<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_25_200209</id>
	<title>90\% of the Universe Found Hiding In Plain View</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1269505200000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:thebadastronomerNO@SPAMgmail.com" rel="nofollow">The Bad Astronomer</a> writes <i>"As much as 90\% of previously hidden galaxies in the distant Universe <a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/03/24/found-90-of-the-distant-universe/">have been found by astronomers using the Very Large Telescope in Chile</a>. Previous surveys had looked for distant (10 billion light years away) galaxies by searching in a wavelength of ultraviolet light emitted by hydrogen atoms &mdash; distant young galaxies should be blasting out this light, but very few were detected.  The problem is that the ultraviolet light never gets out of the galaxies, so we never see them. In this new study, astronomers searched a different wavelength emitted by hydrogen, and voila, ten times as many galaxies could be seen, meaning 90\% of them had been missed before."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Bad Astronomer writes " As much as 90 \ % of previously hidden galaxies in the distant Universe have been found by astronomers using the Very Large Telescope in Chile .
Previous surveys had looked for distant ( 10 billion light years away ) galaxies by searching in a wavelength of ultraviolet light emitted by hydrogen atoms    distant young galaxies should be blasting out this light , but very few were detected .
The problem is that the ultraviolet light never gets out of the galaxies , so we never see them .
In this new study , astronomers searched a different wavelength emitted by hydrogen , and voila , ten times as many galaxies could be seen , meaning 90 \ % of them had been missed before .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Bad Astronomer writes "As much as 90\% of previously hidden galaxies in the distant Universe have been found by astronomers using the Very Large Telescope in Chile.
Previous surveys had looked for distant (10 billion light years away) galaxies by searching in a wavelength of ultraviolet light emitted by hydrogen atoms — distant young galaxies should be blasting out this light, but very few were detected.
The problem is that the ultraviolet light never gets out of the galaxies, so we never see them.
In this new study, astronomers searched a different wavelength emitted by hydrogen, and voila, ten times as many galaxies could be seen, meaning 90\% of them had been missed before.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617518</id>
	<title>90 percent huh...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269510960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if 90 percent of the hidden galaxies were found using this method, how do they know there isn't more to be found? What states that there is still 10 percent out there that needs to be found? If you don't have a whole then you can't state a part. they are really going to feel stupid about that statement later</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if 90 percent of the hidden galaxies were found using this method , how do they know there is n't more to be found ?
What states that there is still 10 percent out there that needs to be found ?
If you do n't have a whole then you ca n't state a part .
they are really going to feel stupid about that statement later</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if 90 percent of the hidden galaxies were found using this method, how do they know there isn't more to be found?
What states that there is still 10 percent out there that needs to be found?
If you don't have a whole then you can't state a part.
they are really going to feel stupid about that statement later</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618926</id>
	<title>Re:Not "90\% of the Universe"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269517620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If we couldn't see it before then it wasn't part of the visible universe; luckily now it is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If we could n't see it before then it was n't part of the visible universe ; luckily now it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we couldn't see it before then it wasn't part of the visible universe; luckily now it is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617986</id>
	<title>Re:Next step: a better name</title>
	<author>badran</author>
	<datestamp>1269513000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is a "Raid of Really Big Rounded Optical Things for Seeing Further".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is a " Raid of Really Big Rounded Optical Things for Seeing Further " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is a "Raid of Really Big Rounded Optical Things for Seeing Further".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618994</id>
	<title>Re:All Ye, All Ye Outs, in Free</title>
	<author>b4dc0d3r</author>
	<datestamp>1269518100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like hide and seek, they just had to pretend to give up the search, and the galaxies got bored and came in for some lemonade, yes?</p><p>But I'm wondering if this finding contradicts a few days ago announcement that the movement of galactic clusters is due to mass outside our universe.  If our universe now has 90\% more mass than it did, now maybe these flows make more sense.  At least there's nothing in the article saying "The soon to be announced finding of 9 times the currently known amount of matter does not affect this report."</p><p><a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/03/100322-dark-flow-matter-outside-universe-multiverse/" title="nationalgeographic.com">http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/03/100322-dark-flow-matter-outside-universe-multiverse/</a> [nationalgeographic.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like hide and seek , they just had to pretend to give up the search , and the galaxies got bored and came in for some lemonade , yes ? But I 'm wondering if this finding contradicts a few days ago announcement that the movement of galactic clusters is due to mass outside our universe .
If our universe now has 90 \ % more mass than it did , now maybe these flows make more sense .
At least there 's nothing in the article saying " The soon to be announced finding of 9 times the currently known amount of matter does not affect this report .
" http : //news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/03/100322-dark-flow-matter-outside-universe-multiverse/ [ nationalgeographic.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like hide and seek, they just had to pretend to give up the search, and the galaxies got bored and came in for some lemonade, yes?But I'm wondering if this finding contradicts a few days ago announcement that the movement of galactic clusters is due to mass outside our universe.
If our universe now has 90\% more mass than it did, now maybe these flows make more sense.
At least there's nothing in the article saying "The soon to be announced finding of 9 times the currently known amount of matter does not affect this report.
"http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/03/100322-dark-flow-matter-outside-universe-multiverse/ [nationalgeographic.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617222</id>
	<title>Re:90\%, not so coincidentally...</title>
	<author>Neon Aardvark</author>
	<datestamp>1269509880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This has absolutely nothing do to with dark matter. So, yes it is a coincidence. And an approximation.</p><p>They're improving their technique for observing distant galaxies. Which doesn't in any way invalidate observations of (astronomically) very close galaxies. Which is what we base the existence of dark matter on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This has absolutely nothing do to with dark matter .
So , yes it is a coincidence .
And an approximation.They 're improving their technique for observing distant galaxies .
Which does n't in any way invalidate observations of ( astronomically ) very close galaxies .
Which is what we base the existence of dark matter on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has absolutely nothing do to with dark matter.
So, yes it is a coincidence.
And an approximation.They're improving their technique for observing distant galaxies.
Which doesn't in any way invalidate observations of (astronomically) very close galaxies.
Which is what we base the existence of dark matter on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617372</id>
	<title>Re:Not "90\% of the Universe"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269510360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The rest will, according to Relativity, always be hidden.</p></div><p>Thank, you, Mr. Shattner, for, your, sage, wisdom.</p><p>p.s. I think you should, according to grammarians, never be allowed to write English in a public forum.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The rest will , according to Relativity , always be hidden.Thank , you , Mr. Shattner , for , your , sage , wisdom.p.s .
I think you should , according to grammarians , never be allowed to write English in a public forum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The rest will, according to Relativity, always be hidden.Thank, you, Mr. Shattner, for, your, sage, wisdom.p.s.
I think you should, according to grammarians, never be allowed to write English in a public forum.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618894</id>
	<title>Re:I Smell Another Apple Ad</title>
	<author>SoVeryTired</author>
	<datestamp>1269517380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a big fat gap between what the calculations say the rate of galaxy formation should be, and what it is actually observed to be. This new observation accounts for 90\% of that rate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a big fat gap between what the calculations say the rate of galaxy formation should be , and what it is actually observed to be .
This new observation accounts for 90 \ % of that rate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a big fat gap between what the calculations say the rate of galaxy formation should be, and what it is actually observed to be.
This new observation accounts for 90\% of that rate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31619266</id>
	<title>Re:Dark stuff?</title>
	<author>krnpimpsta</author>
	<datestamp>1269519480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have a similar problem.. but it only applies to dark socks.  No matter how frequently I buy new black socks and how INfrequently I buy new white socks, I always end up with "not enough dark socks."
<br> <br>
For example, right now I am down to exactly 4 pairs of black socks and about 15-20 pairs of white socks - right after I do my laundry.  And I don't even remember the last time I bought white socks.
<br> <br>
Maybe black socks mature into white socks?  (and XKCD suggested that socks may be the larval stage of wire coat hangers...)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a similar problem.. but it only applies to dark socks .
No matter how frequently I buy new black socks and how INfrequently I buy new white socks , I always end up with " not enough dark socks .
" For example , right now I am down to exactly 4 pairs of black socks and about 15-20 pairs of white socks - right after I do my laundry .
And I do n't even remember the last time I bought white socks .
Maybe black socks mature into white socks ?
( and XKCD suggested that socks may be the larval stage of wire coat hangers... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a similar problem.. but it only applies to dark socks.
No matter how frequently I buy new black socks and how INfrequently I buy new white socks, I always end up with "not enough dark socks.
"
 
For example, right now I am down to exactly 4 pairs of black socks and about 15-20 pairs of white socks - right after I do my laundry.
And I don't even remember the last time I bought white socks.
Maybe black socks mature into white socks?
(and XKCD suggested that socks may be the larval stage of wire coat hangers...)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31619896</id>
	<title>Re:I Smell Another Apple Ad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269522600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A quote from the summary, which should appear directly above the comments in case you are not familiar with slashdot, is:</p><blockquote><div><p> and voila, ten times as many galaxies could be seen</p></div></blockquote><p>.</p><p>X is the previous amount, and 10x as the new amount of galaxies.</p><p>So simple math gives you X + YX = 10X<br>X(1+Y)=10x<br>(1+Y)=10<br>Y=9</p><p>So we see a 10-fold total galaxies, which is 9-fold improvement.  Or to put it another way, the new 100\% is 10 times the previous amount, which must have been 10\%, leaving 90\% more.</p><p>You're reading it as "90\% of the universe found", from the headline, which is an attempt, although a poor one, at conveying the increase in observable galaxies.  It is correct if you assume that we found 90\% of the now-current estimate of the number of galaxies, in other words insert the word "known" in the title somewhere.  Choosing not to even read the summary has left you understandably confused, and I'm glad that I was able to help.  At the same time, I'm concerned that the other replies did not draw your attention to this.  But I was able to post an accurate reply while maintaining an air of disdain and condescension, so that makes me feel good about myself.  Thank you for affording me the opportunity, and welcome aboard.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A quote from the summary , which should appear directly above the comments in case you are not familiar with slashdot , is : and voila , ten times as many galaxies could be seen.X is the previous amount , and 10x as the new amount of galaxies.So simple math gives you X + YX = 10XX ( 1 + Y ) = 10x ( 1 + Y ) = 10Y = 9So we see a 10-fold total galaxies , which is 9-fold improvement .
Or to put it another way , the new 100 \ % is 10 times the previous amount , which must have been 10 \ % , leaving 90 \ % more.You 're reading it as " 90 \ % of the universe found " , from the headline , which is an attempt , although a poor one , at conveying the increase in observable galaxies .
It is correct if you assume that we found 90 \ % of the now-current estimate of the number of galaxies , in other words insert the word " known " in the title somewhere .
Choosing not to even read the summary has left you understandably confused , and I 'm glad that I was able to help .
At the same time , I 'm concerned that the other replies did not draw your attention to this .
But I was able to post an accurate reply while maintaining an air of disdain and condescension , so that makes me feel good about myself .
Thank you for affording me the opportunity , and welcome aboard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A quote from the summary, which should appear directly above the comments in case you are not familiar with slashdot, is: and voila, ten times as many galaxies could be seen.X is the previous amount, and 10x as the new amount of galaxies.So simple math gives you X + YX = 10XX(1+Y)=10x(1+Y)=10Y=9So we see a 10-fold total galaxies, which is 9-fold improvement.
Or to put it another way, the new 100\% is 10 times the previous amount, which must have been 10\%, leaving 90\% more.You're reading it as "90\% of the universe found", from the headline, which is an attempt, although a poor one, at conveying the increase in observable galaxies.
It is correct if you assume that we found 90\% of the now-current estimate of the number of galaxies, in other words insert the word "known" in the title somewhere.
Choosing not to even read the summary has left you understandably confused, and I'm glad that I was able to help.
At the same time, I'm concerned that the other replies did not draw your attention to this.
But I was able to post an accurate reply while maintaining an air of disdain and condescension, so that makes me feel good about myself.
Thank you for affording me the opportunity, and welcome aboard.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617592</id>
	<title>Resumes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269511260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Man, I would love to see his CV:</p><p>Discovered 90\% of all normal matter in the Universe. Kind of a big deal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Man , I would love to see his CV : Discovered 90 \ % of all normal matter in the Universe .
Kind of a big deal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Man, I would love to see his CV:Discovered 90\% of all normal matter in the Universe.
Kind of a big deal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617854</id>
	<title>Re:In other words...</title>
	<author>CannonballHead</author>
	<datestamp>1269512460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That depends on who or what is measuring significance, and who or what "significance" is relative to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That depends on who or what is measuring significance , and who or what " significance " is relative to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That depends on who or what is measuring significance, and who or what "significance" is relative to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616950</id>
	<title>What a disappointment!</title>
	<author>buruonbrails</author>
	<datestamp>1269509100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Based on article's title, I thought they've found dark matter and dark energy!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Based on article 's title , I thought they 've found dark matter and dark energy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Based on article's title, I thought they've found dark matter and dark energy!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617636</id>
	<title>Packing Peanuts</title>
	<author>jameskojiro</author>
	<datestamp>1269511500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought most of the missing mass of the Universe was tied up in the packing peanuts that are used in shipping the equipment scientists use to search for the missing mass in the universe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought most of the missing mass of the Universe was tied up in the packing peanuts that are used in shipping the equipment scientists use to search for the missing mass in the universe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought most of the missing mass of the Universe was tied up in the packing peanuts that are used in shipping the equipment scientists use to search for the missing mass in the universe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618946</id>
	<title>Re:Dark stuff?</title>
	<author>Sulphur</author>
	<datestamp>1269517800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's especially grave when you can't find a matching pair.</p><p>This is known as broken symmetry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's especially grave when you ca n't find a matching pair.This is known as broken symmetry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's especially grave when you can't find a matching pair.This is known as broken symmetry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31672766</id>
	<title>Re:Redshift?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269970140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You might be horrified to know how many professional surgeons don't always wash, check that their instruments have been sterilized, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You might be horrified to know how many professional surgeons do n't always wash , check that their instruments have been sterilized , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You might be horrified to know how many professional surgeons don't always wash, check that their instruments have been sterilized, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31620898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617708</id>
	<title>Someone update the Drake Equation!</title>
	<author>scorp1us</author>
	<datestamp>1269511860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since we just got a 10 fold increase in galaxies.</p><p>I think that moves us from 0.006 to 0.06, (plus one obviously)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since we just got a 10 fold increase in galaxies.I think that moves us from 0.006 to 0.06 , ( plus one obviously )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since we just got a 10 fold increase in galaxies.I think that moves us from 0.006 to 0.06, (plus one obviously)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617064</id>
	<title>90\%, not so coincidentally...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269509340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... is the same figure used to justify the initial claims for dark matter.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Several initial sources claimed that there had to be abundant non-baryonic matter making up much of the universe, as otherwise, there would have to be about ten times as much normal matter as we were observing, and that, of course was absurd. So quite possibly this is so long to dark matter! Next question is, is there still any reason to postulate dark energy with the new values for average density and so on this will produce? Don't say goodbye to dark energy just yet, but expect some significant revisions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... is the same figure used to justify the initial claims for dark matter .
        Several initial sources claimed that there had to be abundant non-baryonic matter making up much of the universe , as otherwise , there would have to be about ten times as much normal matter as we were observing , and that , of course was absurd .
So quite possibly this is so long to dark matter !
Next question is , is there still any reason to postulate dark energy with the new values for average density and so on this will produce ?
Do n't say goodbye to dark energy just yet , but expect some significant revisions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... is the same figure used to justify the initial claims for dark matter.
        Several initial sources claimed that there had to be abundant non-baryonic matter making up much of the universe, as otherwise, there would have to be about ten times as much normal matter as we were observing, and that, of course was absurd.
So quite possibly this is so long to dark matter!
Next question is, is there still any reason to postulate dark energy with the new values for average density and so on this will produce?
Don't say goodbye to dark energy just yet, but expect some significant revisions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617626</id>
	<title>who shutdown the galaxie force fled?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269511440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>who shutdown the galaxie force fled?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>who shutdown the galaxie force fled ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>who shutdown the galaxie force fled?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31621612</id>
	<title>Re:Implications for dark matter estimates?</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1269534540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In other words, this 90\% of the universe previously unseen is a <i>different</i> 90\% than the 90\% that is dark matter. Hope that clears things up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In other words , this 90 \ % of the universe previously unseen is a different 90 \ % than the 90 \ % that is dark matter .
Hope that clears things up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other words, this 90\% of the universe previously unseen is a different 90\% than the 90\% that is dark matter.
Hope that clears things up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31619542</id>
	<title>Re:Deez Nuts are Hiding in Plain View</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269520800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>what kind of fucking retard tattoo's FIRST POST on their own cock?!?</htmltext>
<tokenext>what kind of fucking retard tattoo 's FIRST POST on their own cock ? !
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what kind of fucking retard tattoo's FIRST POST on their own cock?!
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31621986</id>
	<title>Use it on the Feds now</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1269538080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>no more matter bailouts for the devious book-cookin' universe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>no more matter bailouts for the devious book-cookin ' universe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no more matter bailouts for the devious book-cookin' universe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31622006</id>
	<title>The remaining 10\% is AOL disks.</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1269538200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it's all solved now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's all solved now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's all solved now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617158</id>
	<title>Re:Dark Matter?</title>
	<author>dtolman</author>
	<datestamp>1269509640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not really... there are problems at the galactic scale - when observing galaxies, the gravitational pull is just too high to be explained by normal matter alone (assuming everything else we know is mostly correct).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really... there are problems at the galactic scale - when observing galaxies , the gravitational pull is just too high to be explained by normal matter alone ( assuming everything else we know is mostly correct ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really... there are problems at the galactic scale - when observing galaxies, the gravitational pull is just too high to be explained by normal matter alone (assuming everything else we know is mostly correct).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617292</id>
	<title>Re:Implications for dark matter estimates?</title>
	<author>Jeff Satterley</author>
	<datestamp>1269510120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Bad Astronomy post talks about dark matter:

[Note: before you ask, this has nothing to do with dark matter. See below!]

I&rsquo;ll note: this has nothing to do with dark matter. As it happens, 90\% of the matter in the Universe is in a form that emits no light, but affects other matter through gravity. We know it exists, <a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/01/07/aas-report-2-dark-matter-and-large-scale-structure/" title="discovermagazine.com" rel="nofollow">and you can find out why here</a> [discovermagazine.com]. We know it exists locally, in nearby galaxies and clusters of galaxies, too. This new result doesn&rsquo;t affect that, since the now un-hidden galaxies are very far away, like many billions of light years away. They can&rsquo;t possibly affect nearby galaxies, so they don&rsquo;t account for dark matter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Bad Astronomy post talks about dark matter : [ Note : before you ask , this has nothing to do with dark matter .
See below !
] I    ll note : this has nothing to do with dark matter .
As it happens , 90 \ % of the matter in the Universe is in a form that emits no light , but affects other matter through gravity .
We know it exists , and you can find out why here [ discovermagazine.com ] .
We know it exists locally , in nearby galaxies and clusters of galaxies , too .
This new result doesn    t affect that , since the now un-hidden galaxies are very far away , like many billions of light years away .
They can    t possibly affect nearby galaxies , so they don    t account for dark matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Bad Astronomy post talks about dark matter:

[Note: before you ask, this has nothing to do with dark matter.
See below!
]

I’ll note: this has nothing to do with dark matter.
As it happens, 90\% of the matter in the Universe is in a form that emits no light, but affects other matter through gravity.
We know it exists, and you can find out why here [discovermagazine.com].
We know it exists locally, in nearby galaxies and clusters of galaxies, too.
This new result doesn’t affect that, since the now un-hidden galaxies are very far away, like many billions of light years away.
They can’t possibly affect nearby galaxies, so they don’t account for dark matter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617438</id>
	<title>Redshift?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269510660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>My first thought was, did they compensate for redshift? Apparently they did, the article didn't explain, but a commenter did:<blockquote><div><p>30.   TMB Says:
March 24th, 2010 at 7:02 pm

To everyone who's asking "why didn't they look at this before?" - it's a lot harder. In the rest frame, Lyman-alpha is in the far-UV and H-alpha (what physicists call Balmer-alpha) is in the optical. But out at these redshifts, Lyman-alpha is redshifted into the optical (which is easy to observe) and H-alpha is redshifted out into the infrared (which is harder to observe).</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My first thought was , did they compensate for redshift ?
Apparently they did , the article did n't explain , but a commenter did : 30 .
TMB Says : March 24th , 2010 at 7 : 02 pm To everyone who 's asking " why did n't they look at this before ?
" - it 's a lot harder .
In the rest frame , Lyman-alpha is in the far-UV and H-alpha ( what physicists call Balmer-alpha ) is in the optical .
But out at these redshifts , Lyman-alpha is redshifted into the optical ( which is easy to observe ) and H-alpha is redshifted out into the infrared ( which is harder to observe ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My first thought was, did they compensate for redshift?
Apparently they did, the article didn't explain, but a commenter did:30.
TMB Says:
March 24th, 2010 at 7:02 pm

To everyone who's asking "why didn't they look at this before?
" - it's a lot harder.
In the rest frame, Lyman-alpha is in the far-UV and H-alpha (what physicists call Balmer-alpha) is in the optical.
But out at these redshifts, Lyman-alpha is redshifted into the optical (which is easy to observe) and H-alpha is redshifted out into the infrared (which is harder to observe).
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617324</id>
	<title>I really have no subject, never did, never will.</title>
	<author>danwesnor</author>
	<datestamp>1269510180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I found one sitting on my sofa when I got home last night, eating Cheetos and watching Oprah.  Damn thing was in my spot, too!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I found one sitting on my sofa when I got home last night , eating Cheetos and watching Oprah .
Damn thing was in my spot , too !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I found one sitting on my sofa when I got home last night, eating Cheetos and watching Oprah.
Damn thing was in my spot, too!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617690</id>
	<title>I've Seen This Before</title>
	<author>Hoi Polloi</author>
	<datestamp>1269511680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Hidden in plain view"?  So what they are saying is that the universe exhibits the same behavior as my car keys.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Hidden in plain view " ?
So what they are saying is that the universe exhibits the same behavior as my car keys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Hidden in plain view"?
So what they are saying is that the universe exhibits the same behavior as my car keys.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618832</id>
	<title>Re:Next step: a better name</title>
	<author>tool462</author>
	<datestamp>1269517080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're just following a standing precedent.  Consider the EM spectrum:<br>ELF SLF ULF VLF LF MF HF VHF UHF SHF EHF</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're just following a standing precedent .
Consider the EM spectrum : ELF SLF ULF VLF LF MF HF VHF UHF SHF EHF</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're just following a standing precedent.
Consider the EM spectrum:ELF SLF ULF VLF LF MF HF VHF UHF SHF EHF</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31627106</id>
	<title>Re:Someone update the Drake Equation!</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1269621600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Aah. The Drake equation. The formula for finding the amount of bullshit you&rsquo;re willing to buy from Frank Drake. ^^<br><a href="http://xkcd.com/384/" title="xkcd.com">http://xkcd.com/384/</a> [xkcd.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Aah .
The Drake equation .
The formula for finding the amount of bullshit you    re willing to buy from Frank Drake .
^ ^ http : //xkcd.com/384/ [ xkcd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aah.
The Drake equation.
The formula for finding the amount of bullshit you’re willing to buy from Frank Drake.
^^http://xkcd.com/384/ [xkcd.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617036</id>
	<title>Re:Dark stuff?</title>
	<author>Absolut187</author>
	<datestamp>1269509280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This was my first thought ^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This was my first thought ^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This was my first thought ^^</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617128</id>
	<title>Yes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269509520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They found it behind uranus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They found it behind uranus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They found it behind uranus.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618690</id>
	<title>Re:I Smell Another Apple Ad</title>
	<author>Shikaku</author>
	<datestamp>1269516300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If one of the theories concerning the universe holds true about the size and how it works, looking at one point can cause visual feedback.</p><p>The theory is that if you go straight with a velocity with no force ever effecting you you would return to your previous point eventually.  In short the universe is curved into itself and like on a planet traveling in 1 direction on the planet returns you to your starting point.</p><p>If you look at one point in the universe I would not be surprised if you saw galaxies and objects that are behind you, as well as repeats of galaxies in front of you!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If one of the theories concerning the universe holds true about the size and how it works , looking at one point can cause visual feedback.The theory is that if you go straight with a velocity with no force ever effecting you you would return to your previous point eventually .
In short the universe is curved into itself and like on a planet traveling in 1 direction on the planet returns you to your starting point.If you look at one point in the universe I would not be surprised if you saw galaxies and objects that are behind you , as well as repeats of galaxies in front of you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If one of the theories concerning the universe holds true about the size and how it works, looking at one point can cause visual feedback.The theory is that if you go straight with a velocity with no force ever effecting you you would return to your previous point eventually.
In short the universe is curved into itself and like on a planet traveling in 1 direction on the planet returns you to your starting point.If you look at one point in the universe I would not be surprised if you saw galaxies and objects that are behind you, as well as repeats of galaxies in front of you!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618326</id>
	<title>Re:Dark stuff?</title>
	<author>nelk</author>
	<datestamp>1269514500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The missing mass is comprised of all the socks that have slipped through the spacetime continuum when you put them in the washing machine. They emit no radiation, but exert gravity. It's especially grave when you can't find a matching pair.</p></div><p>I've always held to the 'Sock Fairy' theory. It explains both the missing sock, and how the nickle that you hear bouncing around in the dryer got there.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The missing mass is comprised of all the socks that have slipped through the spacetime continuum when you put them in the washing machine .
They emit no radiation , but exert gravity .
It 's especially grave when you ca n't find a matching pair.I 've always held to the 'Sock Fairy ' theory .
It explains both the missing sock , and how the nickle that you hear bouncing around in the dryer got there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The missing mass is comprised of all the socks that have slipped through the spacetime continuum when you put them in the washing machine.
They emit no radiation, but exert gravity.
It's especially grave when you can't find a matching pair.I've always held to the 'Sock Fairy' theory.
It explains both the missing sock, and how the nickle that you hear bouncing around in the dryer got there.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31623150</id>
	<title>how do they know that they've found 90\%...</title>
	<author>drkim</author>
	<datestamp>1269596700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>...'cause across the corner of the Hubble photo was a yellow banner that said:
<br>
"Now! With <b>90\% MORE</b> Universe!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>...'cause across the corner of the Hubble photo was a yellow banner that said : " Now !
With 90 \ % MORE Universe !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...'cause across the corner of the Hubble photo was a yellow banner that said:

"Now!
With 90\% MORE Universe!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617156</id>
	<title>Next step: a better name</title>
	<author>spun</author>
	<datestamp>1269509640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The "Very Large Telescope?" Come on. We can do better than that. I suggest "Really Big Round Glass Thing for Seeing Further."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The " Very Large Telescope ?
" Come on .
We can do better than that .
I suggest " Really Big Round Glass Thing for Seeing Further .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "Very Large Telescope?
" Come on.
We can do better than that.
I suggest "Really Big Round Glass Thing for Seeing Further.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616918</id>
	<title>I wear IR glasses</title>
	<author>Statecraftsman</author>
	<datestamp>1269509040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wear IR glasses so I'm really getting a kick out of these replies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wear IR glasses so I 'm really getting a kick out of these replies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wear IR glasses so I'm really getting a kick out of these replies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31622664</id>
	<title>Re:Implications for dark matter estimates?</title>
	<author>PingPongBoy</author>
	<datestamp>1269546540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>Anyone got any idea how this impacts our estimates of dark matter?<br></em></p><p>Sure. Guy by the name of Anakin Skywalker - "You underestimate the power of the dark side"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone got any idea how this impacts our estimates of dark matter ? Sure .
Guy by the name of Anakin Skywalker - " You underestimate the power of the dark side "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone got any idea how this impacts our estimates of dark matter?Sure.
Guy by the name of Anakin Skywalker - "You underestimate the power of the dark side"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618554</id>
	<title>Re:Implications for dark matter estimates?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269515580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is about finding distant galaxies. The extra matter required for cohesion of individual galaxies such as our own still hasn't been found.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is about finding distant galaxies .
The extra matter required for cohesion of individual galaxies such as our own still has n't been found .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is about finding distant galaxies.
The extra matter required for cohesion of individual galaxies such as our own still hasn't been found.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617702</id>
	<title>Re:Any time now ...</title>
	<author>ooshna</author>
	<datestamp>1269511740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>why and how are they going to make the galaxies blink on and off?</htmltext>
<tokenext>why and how are they going to make the galaxies blink on and off ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why and how are they going to make the galaxies blink on and off?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31623084</id>
	<title>Re:Someone update the Drake Equation!</title>
	<author>thisisntme</author>
	<datestamp>1269595860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This does not affect the Drake equation at all. From Wikipedia:<blockquote><div><p>The Drake equation [...] is an equation to organize our guesses about the potential number of extraterrestrial civilizations in <em>our galaxy, the Milky Way</em>.</p></div>
</blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This does not affect the Drake equation at all .
From Wikipedia : The Drake equation [ ... ] is an equation to organize our guesses about the potential number of extraterrestrial civilizations in our galaxy , the Milky Way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This does not affect the Drake equation at all.
From Wikipedia:The Drake equation [...] is an equation to organize our guesses about the potential number of extraterrestrial civilizations in our galaxy, the Milky Way.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616862</id>
	<title>Deez Nuts are Hiding in Plain View</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269508860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>8==F=I=R=S=T==P=O=S=T==D</htmltext>
<tokenext>8 = = F = I = R = S = T = = P = O = S = T = = D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>8==F=I=R=S=T==P=O=S=T==D</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618620</id>
	<title>No.  It doesn't solve the problem.</title>
	<author>Valdrax</author>
	<datestamp>1269515940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Does dark matter disappear or do we still need some hiding to explain things?</p></div><p>Unless all those galaxies really far away explain how our galaxy holds itself together at the speeds its stars rotate, then no, we still need dark matter or some alternative theory like MOND.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does dark matter disappear or do we still need some hiding to explain things ? Unless all those galaxies really far away explain how our galaxy holds itself together at the speeds its stars rotate , then no , we still need dark matter or some alternative theory like MOND .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does dark matter disappear or do we still need some hiding to explain things?Unless all those galaxies really far away explain how our galaxy holds itself together at the speeds its stars rotate, then no, we still need dark matter or some alternative theory like MOND.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618848</id>
	<title>I still can't...</title>
	<author>Anachragnome</author>
	<datestamp>1269517200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's nice.</p><p>Anyone seen my glasses?...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's nice.Anyone seen my glasses ? .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's nice.Anyone seen my glasses?...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31620902</id>
	<title>Oh there I am ....</title>
	<author>gVibe</author>
	<datestamp>1269528780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been looking for me for a year...and there I was right in plain view.

*shakes fist*
darn you Parents for creating a son, a son without it.  if you have to ask what it is, you don't have it either.

gVibe</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been looking for me for a year...and there I was right in plain view .
* shakes fist * darn you Parents for creating a son , a son without it .
if you have to ask what it is , you do n't have it either .
gVibe</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been looking for me for a year...and there I was right in plain view.
*shakes fist*
darn you Parents for creating a son, a son without it.
if you have to ask what it is, you don't have it either.
gVibe</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617070</id>
	<title>Re:Dark stuff?</title>
	<author>zombie\_monkey</author>
	<datestamp>1269509340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From TFA: "I'll note: this has nothing to do with dark matter. As it happens, 90\% of the matter in the Universe is in a form that emits no light, but affects other matter through gravity. We know it exists, and you can find out why here. We know it exists locally, in nearby galaxies and clusters of galaxies, too. This new result doesn't affect that, since the now un-hidden galaxies are very far away, like many billions of light years away. They can't possibly affect nearby galaxies, so they don't account for dark matter."</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : " I 'll note : this has nothing to do with dark matter .
As it happens , 90 \ % of the matter in the Universe is in a form that emits no light , but affects other matter through gravity .
We know it exists , and you can find out why here .
We know it exists locally , in nearby galaxies and clusters of galaxies , too .
This new result does n't affect that , since the now un-hidden galaxies are very far away , like many billions of light years away .
They ca n't possibly affect nearby galaxies , so they do n't account for dark matter .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA: "I'll note: this has nothing to do with dark matter.
As it happens, 90\% of the matter in the Universe is in a form that emits no light, but affects other matter through gravity.
We know it exists, and you can find out why here.
We know it exists locally, in nearby galaxies and clusters of galaxies, too.
This new result doesn't affect that, since the now un-hidden galaxies are very far away, like many billions of light years away.
They can't possibly affect nearby galaxies, so they don't account for dark matter.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616910</id>
	<title>Over there, behind Jupiter!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269508980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's 90\% of the universe's mass!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's 90 \ % of the universe 's mass !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's 90\% of the universe's mass!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31619184</id>
	<title>Re:Not "90\% of the Universe"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269519120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's not a comma splice. It's a parenthetical phrase. Grammar nazi fail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not a comma splice .
It 's a parenthetical phrase .
Grammar nazi fail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not a comma splice.
It's a parenthetical phrase.
Grammar nazi fail.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617092</id>
	<title>Re:Implications for dark matter estimates?</title>
	<author>arth1</author>
	<datestamp>1269509400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The first thing TFA tells you is that it doesn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The first thing TFA tells you is that it does n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first thing TFA tells you is that it doesn't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617510</id>
	<title>An opportunity.</title>
	<author>StillNeedMoreCoffee</author>
	<datestamp>1269510960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Moon Glasses,  Moon screen, anyone, cheap!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Moon Glasses , Moon screen , anyone , cheap !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Moon Glasses,  Moon screen, anyone, cheap!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31620392</id>
	<title>Re:Next step: a better name</title>
	<author>Xelios</author>
	<datestamp>1269525540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And after that, the Biggest Large Telescope. Free BLT's at the grand opening, I hear.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And after that , the Biggest Large Telescope .
Free BLT 's at the grand opening , I hear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And after that, the Biggest Large Telescope.
Free BLT's at the grand opening, I hear.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616960</id>
	<title>In other words...</title>
	<author>popo</author>
	<datestamp>1269509100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... you are even less significant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... you are even less significant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... you are even less significant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618886</id>
	<title>Plainview, Texas</title>
	<author>jabberw0k</author>
	<datestamp>1269517380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Having driven across Texas from Texarkana to El Paso several times, I knew it was big, but I never imagined Plainview was <i>that</i> large.  Still, I've found plenty of things in Plainview before.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Having driven across Texas from Texarkana to El Paso several times , I knew it was big , but I never imagined Plainview was that large .
Still , I 've found plenty of things in Plainview before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having driven across Texas from Texarkana to El Paso several times, I knew it was big, but I never imagined Plainview was that large.
Still, I've found plenty of things in Plainview before.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618412</id>
	<title>Re:Not "90\% of the Universe"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269514860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Merely 90\% of the <b>Visible</b> Universe that <b>we couldn't see</b> before.</p></div><p>O-TAY, Buckwheat!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Merely 90 \ % of the Visible Universe that we could n't see before.O-TAY , Buckwheat !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Merely 90\% of the Visible Universe that we couldn't see before.O-TAY, Buckwheat!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617140</id>
	<title>Re:Implications for dark matter estimates?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269509580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Anyone got any idea how this impacts our estimates of dark matter?</p></div>
</blockquote><p> From TFA:

</p><p> "I'll note: this has nothing to do with dark matter. As it happens, 90\% of the matter in the Universe is in a form that emits no light, but affects other matter through gravity. We know it exists<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... locally, in nearby galaxies and clusters of galaxies, too. This new result doesn't affect that, since the now un-hidden galaxies are very far away, like many billions of light years away. They can't possibly affect nearby galaxies, so they don't account for dark matter."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone got any idea how this impacts our estimates of dark matter ?
From TFA : " I 'll note : this has nothing to do with dark matter .
As it happens , 90 \ % of the matter in the Universe is in a form that emits no light , but affects other matter through gravity .
We know it exists ... locally , in nearby galaxies and clusters of galaxies , too .
This new result does n't affect that , since the now un-hidden galaxies are very far away , like many billions of light years away .
They ca n't possibly affect nearby galaxies , so they do n't account for dark matter .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone got any idea how this impacts our estimates of dark matter?
From TFA:

 "I'll note: this has nothing to do with dark matter.
As it happens, 90\% of the matter in the Universe is in a form that emits no light, but affects other matter through gravity.
We know it exists ... locally, in nearby galaxies and clusters of galaxies, too.
This new result doesn't affect that, since the now un-hidden galaxies are very far away, like many billions of light years away.
They can't possibly affect nearby galaxies, so they don't account for dark matter.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618152</id>
	<title>What's at the end of the Universe?</title>
	<author>xednieht</author>
	<datestamp>1269513780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>So.... once we see the remaining 10\% we will have reached the "end" of the universe?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So.... once we see the remaining 10 \ % we will have reached the " end " of the universe ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So.... once we see the remaining 10\% we will have reached the "end" of the universe?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618198</id>
	<title>Re:Next step: a better name</title>
	<author>mweather</author>
	<datestamp>1269514020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The next record-breaking one they're building is the Extremely Large Telescope. Seriously.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The next record-breaking one they 're building is the Extremely Large Telescope .
Seriously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The next record-breaking one they're building is the Extremely Large Telescope.
Seriously.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31622784</id>
	<title>Infinite</title>
	<author>austinaddy</author>
	<datestamp>1269634740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Universe is like a balloon. It is expanding at a faster rate. We won't be able to find the limit of this limitless universe.
<a href="http://www.goarticles.com/cgi-bin/showa.cgi?C=2236872" title="goarticles.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.goarticles.com/cgi-bin/showa.cgi?C=2236872</a> [goarticles.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Universe is like a balloon .
It is expanding at a faster rate .
We wo n't be able to find the limit of this limitless universe .
http : //www.goarticles.com/cgi-bin/showa.cgi ? C = 2236872 [ goarticles.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Universe is like a balloon.
It is expanding at a faster rate.
We won't be able to find the limit of this limitless universe.
http://www.goarticles.com/cgi-bin/showa.cgi?C=2236872 [goarticles.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31619270</id>
	<title>Re:Next step: a better name</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269519480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then this. Seriously.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overwhelmingly\_Large\_Telescope</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then this .
Seriously. http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overwhelmingly \ _Large \ _Telescope</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then this.
Seriously.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overwhelmingly\_Large\_Telescope</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617056</id>
	<title>Dark Matter?</title>
	<author>chill</author>
	<datestamp>1269509340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what of the theory that the Universe is composed of 90\% dark matter that we can't see?  Since we just found another 90\% of the Universe, does that toss it all right out the window?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what of the theory that the Universe is composed of 90 \ % dark matter that we ca n't see ?
Since we just found another 90 \ % of the Universe , does that toss it all right out the window ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what of the theory that the Universe is composed of 90\% dark matter that we can't see?
Since we just found another 90\% of the Universe, does that toss it all right out the window?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616852</id>
	<title>bazinga</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269508860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>bazinga<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... first</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>bazinga ... first</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bazinga ... first</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617124</id>
	<title>Re:Dark stuff?</title>
	<author>hcdejong</author>
	<datestamp>1269509520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No. RTFA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
RTFA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
RTFA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31619228</id>
	<title>Re:I Smell Another Apple Ad</title>
	<author>fightinfilipino</author>
	<datestamp>1269519300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Steve Jobs (and the rest of Apple) stopped thinking differently a while ago.<br> <br>actually right now he's busy filtering out all the new galaxy mapping apps being submitted to the App Store.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Steve Jobs ( and the rest of Apple ) stopped thinking differently a while ago .
actually right now he 's busy filtering out all the new galaxy mapping apps being submitted to the App Store .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Steve Jobs (and the rest of Apple) stopped thinking differently a while ago.
actually right now he's busy filtering out all the new galaxy mapping apps being submitted to the App Store.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617082</id>
	<title>Ah ha!!!</title>
	<author>koan</author>
	<datestamp>1269509400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's your missing mass, the Universe is cyclic and will collapse!!!</p><p>By no means do I know what I am talking about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's your missing mass , the Universe is cyclic and will collapse ! !
! By no means do I know what I am talking about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's your missing mass, the Universe is cyclic and will collapse!!
!By no means do I know what I am talking about.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31635156</id>
	<title>Re:Redshift?</title>
	<author>jwhitener</author>
	<datestamp>1269613020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Occasionally asking a 'silly' question yields important results:)</p><p>http://www.emaxhealth.com/1020/44/34149/doctors-not-washing-hands-enough-hospitals.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Occasionally asking a 'silly ' question yields important results : ) http : //www.emaxhealth.com/1020/44/34149/doctors-not-washing-hands-enough-hospitals.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Occasionally asking a 'silly' question yields important results:)http://www.emaxhealth.com/1020/44/34149/doctors-not-washing-hands-enough-hospitals.html</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31620898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618916</id>
	<title>Their math is off...</title>
	<author>Timex</author>
	<datestamp>1269517560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...or they phrased it the wrong way.</p><p>90\% of the <i>known universe</i> was hidden in plain sight, maybe.</p><p>Given the nature of the universe, I seriously doubt we'll see it all.  Even then, it's hardly "discovered" by looking at it all from <i>this</i> little speck of dust.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...or they phrased it the wrong way.90 \ % of the known universe was hidden in plain sight , maybe.Given the nature of the universe , I seriously doubt we 'll see it all .
Even then , it 's hardly " discovered " by looking at it all from this little speck of dust .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...or they phrased it the wrong way.90\% of the known universe was hidden in plain sight, maybe.Given the nature of the universe, I seriously doubt we'll see it all.
Even then, it's hardly "discovered" by looking at it all from this little speck of dust.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31628062</id>
	<title>Re:I Smell Another Apple Ad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269625020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LMFAO!!!</p><p>- A. Coward</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LMFAO ! !
! - A. Coward</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LMFAO!!
!- A. Coward</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31619896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616948</id>
	<title>Dark stuff?</title>
	<author>vrmlguy</author>
	<datestamp>1269509100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does this account for any missing mass and/or dark matter?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this account for any missing mass and/or dark matter ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this account for any missing mass and/or dark matter?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618998</id>
	<title>where are my sunglasses????</title>
	<author>sneakyimp</author>
	<datestamp>1269518100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On your head!  Duh!</p><p>If this is the solution to the dark matter question, then all those astronomers and astrophysicists have been disturbingly myopic. I studied astrophysics in college for two years and it is precisely this kind of ass-hatted, onanistic speculation which convinced me to switch to comp sci.  I really love cosmology, it's just such a shame when we continue to see such fail.</p><p>I want my teleportation machine and now I'm never gonna get it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On your head !
Duh ! If this is the solution to the dark matter question , then all those astronomers and astrophysicists have been disturbingly myopic .
I studied astrophysics in college for two years and it is precisely this kind of ass-hatted , onanistic speculation which convinced me to switch to comp sci .
I really love cosmology , it 's just such a shame when we continue to see such fail.I want my teleportation machine and now I 'm never gon na get it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On your head!
Duh!If this is the solution to the dark matter question, then all those astronomers and astrophysicists have been disturbingly myopic.
I studied astrophysics in college for two years and it is precisely this kind of ass-hatted, onanistic speculation which convinced me to switch to comp sci.
I really love cosmology, it's just such a shame when we continue to see such fail.I want my teleportation machine and now I'm never gonna get it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617298</id>
	<title>Re:I Smell Another Apple Ad</title>
	<author>Jurily</author>
	<datestamp>1269510120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>90\% of the Universe was discovered by thinking differently?</p></div><p>Hey, with a name like Very Large Telescope, something big was bound to happen.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>90 \ % of the Universe was discovered by thinking differently ? Hey , with a name like Very Large Telescope , something big was bound to happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>90\% of the Universe was discovered by thinking differently?Hey, with a name like Very Large Telescope, something big was bound to happen.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617366</id>
	<title>Re:I Smell Another Apple Ad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269510360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except apple isn't being different, they moved to generic intel machines (with their own proprietary bits to ensure we can't replace some components like PCs), apple moved to unix, not exactly a new OS, they moved to mp3 players after most companies already have been in the field for years, they moved to cell phones long after other companies created the technology. Oh yeah, "think different" because we hope the sheep don't noticed everything we do has been done before, plus we're all gay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except apple is n't being different , they moved to generic intel machines ( with their own proprietary bits to ensure we ca n't replace some components like PCs ) , apple moved to unix , not exactly a new OS , they moved to mp3 players after most companies already have been in the field for years , they moved to cell phones long after other companies created the technology .
Oh yeah , " think different " because we hope the sheep do n't noticed everything we do has been done before , plus we 're all gay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except apple isn't being different, they moved to generic intel machines (with their own proprietary bits to ensure we can't replace some components like PCs), apple moved to unix, not exactly a new OS, they moved to mp3 players after most companies already have been in the field for years, they moved to cell phones long after other companies created the technology.
Oh yeah, "think different" because we hope the sheep don't noticed everything we do has been done before, plus we're all gay.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31620898</id>
	<title>Re:Redshift?</title>
	<author>canadian\_right</author>
	<datestamp>1269528780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Asking if professional astronomers took the red shift into account is like asking if some surgeons <i>washed</i> before performing surgery.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Asking if professional astronomers took the red shift into account is like asking if some surgeons washed before performing surgery .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Asking if professional astronomers took the red shift into account is like asking if some surgeons washed before performing surgery.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617774</id>
	<title>No Dark Matter/Dark Energy</title>
	<author>PhunkySchtuff</author>
	<datestamp>1269512160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With a recent docco I saw claiming that 95\% of the universe had to be Dark Matter and Dark Energy, this simply didn't make sense - and not in the way that Quantum Mechanics doesn't make sense, but in a truly "This just can't be the way it is, how come we are so special we're living made out of stuff that just 5\% of the universe is made out of, why aren't we made from dark matter as well?"</p><p>Apparently not - from TFA:</p><blockquote><div><p>I&rsquo;ll note: this has nothing to do with dark matter. As it happens, 90\% of the matter in the Universe is in a form that emits no light, but affects other matter through gravity. We know it exists, and you can <a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/01/07/aas-report-2-dark-matter-and-large-scale-structure/" title="discovermagazine.com">find out why here</a> [discovermagazine.com]. We know it exists locally, in nearby galaxies and clusters of galaxies, too. This new result doesn&rsquo;t affect that, since the now un-hidden galaxies are very far away, like many billions of light years away. They can&rsquo;t possibly affect nearby galaxies, so they don&rsquo;t account for dark matter.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>With a recent docco I saw claiming that 95 \ % of the universe had to be Dark Matter and Dark Energy , this simply did n't make sense - and not in the way that Quantum Mechanics does n't make sense , but in a truly " This just ca n't be the way it is , how come we are so special we 're living made out of stuff that just 5 \ % of the universe is made out of , why are n't we made from dark matter as well ?
" Apparently not - from TFA : I    ll note : this has nothing to do with dark matter .
As it happens , 90 \ % of the matter in the Universe is in a form that emits no light , but affects other matter through gravity .
We know it exists , and you can find out why here [ discovermagazine.com ] .
We know it exists locally , in nearby galaxies and clusters of galaxies , too .
This new result doesn    t affect that , since the now un-hidden galaxies are very far away , like many billions of light years away .
They can    t possibly affect nearby galaxies , so they don    t account for dark matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With a recent docco I saw claiming that 95\% of the universe had to be Dark Matter and Dark Energy, this simply didn't make sense - and not in the way that Quantum Mechanics doesn't make sense, but in a truly "This just can't be the way it is, how come we are so special we're living made out of stuff that just 5\% of the universe is made out of, why aren't we made from dark matter as well?
"Apparently not - from TFA:I’ll note: this has nothing to do with dark matter.
As it happens, 90\% of the matter in the Universe is in a form that emits no light, but affects other matter through gravity.
We know it exists, and you can find out why here [discovermagazine.com].
We know it exists locally, in nearby galaxies and clusters of galaxies, too.
This new result doesn’t affect that, since the now un-hidden galaxies are very far away, like many billions of light years away.
They can’t possibly affect nearby galaxies, so they don’t account for dark matter.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31629200</id>
	<title>Re:I Smell Another Apple Ad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269628620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>WRONG (Lex Luther style). Are you DENSE? How does a galaxy TEN BILLION LIGHT YEARS AWAY effect galaxy formation HERE, besides immeasurably small? Seriously, Jesus fucking Christ. And to think you have the right to vote...</htmltext>
<tokenext>WRONG ( Lex Luther style ) .
Are you DENSE ?
How does a galaxy TEN BILLION LIGHT YEARS AWAY effect galaxy formation HERE , besides immeasurably small ?
Seriously , Jesus fucking Christ .
And to think you have the right to vote.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WRONG (Lex Luther style).
Are you DENSE?
How does a galaxy TEN BILLION LIGHT YEARS AWAY effect galaxy formation HERE, besides immeasurably small?
Seriously, Jesus fucking Christ.
And to think you have the right to vote...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31620194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617078</id>
	<title>Re:Dark stuff?</title>
	<author>Alcimedes</author>
	<datestamp>1269509400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More in-depth quote.</p><p>"I&rsquo;ll note: this has nothing to do with dark matter. As it happens, 90\% of the matter in the Universe is in a form that emits no light, but affects other matter through gravity. We know it exists, and you can find out why here. We know it exists locally, in nearby galaxies and clusters of galaxies, too. This new result doesn&rsquo;t affect that, since the now un-hidden galaxies are very far away, like many billions of light years away. They can&rsquo;t possibly affect nearby galaxies, so they don&rsquo;t account for dark matter."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>More in-depth quote .
" I    ll note : this has nothing to do with dark matter .
As it happens , 90 \ % of the matter in the Universe is in a form that emits no light , but affects other matter through gravity .
We know it exists , and you can find out why here .
We know it exists locally , in nearby galaxies and clusters of galaxies , too .
This new result doesn    t affect that , since the now un-hidden galaxies are very far away , like many billions of light years away .
They can    t possibly affect nearby galaxies , so they don    t account for dark matter .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More in-depth quote.
"I’ll note: this has nothing to do with dark matter.
As it happens, 90\% of the matter in the Universe is in a form that emits no light, but affects other matter through gravity.
We know it exists, and you can find out why here.
We know it exists locally, in nearby galaxies and clusters of galaxies, too.
This new result doesn’t affect that, since the now un-hidden galaxies are very far away, like many billions of light years away.
They can’t possibly affect nearby galaxies, so they don’t account for dark matter.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31624718</id>
	<title>Is all better</title>
	<author>etherwhisp</author>
	<datestamp>1269611520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh thank God! The Universe won't die a cold, lonely and dark death after all. I feel better.

Wait. Where is Nemesis now?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh thank God !
The Universe wo n't die a cold , lonely and dark death after all .
I feel better .
Wait. Where is Nemesis now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh thank God!
The Universe won't die a cold, lonely and dark death after all.
I feel better.
Wait. Where is Nemesis now?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618496</id>
	<title>RBRGTSF vs VLT</title>
	<author>mdmkolbe</author>
	<datestamp>1269515220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But "Really Big Round Glass Thing for Seeing Further" would be abbreviated RBRGTSF which I can't even pronounce let alone remember and "Very Large Telescope" is just VLT.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But " Really Big Round Glass Thing for Seeing Further " would be abbreviated RBRGTSF which I ca n't even pronounce let alone remember and " Very Large Telescope " is just VLT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But "Really Big Round Glass Thing for Seeing Further" would be abbreviated RBRGTSF which I can't even pronounce let alone remember and "Very Large Telescope" is just VLT.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617628</id>
	<title>BFT</title>
	<author>hufter</author>
	<datestamp>1269511440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>WOW
If building a VLT expands the known Universe tenfold, imagine what they could do with a BFT (Big Fucking Telescope).</htmltext>
<tokenext>WOW If building a VLT expands the known Universe tenfold , imagine what they could do with a BFT ( Big Fucking Telescope ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WOW
If building a VLT expands the known Universe tenfold, imagine what they could do with a BFT (Big Fucking Telescope).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618186</id>
	<title>Re:Dark stuff?</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1269513900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The missing mass is comprised of all the socks that have slipped through the spacetime continuum </i></p><p>True.  But one of the biggest mysteries in astrophysics right now, just after the prevalence of matter over antimatter, is why it's always the <i>left</i> sock.</p><p>Some say the two are related.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The missing mass is comprised of all the socks that have slipped through the spacetime continuum True .
But one of the biggest mysteries in astrophysics right now , just after the prevalence of matter over antimatter , is why it 's always the left sock.Some say the two are related .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The missing mass is comprised of all the socks that have slipped through the spacetime continuum True.
But one of the biggest mysteries in astrophysics right now, just after the prevalence of matter over antimatter, is why it's always the left sock.Some say the two are related.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31620888</id>
	<title>Re:I Smell Another Apple Ad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269528720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Careful now, I heard Apple patented thinking differently.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Careful now , I heard Apple patented thinking differently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Careful now, I heard Apple patented thinking differently.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617254</id>
	<title>Re:Dark stuff?</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1269510000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The missing mass is comprised of all the socks that have slipped through the spacetime continuum when you put them in the washing machine. They emit no radiation, but exert gravity. It's especially grave when you can't find a matching pair.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The missing mass is comprised of all the socks that have slipped through the spacetime continuum when you put them in the washing machine .
They emit no radiation , but exert gravity .
It 's especially grave when you ca n't find a matching pair .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The missing mass is comprised of all the socks that have slipped through the spacetime continuum when you put them in the washing machine.
They emit no radiation, but exert gravity.
It's especially grave when you can't find a matching pair.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618088</id>
	<title>Re:I Smell Another Apple Ad</title>
	<author>PopeRatzo</author>
	<datestamp>1269513480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And how do they know that they've found 90\% of what was previously hidden?</p><p>Maybe there's more hidden than they thought was hidden.</p><p>Is the size of the universe so widely agreed-upon?  Far be it from me to challenge a headline in Science, but I'm just a little curious about this assertion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And how do they know that they 've found 90 \ % of what was previously hidden ? Maybe there 's more hidden than they thought was hidden.Is the size of the universe so widely agreed-upon ?
Far be it from me to challenge a headline in Science , but I 'm just a little curious about this assertion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And how do they know that they've found 90\% of what was previously hidden?Maybe there's more hidden than they thought was hidden.Is the size of the universe so widely agreed-upon?
Far be it from me to challenge a headline in Science, but I'm just a little curious about this assertion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31620194</id>
	<title>Re:I Smell Another Apple Ad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269524220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And how do they know that they've found 90\% of what was previously hidden?</p><p>Maybe there's more hidden than they thought was hidden.</p><p>Is the size of the universe so widely agreed-upon? Far be it from me to challenge a headline in Science, but I'm just a little curious about this assertion.</p></div><p>It's because of gravity.  In order for galaxies to look the way they look, there has to be a certain amount of gravity.  Too much and it gets sucked inward faster and would look very different.  Too little and they fly apart.<br>Thus, we know how much mass is required for the effect we see out of gravity.</p><p>But previously they could only see about 10\% of the mass they were expecting.</p><p>Some said our theories were wrong.  Others that 'stuff' must exist that is so weird and different, and called that dark matter.</p><p>Yea, it was always there, we were just looking in the wrong way (If this is correct of course)</p><p>This means dark matter is found, because it is no longer a requirement that dark matter must not interact with visible light.  This stuff does just that, and makes up the full 100\% that we were expecting originally.</p><p>Any dark matter now would put the universe at over 100\% mass, which would just be silly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And how do they know that they 've found 90 \ % of what was previously hidden ? Maybe there 's more hidden than they thought was hidden.Is the size of the universe so widely agreed-upon ?
Far be it from me to challenge a headline in Science , but I 'm just a little curious about this assertion.It 's because of gravity .
In order for galaxies to look the way they look , there has to be a certain amount of gravity .
Too much and it gets sucked inward faster and would look very different .
Too little and they fly apart.Thus , we know how much mass is required for the effect we see out of gravity.But previously they could only see about 10 \ % of the mass they were expecting.Some said our theories were wrong .
Others that 'stuff ' must exist that is so weird and different , and called that dark matter.Yea , it was always there , we were just looking in the wrong way ( If this is correct of course ) This means dark matter is found , because it is no longer a requirement that dark matter must not interact with visible light .
This stuff does just that , and makes up the full 100 \ % that we were expecting originally.Any dark matter now would put the universe at over 100 \ % mass , which would just be silly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And how do they know that they've found 90\% of what was previously hidden?Maybe there's more hidden than they thought was hidden.Is the size of the universe so widely agreed-upon?
Far be it from me to challenge a headline in Science, but I'm just a little curious about this assertion.It's because of gravity.
In order for galaxies to look the way they look, there has to be a certain amount of gravity.
Too much and it gets sucked inward faster and would look very different.
Too little and they fly apart.Thus, we know how much mass is required for the effect we see out of gravity.But previously they could only see about 10\% of the mass they were expecting.Some said our theories were wrong.
Others that 'stuff' must exist that is so weird and different, and called that dark matter.Yea, it was always there, we were just looking in the wrong way (If this is correct of course)This means dark matter is found, because it is no longer a requirement that dark matter must not interact with visible light.
This stuff does just that, and makes up the full 100\% that we were expecting originally.Any dark matter now would put the universe at over 100\% mass, which would just be silly.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31623650</id>
	<title>Re:Next step: a better name</title>
	<author>RivenAleem</author>
	<datestamp>1269602160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have plans to build a Very Large Hadron Collider. I plan to use it to find the Bozo Particle. I'm in desperate need of funding to get it off the design pages though. Does anyone know of some small country that wishes to make its mark on the world, preferably one with excess cash, and a shortage of bread rolls, as my initial investigations have determined this to be a surprising weakness in the system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have plans to build a Very Large Hadron Collider .
I plan to use it to find the Bozo Particle .
I 'm in desperate need of funding to get it off the design pages though .
Does anyone know of some small country that wishes to make its mark on the world , preferably one with excess cash , and a shortage of bread rolls , as my initial investigations have determined this to be a surprising weakness in the system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have plans to build a Very Large Hadron Collider.
I plan to use it to find the Bozo Particle.
I'm in desperate need of funding to get it off the design pages though.
Does anyone know of some small country that wishes to make its mark on the world, preferably one with excess cash, and a shortage of bread rolls, as my initial investigations have determined this to be a surprising weakness in the system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618914</id>
	<title>Re:I Smell Another Apple Ad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269517560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And how do they know that they've found 90\% of what was previously hidden?</p></div><p>No, 90\% of what they have found was previously hidden.  They said nothing about the possibility of still finding more.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And how do they know that they 've found 90 \ % of what was previously hidden ? No , 90 \ % of what they have found was previously hidden .
They said nothing about the possibility of still finding more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And how do they know that they've found 90\% of what was previously hidden?No, 90\% of what they have found was previously hidden.
They said nothing about the possibility of still finding more.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31619002</id>
	<title>Re:90\%, not so coincidentally...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269518100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Awesome post!  You should teach, if you don't already.</p><p>As you say, dark matter and dark energy are generally not considered to be connected,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but I have to wonder: so there's something that causes intra-galactic attraction, and there's something that causes inter-galactic repulsion...  I have to wonder if there's a connection- maybe a force like magnetism, gravity, etc., that's only observable on a really big scale...  what think ye?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Awesome post !
You should teach , if you do n't already.As you say , dark matter and dark energy are generally not considered to be connected , ... but I have to wonder : so there 's something that causes intra-galactic attraction , and there 's something that causes inter-galactic repulsion... I have to wonder if there 's a connection- maybe a force like magnetism , gravity , etc. , that 's only observable on a really big scale... what think ye ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Awesome post!
You should teach, if you don't already.As you say, dark matter and dark energy are generally not considered to be connected, ... but I have to wonder: so there's something that causes intra-galactic attraction, and there's something that causes inter-galactic repulsion...  I have to wonder if there's a connection- maybe a force like magnetism, gravity, etc., that's only observable on a really big scale...  what think ye?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616920</id>
	<title>Implications for dark matter estimates?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269509040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone got any idea how this impacts our estimates of dark matter?</p><p>Does dark matter disappear or do we still need some hiding to explain things?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone got any idea how this impacts our estimates of dark matter ? Does dark matter disappear or do we still need some hiding to explain things ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone got any idea how this impacts our estimates of dark matter?Does dark matter disappear or do we still need some hiding to explain things?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31624540</id>
	<title>been waiting for this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269610320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I always thought that dark matter was a hack. "our numbers don't add up.. therefore 90\% of the universe is a type of matter that has gravity but doesn't interact with the electromagnetic spectrum, or anything else, also there's none of it near earth, it's like the 90\% that's far away." sounds good to me<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-p</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I always thought that dark matter was a hack .
" our numbers do n't add up.. therefore 90 \ % of the universe is a type of matter that has gravity but does n't interact with the electromagnetic spectrum , or anything else , also there 's none of it near earth , it 's like the 90 \ % that 's far away .
" sounds good to me : -p</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always thought that dark matter was a hack.
"our numbers don't add up.. therefore 90\% of the universe is a type of matter that has gravity but doesn't interact with the electromagnetic spectrum, or anything else, also there's none of it near earth, it's like the 90\% that's far away.
" sounds good to me :-p</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617184</id>
	<title>Re:I Smell Another Apple Ad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269509760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Kind of like thinking you've gone blind when it was only your sunglasses were on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kind of like thinking you 've gone blind when it was only your sunglasses were on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kind of like thinking you've gone blind when it was only your sunglasses were on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31636968</id>
	<title>Good telescope name, chile</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269626160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>not.</p><p>now get yourself some vaseline.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>not.now get yourself some vaseline .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>not.now get yourself some vaseline.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31629056</id>
	<title>Re:Next step: a better name</title>
	<author>Cedric Tsui</author>
	<datestamp>1269628080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They've come up with better names.<br>
There was a group working on the OWL. The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overwhelmingly\_Large\_Telescope" title="wikipedia.org">OverWhelmingly Large telescope.</a> [wikipedia.org] But the funding got slashed, so all we're going to get is the Extremely Large Telescope.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 've come up with better names .
There was a group working on the OWL .
The OverWhelmingly Large telescope .
[ wikipedia.org ] But the funding got slashed , so all we 're going to get is the Extremely Large Telescope .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They've come up with better names.
There was a group working on the OWL.
The OverWhelmingly Large telescope.
[wikipedia.org] But the funding got slashed, so all we're going to get is the Extremely Large Telescope.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617296</id>
	<title>Re:90\%, not so coincidentally...</title>
	<author>jfengel</author>
	<datestamp>1269510120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, it is just a coincidence.  This has nothing to do with dark matter or dark energy.</p><p>This is an observation of distant galaxies.  The theory of dark matter comes from observations much closer to home, within this galaxy.  It's designed to explain why the galaxy doesn't fall apart; it has too little matter for gravity to do it on its own.</p><p>Since then, other independent observations have confirmed that galaxies have more matter than we can see.</p><p>Dark energy is also completely different.  It comes from the observation that the far-away galaxies appear to be accelerating.  What they're observing here is mass, not motion.  (Yeah, same thing, but only at really high speeds, and this isn't that, either.)</p><p>They're finding a lot more galaxies, which is great, but it doesn't in and of itself radically change anything about how we view the fundamental theories of physics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , it is just a coincidence .
This has nothing to do with dark matter or dark energy.This is an observation of distant galaxies .
The theory of dark matter comes from observations much closer to home , within this galaxy .
It 's designed to explain why the galaxy does n't fall apart ; it has too little matter for gravity to do it on its own.Since then , other independent observations have confirmed that galaxies have more matter than we can see.Dark energy is also completely different .
It comes from the observation that the far-away galaxies appear to be accelerating .
What they 're observing here is mass , not motion .
( Yeah , same thing , but only at really high speeds , and this is n't that , either .
) They 're finding a lot more galaxies , which is great , but it does n't in and of itself radically change anything about how we view the fundamental theories of physics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, it is just a coincidence.
This has nothing to do with dark matter or dark energy.This is an observation of distant galaxies.
The theory of dark matter comes from observations much closer to home, within this galaxy.
It's designed to explain why the galaxy doesn't fall apart; it has too little matter for gravity to do it on its own.Since then, other independent observations have confirmed that galaxies have more matter than we can see.Dark energy is also completely different.
It comes from the observation that the far-away galaxies appear to be accelerating.
What they're observing here is mass, not motion.
(Yeah, same thing, but only at really high speeds, and this isn't that, either.
)They're finding a lot more galaxies, which is great, but it doesn't in and of itself radically change anything about how we view the fundamental theories of physics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617224</id>
	<title>Any time now ...</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1269509880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...the SETI people will announce the discovery that numerous alien civilizations have been busily communicating back and forth using optical links operating in the UV region.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...the SETI people will announce the discovery that numerous alien civilizations have been busily communicating back and forth using optical links operating in the UV region .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...the SETI people will announce the discovery that numerous alien civilizations have been busily communicating back and forth using optical links operating in the UV region.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618700</id>
	<title>90\% of the Visible Universe?</title>
	<author>d1r3lnd</author>
	<datestamp>1269516420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do they call it the Visible Universe, if until this point, they hadn't been able to "see" 90\% of it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do they call it the Visible Universe , if until this point , they had n't been able to " see " 90 \ % of it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do they call it the Visible Universe, if until this point, they hadn't been able to "see" 90\% of it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617978</id>
	<title>Typical</title>
	<author>GodfatherofSoul</author>
	<datestamp>1269513000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Scientists can't see the universe through the galaxies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Scientists ca n't see the universe through the galaxies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Scientists can't see the universe through the galaxies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618170</id>
	<title>Telescope in Chile</title>
	<author>rossdee</author>
	<datestamp>1269513900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm guessing that this telescope in Chile only looks at the southern part of the sky. Does this mean that 90\% of the universe is not visible to northern hemisphere telescopes?<br>No, I didn't RTFA, this is Slasdot after all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm guessing that this telescope in Chile only looks at the southern part of the sky .
Does this mean that 90 \ % of the universe is not visible to northern hemisphere telescopes ? No , I did n't RTFA , this is Slasdot after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm guessing that this telescope in Chile only looks at the southern part of the sky.
Does this mean that 90\% of the universe is not visible to northern hemisphere telescopes?No, I didn't RTFA, this is Slasdot after all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617698</id>
	<title>Re:I really have no subject, never did, never will</title>
	<author>tool462</author>
	<datestamp>1269511740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The last time I called the thing on my couch a galaxy, she called me a gaseous nebula.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The last time I called the thing on my couch a galaxy , she called me a gaseous nebula .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The last time I called the thing on my couch a galaxy, she called me a gaseous nebula.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617318</id>
	<title>The Universe...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269510180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've always found that the universe is in the last place I look, too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've always found that the universe is in the last place I look , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've always found that the universe is in the last place I look, too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31638058</id>
	<title>Re:Dark stuff?</title>
	<author>vrmlguy</author>
	<datestamp>1269687900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Crikey!  I start a major thread, get dozens of replies that are rated <i>Interesting</i> and/or <i>Funny</i> (thus providing karma boosts to just about everyone), and what do I get?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Dark stuff?, posted to 90\% of the Universe Found Hiding In Plain View, has been moderated Interesting (+1).</p><p>It is currently scored Interesting (2).</p><p>-----</p><p>Dark stuff?, posted to 90\% of the Universe Found Hiding In Plain View, has been moderated Redundant (-1).</p><p>It is currently scored Redundant (1).</p><p>-----</p><p>Dark stuff?, posted to 90\% of the Universe Found Hiding In Plain View, has been moderated Redundant (-1).</p><p>It is currently scored Redundant (0).</p><p>-----</p><p>Dark stuff?, posted to 90\% of the Universe Found Hiding In Plain View, has been moderated Redundant (-1).</p><p>It is currently scored Redundant (-1).</p><p>-----</p><p>Dark stuff?, posted to 90\% of the Universe Found Hiding In Plain View, has been moderated Underrated (+1).</p><p>It is currently scored Redundant (0).</p><p>-----</p><p>Dark stuff?, posted to 90\% of the Universe Found Hiding In Plain View, has been moderated Troll (-1).</p><p>It is currently scored Redundant (-1).</p></div><p>Sometimes life just ain't fair.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Crikey !
I start a major thread , get dozens of replies that are rated Interesting and/or Funny ( thus providing karma boosts to just about everyone ) , and what do I get ? Dark stuff ? , posted to 90 \ % of the Universe Found Hiding In Plain View , has been moderated Interesting ( + 1 ) .It is currently scored Interesting ( 2 ) .-----Dark stuff ? , posted to 90 \ % of the Universe Found Hiding In Plain View , has been moderated Redundant ( -1 ) .It is currently scored Redundant ( 1 ) .-----Dark stuff ? , posted to 90 \ % of the Universe Found Hiding In Plain View , has been moderated Redundant ( -1 ) .It is currently scored Redundant ( 0 ) .-----Dark stuff ? , posted to 90 \ % of the Universe Found Hiding In Plain View , has been moderated Redundant ( -1 ) .It is currently scored Redundant ( -1 ) .-----Dark stuff ? , posted to 90 \ % of the Universe Found Hiding In Plain View , has been moderated Underrated ( + 1 ) .It is currently scored Redundant ( 0 ) .-----Dark stuff ? , posted to 90 \ % of the Universe Found Hiding In Plain View , has been moderated Troll ( -1 ) .It is currently scored Redundant ( -1 ) .Sometimes life just ai n't fair .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Crikey!
I start a major thread, get dozens of replies that are rated Interesting and/or Funny (thus providing karma boosts to just about everyone), and what do I get?Dark stuff?, posted to 90\% of the Universe Found Hiding In Plain View, has been moderated Interesting (+1).It is currently scored Interesting (2).-----Dark stuff?, posted to 90\% of the Universe Found Hiding In Plain View, has been moderated Redundant (-1).It is currently scored Redundant (1).-----Dark stuff?, posted to 90\% of the Universe Found Hiding In Plain View, has been moderated Redundant (-1).It is currently scored Redundant (0).-----Dark stuff?, posted to 90\% of the Universe Found Hiding In Plain View, has been moderated Redundant (-1).It is currently scored Redundant (-1).-----Dark stuff?, posted to 90\% of the Universe Found Hiding In Plain View, has been moderated Underrated (+1).It is currently scored Redundant (0).-----Dark stuff?, posted to 90\% of the Universe Found Hiding In Plain View, has been moderated Troll (-1).It is currently scored Redundant (-1).Sometimes life just ain't fair.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617052</id>
	<title>Not "90\% of the Universe"</title>
	<author>Neon Aardvark</author>
	<datestamp>1269509280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Merely 90\% of the Visible Universe that we couldn't see before.</p><p>The Visible Universe probably constitutes a very small (perhaps even infinitesimally small) fraction of the actual physical Universe. The rest will, according to Relativity, always be hidden.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Merely 90 \ % of the Visible Universe that we could n't see before.The Visible Universe probably constitutes a very small ( perhaps even infinitesimally small ) fraction of the actual physical Universe .
The rest will , according to Relativity , always be hidden .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Merely 90\% of the Visible Universe that we couldn't see before.The Visible Universe probably constitutes a very small (perhaps even infinitesimally small) fraction of the actual physical Universe.
The rest will, according to Relativity, always be hidden.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618160</id>
	<title>Re:90\%, not so coincidentally...</title>
	<author>Fujisawa Sensei</author>
	<datestamp>1269513840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>... is the same figure used to justify the initial claims for dark matter.

    Several initial sources claimed that there had to be abundant non-baryonic matter making up much of the universe, as otherwise, there would have to be about ten times as much normal matter as we were observing, and that, of course was absurd. So quite possibly this is so long to dark matter! Next question is, is there still any reason to postulate dark energy with the new values for average density and so on this will produce? Don't say goodbye to dark energy just yet, but expect some significant revisions.</p></div><p>Since only 10\% of the universe is made up of baryons, that would make the other 90\% bosons.  Coincidence with the dark matter postings here?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... is the same figure used to justify the initial claims for dark matter .
Several initial sources claimed that there had to be abundant non-baryonic matter making up much of the universe , as otherwise , there would have to be about ten times as much normal matter as we were observing , and that , of course was absurd .
So quite possibly this is so long to dark matter !
Next question is , is there still any reason to postulate dark energy with the new values for average density and so on this will produce ?
Do n't say goodbye to dark energy just yet , but expect some significant revisions.Since only 10 \ % of the universe is made up of baryons , that would make the other 90 \ % bosons .
Coincidence with the dark matter postings here ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... is the same figure used to justify the initial claims for dark matter.
Several initial sources claimed that there had to be abundant non-baryonic matter making up much of the universe, as otherwise, there would have to be about ten times as much normal matter as we were observing, and that, of course was absurd.
So quite possibly this is so long to dark matter!
Next question is, is there still any reason to postulate dark energy with the new values for average density and so on this will produce?
Don't say goodbye to dark energy just yet, but expect some significant revisions.Since only 10\% of the universe is made up of baryons, that would make the other 90\% bosons.
Coincidence with the dark matter postings here?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616894</id>
	<title>A Nice Step</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269508980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This should stand as a very significant step forward.  Hopefully, they can use technology derived from this to make it easier to study planets orbiting distant stars.  Hello ET!</htmltext>
<tokenext>This should stand as a very significant step forward .
Hopefully , they can use technology derived from this to make it easier to study planets orbiting distant stars .
Hello ET !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This should stand as a very significant step forward.
Hopefully, they can use technology derived from this to make it easier to study planets orbiting distant stars.
Hello ET!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617710</id>
	<title>Re:Not "90\% of the Universe"</title>
	<author>kryptKnight</author>
	<datestamp>1269511860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Visible Universe probably constitutes a very small (perhaps even infinitesimally small) fraction of the actual physical Universe. The rest will, according to Relativity, always be hidden.</p></div><p>Or it may be that the visible universe is smaller than the actual universe. <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310233" title="arxiv.org">This paper</a> [arxiv.org] estimates the minimum possible diameter  of the universe to be 24 gigaparsecs, which is four gigaparsecs less than the diameter of the observable universe. It's not likely, but if it were true it would mean we could look a billion lightyears in one direction and see a region of space, or we could look 77 billion lightyears in the opposite direction and see how that same region looked 76 billion years earlier, by seeing light the looped around the long way around the universe.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Visible Universe probably constitutes a very small ( perhaps even infinitesimally small ) fraction of the actual physical Universe .
The rest will , according to Relativity , always be hidden.Or it may be that the visible universe is smaller than the actual universe .
This paper [ arxiv.org ] estimates the minimum possible diameter of the universe to be 24 gigaparsecs , which is four gigaparsecs less than the diameter of the observable universe .
It 's not likely , but if it were true it would mean we could look a billion lightyears in one direction and see a region of space , or we could look 77 billion lightyears in the opposite direction and see how that same region looked 76 billion years earlier , by seeing light the looped around the long way around the universe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Visible Universe probably constitutes a very small (perhaps even infinitesimally small) fraction of the actual physical Universe.
The rest will, according to Relativity, always be hidden.Or it may be that the visible universe is smaller than the actual universe.
This paper [arxiv.org] estimates the minimum possible diameter  of the universe to be 24 gigaparsecs, which is four gigaparsecs less than the diameter of the observable universe.
It's not likely, but if it were true it would mean we could look a billion lightyears in one direction and see a region of space, or we could look 77 billion lightyears in the opposite direction and see how that same region looked 76 billion years earlier, by seeing light the looped around the long way around the universe.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31624880</id>
	<title>Re:I Smell Another Apple Ad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269612420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After all, Science is just a Big Guess by someone with too much time on his/her hands. At least that is my Theory!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After all , Science is just a Big Guess by someone with too much time on his/her hands .
At least that is my Theory !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After all, Science is just a Big Guess by someone with too much time on his/her hands.
At least that is my Theory!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616870</id>
	<title>I Smell Another Apple Ad</title>
	<author>WrongSizeGlass</author>
	<datestamp>1269508920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>90\% of the Universe was discovered by <i>thinking differently</i>? Steve Jobs just felt a tingle somewhere.</htmltext>
<tokenext>90 \ % of the Universe was discovered by thinking differently ?
Steve Jobs just felt a tingle somewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>90\% of the Universe was discovered by thinking differently?
Steve Jobs just felt a tingle somewhere.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31619718</id>
	<title>Just to recap:</title>
	<author>WheelDweller</author>
	<datestamp>1269521700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So science was wrong until they tried something different?</p><p>Not surprising.  This means science is fallable, and that's probably the hardest lesson that otherwise logical thinkers can face.</p><p>How many times have the dinosaurs been renamed?</p><p>Just making the point. Someone has to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So science was wrong until they tried something different ? Not surprising .
This means science is fallable , and that 's probably the hardest lesson that otherwise logical thinkers can face.How many times have the dinosaurs been renamed ? Just making the point .
Someone has to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So science was wrong until they tried something different?Not surprising.
This means science is fallable, and that's probably the hardest lesson that otherwise logical thinkers can face.How many times have the dinosaurs been renamed?Just making the point.
Someone has to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_200209_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_200209_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31627106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_200209_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_200209_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_200209_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_200209_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_200209_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31624880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_200209_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31623084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_200209_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31619228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_200209_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_200209_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_200209_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_200209_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31619266
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_200209_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31619270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_200209_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_200209_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_200209_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_200209_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31623650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_200209_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31620898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31635156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_200209_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_200209_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_200209_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31620392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_200209_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31620194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31629200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_200209_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31619184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_200209_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_200209_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_200209_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_200209_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31620888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_200209_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_200209_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_200209_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31619542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_200209_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_200209_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_200209_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31619002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_200209_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31619896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31628062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_200209_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_200209_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_200209_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_200209_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_200209_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31638058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_200209_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_200209_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_200209_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_200209_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_200209_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_200209_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31629056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_200209_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31621612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_200209_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_200209_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31622664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_200209_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31620898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31672766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_200209_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31623150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_200209.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617052
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617372
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31619184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617710
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_200209.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31620898
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31635156
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31672766
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_200209.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617702
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_200209.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618998
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_200209.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617296
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31619002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618160
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_200209.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618088
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31619896
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31628062
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31620194
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31629200
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618894
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31623150
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618690
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31620888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31624880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31619228
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_200209.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31622664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617140
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31621612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617292
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_200209.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617254
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618186
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618326
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618946
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31619266
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31638058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617124
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_200209.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31624540
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_200209.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617854
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_200209.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617158
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_200209.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617082
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_200209.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617698
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_200209.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616910
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_200209.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31627106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31623084
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_200209.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31619542
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_200209.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617628
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_200209.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618152
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_200209.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617156
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618496
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617986
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31629056
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618198
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31618832
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31619270
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31623650
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31620392
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_200209.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31616852
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_200209.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_200209.31617626
</commentlist>
</conversation>
