable connection as DSL has limits that can't easily be overcome.
That was 10mbps/1mbps with 5 IPs for about $160/month.
That got upgraded to 12/1.5mbps about a year ago for no extra charge (they just increased the speed of that class of service).
Just about a month ago, they called me with a deal that gets me 15/1.5mbps (allegedly, though more like 20/2mbps in my testing) plus a phone line for about $150/month.Seems to me that bandwidth continues to get cheaper.
On my first business connection I paid about $0.25 per kbit.
Now I pay a bit under $0.09 per kbit ($20/month or so is phone cost).
You can do much better if you want a consumer grade connection too.
15mbps down would probably run you $50-60/month.It's not like the price plummets on a daily basis, but as the years have gone by I see faster and faster connections being available at reasonable rates (time was 1.5mbit was over a grand for line, transport and access and anything past that was near impossible to get) and the price you pay for a given amount of speed has gone down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31513644</id>
	<title>Re:They are not worried</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268857380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I completely agree residential bandwidth sucks, my house is 1Gbit switched, my ISP connection is 500kbit/2-3second latency.</p><p>At work I get 194mbit down/118Mbit up/3ms so it's not like the bandwidth isn't already there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I completely agree residential bandwidth sucks , my house is 1Gbit switched , my ISP connection is 500kbit/2-3second latency.At work I get 194mbit down/118Mbit up/3ms so it 's not like the bandwidth is n't already there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I completely agree residential bandwidth sucks, my house is 1Gbit switched, my ISP connection is 500kbit/2-3second latency.At work I get 194mbit down/118Mbit up/3ms so it's not like the bandwidth isn't already there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31513248</id>
	<title>Re:Slanted Wording</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268856060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We're not the editors.  If you want to talk to them, write to them.  What you've done is called trolling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're not the editors .
If you want to talk to them , write to them .
What you 've done is called trolling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're not the editors.
If you want to talk to them, write to them.
What you've done is called trolling.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512894</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268854800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The frequencies being released are at the low end, they cant carry as much information.  RF modulation over coax is nothing like Fiber.  you cant free up a transmission mode and use it as much as the others.   The low channel 2-13 frequency segment cant carry 1/2 of what one of the upper QAM constellation channels can carry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The frequencies being released are at the low end , they cant carry as much information .
RF modulation over coax is nothing like Fiber .
you cant free up a transmission mode and use it as much as the others .
The low channel 2-13 frequency segment cant carry 1/2 of what one of the upper QAM constellation channels can carry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The frequencies being released are at the low end, they cant carry as much information.
RF modulation over coax is nothing like Fiber.
you cant free up a transmission mode and use it as much as the others.
The low channel 2-13 frequency segment cant carry 1/2 of what one of the upper QAM constellation channels can carry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31513290</id>
	<title>Re:Steaming?</title>
	<author>Maximus633</author>
	<datestamp>1268856240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This post wins the award for the most funny quote on Slashdot.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This post wins the award for the most funny quote on Slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This post wins the award for the most funny quote on Slashdot.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512826</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268854560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It sounds like what I need is for Comcast to stop sending me the 3 Spanish (Mexican) channels and the 2 Chinese channels and bond those for me in a docsis 3 way and up my speed. I don't like the fact that I am paying for those channels I can't understand anyway.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It sounds like what I need is for Comcast to stop sending me the 3 Spanish ( Mexican ) channels and the 2 Chinese channels and bond those for me in a docsis 3 way and up my speed .
I do n't like the fact that I am paying for those channels I ca n't understand anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It sounds like what I need is for Comcast to stop sending me the 3 Spanish (Mexican) channels and the 2 Chinese channels and bond those for me in a docsis 3 way and up my speed.
I don't like the fact that I am paying for those channels I can't understand anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511904</id>
	<title>Re:The Last Mile</title>
	<author>Lesrahpem</author>
	<datestamp>1268851920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Increasing the backbone bandwidth will allow for faster connections between ISPs and customers because there will be more bandwidth available between ISPs and their providers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Increasing the backbone bandwidth will allow for faster connections between ISPs and customers because there will be more bandwidth available between ISPs and their providers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Increasing the backbone bandwidth will allow for faster connections between ISPs and customers because there will be more bandwidth available between ISPs and their providers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511848</id>
	<title>Re:"MAFIAA" Sure, You Want to be Taken Seriously..</title>
	<author>jd2112</author>
	<datestamp>1268851740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's a nice router you got there, It would be terrible if something were to happen to it...</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a nice router you got there , It would be terrible if something were to happen to it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a nice router you got there, It would be terrible if something were to happen to it...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512998</id>
	<title>Re:Slanted Wording</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268855220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"MAFIAA" isn't slanted, it's their name: http://mafiaa.org/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" MAFIAA " is n't slanted , it 's their name : http : //mafiaa.org/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"MAFIAA" isn't slanted, it's their name: http://mafiaa.org/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512694</id>
	<title>Re:Same meme different author</title>
	<author>hitmark</author>
	<datestamp>1268854140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the middle man argument holds true even for physical goods these days. Why have a part shipped half a cross the globe, when one can made it locally if one have the specs?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the middle man argument holds true even for physical goods these days .
Why have a part shipped half a cross the globe , when one can made it locally if one have the specs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the middle man argument holds true even for physical goods these days.
Why have a part shipped half a cross the globe, when one can made it locally if one have the specs?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31513790</id>
	<title>Re:Music labels starting to get it right</title>
	<author>AXE7540</author>
	<datestamp>1268857860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Off topic but I find it ironic that you can't play those flac files on a Sony PS3</htmltext>
<tokenext>Off topic but I find it ironic that you ca n't play those flac files on a Sony PS3</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Off topic but I find it ironic that you can't play those flac files on a Sony PS3</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31517950</id>
	<title>Re:They are not worried</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1268836380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>100mbit is nice, but how often can you really saturate it?  There are lots of sites where I can't get more than a 100KB/s download, whether I'm on the 34Gb/s campus connection or my 10Mb/s home connection.  There comes a point when increasing the speed of a connection just changes which part of the link is the bottleneck.  Upgrading more of the backbone means that 10Mb/s home connections become the bottleneck for more places, which means there is more of a reason to get a 100Mb/s connection.</htmltext>
<tokenext>100mbit is nice , but how often can you really saturate it ?
There are lots of sites where I ca n't get more than a 100KB/s download , whether I 'm on the 34Gb/s campus connection or my 10Mb/s home connection .
There comes a point when increasing the speed of a connection just changes which part of the link is the bottleneck .
Upgrading more of the backbone means that 10Mb/s home connections become the bottleneck for more places , which means there is more of a reason to get a 100Mb/s connection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>100mbit is nice, but how often can you really saturate it?
There are lots of sites where I can't get more than a 100KB/s download, whether I'm on the 34Gb/s campus connection or my 10Mb/s home connection.
There comes a point when increasing the speed of a connection just changes which part of the link is the bottleneck.
Upgrading more of the backbone means that 10Mb/s home connections become the bottleneck for more places, which means there is more of a reason to get a 100Mb/s connection.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512054</id>
	<title>Re:Steaming?</title>
	<author>uncledrax</author>
	<datestamp>1268852460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Didn't you know.. Valve is going into the Netflix business!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't you know.. Valve is going into the Netflix business !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't you know.. Valve is going into the Netflix business!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512144</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing new</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268852640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Refusing to change? Hardly.</p><p>They will be the first to embrace and support legislation to require ISPs to adopt Cisco's new deep packet inspection and traffic-shaping products to combat this development. They've probably already come up with new ways to make anyone but themselves pay for such changes, too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Refusing to change ?
Hardly.They will be the first to embrace and support legislation to require ISPs to adopt Cisco 's new deep packet inspection and traffic-shaping products to combat this development .
They 've probably already come up with new ways to make anyone but themselves pay for such changes , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Refusing to change?
Hardly.They will be the first to embrace and support legislation to require ISPs to adopt Cisco's new deep packet inspection and traffic-shaping products to combat this development.
They've probably already come up with new ways to make anyone but themselves pay for such changes, too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512132</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing new</title>
	<author>mister\_playboy</author>
	<datestamp>1268852640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would we need that explained to us?  We're all 1337 here at<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/, you n00b.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would we need that explained to us ?
We 're all 1337 here at / , you n00b .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would we need that explained to us?
We're all 1337 here at /, you n00b.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511420</id>
	<title>Music labels starting to get it right</title>
	<author>PhrostyMcByte</author>
	<datestamp>1268850600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just bought DRM-free FLAC files of a new album from <a href="http://www.thewhigs.com/" title="thewhigs.com">The Whigs</a> [thewhigs.com], who belong to a sub-label of Sony.  The music industry is slowly but surely starting to modernize and correct how they sell music.  I'm sure we'll eventually see the movie industry do the same and start offering high-quality DRM-free stuff online.  If anything, infrastructure upgrades like this router will just help that come sooner because their bandwidth costs will go down.  I'm sure they're not happy about changing, but they don't really have a choice and I think they're finally beginning to realize that.</p><p>(Not to say I condone any of their lawsuits, privacy invasions, or other malicious shenanigans -- I wrote PeerGuardian for frak's sake.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just bought DRM-free FLAC files of a new album from The Whigs [ thewhigs.com ] , who belong to a sub-label of Sony .
The music industry is slowly but surely starting to modernize and correct how they sell music .
I 'm sure we 'll eventually see the movie industry do the same and start offering high-quality DRM-free stuff online .
If anything , infrastructure upgrades like this router will just help that come sooner because their bandwidth costs will go down .
I 'm sure they 're not happy about changing , but they do n't really have a choice and I think they 're finally beginning to realize that .
( Not to say I condone any of their lawsuits , privacy invasions , or other malicious shenanigans -- I wrote PeerGuardian for frak 's sake .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just bought DRM-free FLAC files of a new album from The Whigs [thewhigs.com], who belong to a sub-label of Sony.
The music industry is slowly but surely starting to modernize and correct how they sell music.
I'm sure we'll eventually see the movie industry do the same and start offering high-quality DRM-free stuff online.
If anything, infrastructure upgrades like this router will just help that come sooner because their bandwidth costs will go down.
I'm sure they're not happy about changing, but they don't really have a choice and I think they're finally beginning to realize that.
(Not to say I condone any of their lawsuits, privacy invasions, or other malicious shenanigans -- I wrote PeerGuardian for frak's sake.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511670</id>
	<title>They must realize the new distribution model</title>
	<author>master\_p</author>
	<datestamp>1268851320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The film and music industry must realize that there is a new distribution model: the online distribution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The film and music industry must realize that there is a new distribution model : the online distribution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The film and music industry must realize that there is a new distribution model: the online distribution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512326</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>MobileTatsu-NJG</author>
	<datestamp>1268853180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Isn't this router only three times faster than routers that previously existed? I wouldn't exactly call that a game-changing speed.</p></div><p>All it has to do is get you past a certain threshold to allow new things to happen, like streaming of 1080p content, to be a game changer.  If they were only 5\% away before and only now just got past it, it's still a game changer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't this router only three times faster than routers that previously existed ?
I would n't exactly call that a game-changing speed.All it has to do is get you past a certain threshold to allow new things to happen , like streaming of 1080p content , to be a game changer .
If they were only 5 \ % away before and only now just got past it , it 's still a game changer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't this router only three times faster than routers that previously existed?
I wouldn't exactly call that a game-changing speed.All it has to do is get you past a certain threshold to allow new things to happen, like streaming of 1080p content, to be a game changer.
If they were only 5\% away before and only now just got past it, it's still a game changer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511234</id>
	<title>Yeah, right.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268850120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
The new router is just the previous model with plug-in cards that can switch 3x as much data.  It's even possible to upgrade existing CRS routers without a shutdown, changing out the cards one at a time.  It's a nice upgrade if you have a need for a router that big, but not that revolutionary.  The revolution happened years ago, when routers got big enough that video streaming on a large scale was possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The new router is just the previous model with plug-in cards that can switch 3x as much data .
It 's even possible to upgrade existing CRS routers without a shutdown , changing out the cards one at a time .
It 's a nice upgrade if you have a need for a router that big , but not that revolutionary .
The revolution happened years ago , when routers got big enough that video streaming on a large scale was possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The new router is just the previous model with plug-in cards that can switch 3x as much data.
It's even possible to upgrade existing CRS routers without a shutdown, changing out the cards one at a time.
It's a nice upgrade if you have a need for a router that big, but not that revolutionary.
The revolution happened years ago, when routers got big enough that video streaming on a large scale was possible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31513150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31514860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31518884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31514088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31524848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31513216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31513590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31530400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31517774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31513314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512240
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512972
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512290
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31514178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31519000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31513048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31515014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31513790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31513302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31515532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31517926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31517020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31518854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31525450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31513644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31513050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31513874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31513248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31513128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31514002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31514064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31522830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31513290
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31513998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31515214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31514846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31517950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31517272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31519696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31523944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1627240_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31516366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1627240.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511802
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1627240.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512660
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31518884
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1627240.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511014
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1627240.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511502
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1627240.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511122
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31514088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31514178
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31519000
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1627240.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31517298
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1627240.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31517272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31515014
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1627240.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31513566
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1627240.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31513998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512514
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1627240.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511060
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511250
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31517950
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31513644
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511962
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1627240.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511234
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1627240.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31515532
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31513874
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1627240.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31514234
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1627240.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31513364
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1627240.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31513590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31513150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31518854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511986
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512894
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512620
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512826
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31522830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31514846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511874
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512548
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31514002
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1627240.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511610
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512132
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31517926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512144
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31516366
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1627240.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511152
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31513048
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1627240.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511120
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512326
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1627240.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31513216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31513050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512240
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31513248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512290
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31525450
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1627240.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511266
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512572
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31517020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31523944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31530400
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1627240.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511328
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1627240.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511662
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1627240.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31514064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31513128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31524848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511442
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31514860
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1627240.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31519696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31513302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31513790
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1627240.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511654
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1627240.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511718
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1627240.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31513314
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1627240.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512972
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511584
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511908
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1627240.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31513290
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31517774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31512054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31511576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1627240.31515214
</commentlist>
</conversation>
