<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_04_1228223</id>
	<title>Opera 10 Benchmarked and Evaluated</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1244119620000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://twitter.com/natelanxon" rel="nofollow">CNETNate</a> writes <i>"Dial-up connections and flaky Wi-Fi are made significantly more tolerable with Opera 10, it seems. After <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/06/03/159249/First-Beta-of-Opera-10-Released">yesterdays news</a> that Opera 10's first beta had landed, some testing was in order. One major new feature is Opera Turbo &mdash; server-side compression &mdash; which shrinks pages before sending them down your browser. With a 100Mbps connection throttled to a laughable 50Kbps, <a href="http://crave.cnet.co.uk/software/0,39029471,49302491,00.htm">Opera 10 proved itself to outperform</a> every other desktop browser on the planet, and there are graphs to prove it. Javascript benchmarks put the new browser in fourth place overall, <a href="http://crave.cnet.co.uk/software/0,39029471,49301219,00.htm">after Chrome 2, Safari 4 and Firefox</a>, but it indeed passes the Acid3 test with a perfect score. If you ever use a laptop on public Wi-Fi, to not have Opera 10 installed could be a big mistake"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>CNETNate writes " Dial-up connections and flaky Wi-Fi are made significantly more tolerable with Opera 10 , it seems .
After yesterdays news that Opera 10 's first beta had landed , some testing was in order .
One major new feature is Opera Turbo    server-side compression    which shrinks pages before sending them down your browser .
With a 100Mbps connection throttled to a laughable 50Kbps , Opera 10 proved itself to outperform every other desktop browser on the planet , and there are graphs to prove it .
Javascript benchmarks put the new browser in fourth place overall , after Chrome 2 , Safari 4 and Firefox , but it indeed passes the Acid3 test with a perfect score .
If you ever use a laptop on public Wi-Fi , to not have Opera 10 installed could be a big mistake "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CNETNate writes "Dial-up connections and flaky Wi-Fi are made significantly more tolerable with Opera 10, it seems.
After yesterdays news that Opera 10's first beta had landed, some testing was in order.
One major new feature is Opera Turbo — server-side compression — which shrinks pages before sending them down your browser.
With a 100Mbps connection throttled to a laughable 50Kbps, Opera 10 proved itself to outperform every other desktop browser on the planet, and there are graphs to prove it.
Javascript benchmarks put the new browser in fourth place overall, after Chrome 2, Safari 4 and Firefox, but it indeed passes the Acid3 test with a perfect score.
If you ever use a laptop on public Wi-Fi, to not have Opera 10 installed could be a big mistake"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28211265</id>
	<title>VPN</title>
	<author>SanityInAnarchy</author>
	<datestamp>1244137080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I'm not at home, I just run OpenVPN, with compression on, and default-route everything through it -- either to my machine at home, or to a VPS that I'm not using for much.</p><p>That way, it's not just web, it's anything else I do, and it's all nicely secured. Ok, yes, I'm now trusting my VPS host, but better than trusting everyone else at the local Internet cafe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I 'm not at home , I just run OpenVPN , with compression on , and default-route everything through it -- either to my machine at home , or to a VPS that I 'm not using for much.That way , it 's not just web , it 's anything else I do , and it 's all nicely secured .
Ok , yes , I 'm now trusting my VPS host , but better than trusting everyone else at the local Internet cafe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I'm not at home, I just run OpenVPN, with compression on, and default-route everything through it -- either to my machine at home, or to a VPS that I'm not using for much.That way, it's not just web, it's anything else I do, and it's all nicely secured.
Ok, yes, I'm now trusting my VPS host, but better than trusting everyone else at the local Internet cafe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208071</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208825</id>
	<title>Re:Opera is free-as-in-beer, BTW</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244127120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Irony has nothing to do with it. Please learn what the word actually means before it becomes the next Americanism of "done a 360" to change one's mind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Irony has nothing to do with it .
Please learn what the word actually means before it becomes the next Americanism of " done a 360 " to change one 's mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Irony has nothing to do with it.
Please learn what the word actually means before it becomes the next Americanism of "done a 360" to change one's mind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28210353</id>
	<title>"Javascript benchmarks"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244133540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The story about the javascript benchmarks show Opera 9.6, not Opera 10.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The story about the javascript benchmarks show Opera 9.6 , not Opera 10 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The story about the javascript benchmarks show Opera 9.6, not Opera 10.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28212719</id>
	<title>Re:How to get turbo browsing with free software</title>
	<author>Logic and Reason</author>
	<datestamp>1244143320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The only drawback is that the images, when compressed, look like crap but if you're only interesting in browsing the internet for information, not the pron, then that's okay and acceptable.</p></div><p>Why not just turn off images then?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only drawback is that the images , when compressed , look like crap but if you 're only interesting in browsing the internet for information , not the pron , then that 's okay and acceptable.Why not just turn off images then ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only drawback is that the images, when compressed, look like crap but if you're only interesting in browsing the internet for information, not the pron, then that's okay and acceptable.Why not just turn off images then?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28210139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28213583</id>
	<title>Re:How to get turbo browsing with free software</title>
	<author>keeboo</author>
	<datestamp>1244146680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You could also try the RabbIT compressing web proxy.  All this relies on having a server somewhere with a fast net connection that you can run programs on - and this is the service that Opera Software are really providing.</p></div><p>If you want image compression - and are able to run Linux/BSD at the server side - <a href="http://ziproxy.sourceforge.net/" title="sourceforge.net">Ziproxy</a> [sourceforge.net] may be a better option.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You could also try the RabbIT compressing web proxy .
All this relies on having a server somewhere with a fast net connection that you can run programs on - and this is the service that Opera Software are really providing.If you want image compression - and are able to run Linux/BSD at the server side - Ziproxy [ sourceforge.net ] may be a better option .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could also try the RabbIT compressing web proxy.
All this relies on having a server somewhere with a fast net connection that you can run programs on - and this is the service that Opera Software are really providing.If you want image compression - and are able to run Linux/BSD at the server side - Ziproxy [sourceforge.net] may be a better option.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208071</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28213379</id>
	<title>Re:How to get turbo browsing with free software</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244145900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting.  How does your browser "squash things" that haven't been downloaded to it?  If Opera Turbo isn't a server going about the business of caching pages and compressing content were does the content get compressed?  I can see Netscape Web Accelerator decreasing the MTU size of your machine's nic.  And, can even see it loading a smaller portion of an image to decrease the amount of memory needed to display images but, compressing content after downloading them? Your confused.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting .
How does your browser " squash things " that have n't been downloaded to it ?
If Opera Turbo is n't a server going about the business of caching pages and compressing content were does the content get compressed ?
I can see Netscape Web Accelerator decreasing the MTU size of your machine 's nic .
And , can even see it loading a smaller portion of an image to decrease the amount of memory needed to display images but , compressing content after downloading them ?
Your confused .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting.
How does your browser "squash things" that haven't been downloaded to it?
If Opera Turbo isn't a server going about the business of caching pages and compressing content were does the content get compressed?
I can see Netscape Web Accelerator decreasing the MTU size of your machine's nic.
And, can even see it loading a smaller portion of an image to decrease the amount of memory needed to display images but, compressing content after downloading them?
Your confused.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28210139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28212393</id>
	<title>Re:Phenomenal browser</title>
	<author>brentonboy</author>
	<datestamp>1244141940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>send complaining emails to the webmaster.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>send complaining emails to the webmaster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>send complaining emails to the webmaster.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208345</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28211757</id>
	<title>I think they're missing the major upsides of Opera</title>
	<author>malevolentjelly</author>
	<datestamp>1244139120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's interesting that they focus so much on this Turbo-Feature while completely ignoring some of the most critical differences between Opera and Chrome/Safari or Firefox even. I don't know about you guys, but I run a ridiculously slow machine. I literally surf the web with a Powerbook G3. This means that I am hyper-sensitive to how well a browser uses RAM and threading.</p><p>If you don't quite get what Opera's strengths are, try it on a slow computer. Then open up like 30 tabs. You'll understand why Opera is so awesome very quickly. You would need a godly amount of RAM and cpu power to do a similar thing with Safari or Chrome and Firefox is generally just sluggish no matter how you look at it. Running Opera Turbo basically gives you a full-blown cell-phone style browser on your desktop. Some people like to throw the entirety of their system resources at their browser, but for those who would rather their browser be a lightweight application running in the background, Opera is a very good alternative.</p><p>I am dead serious-- there is NOTHING faster than this browser for general browsing on a slow computer. I have tested the hell out of this. The only notable exceptions are Gmail and Facebook, which are so disgustingly javascript happy that I keep Safari 4 around just for them.</p><p>As far as I can tell, there's no reason to run Firefox on any system, unless you run your browser like IE6 with toolbars and extensions galore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's interesting that they focus so much on this Turbo-Feature while completely ignoring some of the most critical differences between Opera and Chrome/Safari or Firefox even .
I do n't know about you guys , but I run a ridiculously slow machine .
I literally surf the web with a Powerbook G3 .
This means that I am hyper-sensitive to how well a browser uses RAM and threading.If you do n't quite get what Opera 's strengths are , try it on a slow computer .
Then open up like 30 tabs .
You 'll understand why Opera is so awesome very quickly .
You would need a godly amount of RAM and cpu power to do a similar thing with Safari or Chrome and Firefox is generally just sluggish no matter how you look at it .
Running Opera Turbo basically gives you a full-blown cell-phone style browser on your desktop .
Some people like to throw the entirety of their system resources at their browser , but for those who would rather their browser be a lightweight application running in the background , Opera is a very good alternative.I am dead serious-- there is NOTHING faster than this browser for general browsing on a slow computer .
I have tested the hell out of this .
The only notable exceptions are Gmail and Facebook , which are so disgustingly javascript happy that I keep Safari 4 around just for them.As far as I can tell , there 's no reason to run Firefox on any system , unless you run your browser like IE6 with toolbars and extensions galore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's interesting that they focus so much on this Turbo-Feature while completely ignoring some of the most critical differences between Opera and Chrome/Safari or Firefox even.
I don't know about you guys, but I run a ridiculously slow machine.
I literally surf the web with a Powerbook G3.
This means that I am hyper-sensitive to how well a browser uses RAM and threading.If you don't quite get what Opera's strengths are, try it on a slow computer.
Then open up like 30 tabs.
You'll understand why Opera is so awesome very quickly.
You would need a godly amount of RAM and cpu power to do a similar thing with Safari or Chrome and Firefox is generally just sluggish no matter how you look at it.
Running Opera Turbo basically gives you a full-blown cell-phone style browser on your desktop.
Some people like to throw the entirety of their system resources at their browser, but for those who would rather their browser be a lightweight application running in the background, Opera is a very good alternative.I am dead serious-- there is NOTHING faster than this browser for general browsing on a slow computer.
I have tested the hell out of this.
The only notable exceptions are Gmail and Facebook, which are so disgustingly javascript happy that I keep Safari 4 around just for them.As far as I can tell, there's no reason to run Firefox on any system, unless you run your browser like IE6 with toolbars and extensions galore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28209223</id>
	<title>Re:Ugly.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244128800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Too many features, and it's not pretty enough.</p><p>Typical Mac user.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Too many features , and it 's not pretty enough.Typical Mac user .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too many features, and it's not pretty enough.Typical Mac user.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208041</id>
	<title>Nobody gives a shit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244123340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>About Opera. Seriously.</htmltext>
<tokenext>About Opera .
Seriously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>About Opera.
Seriously.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28216511</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox just has too many useful addons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244118360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Adblock - http://www.fanboy.co.nz/adblock/opera/ [fanboy.co.nz] that's basically the same list that Adblock addon uses.</p></div><p>Great! I can't speak for the GP, but I roll my own adblock filters. I've tried Opera's content blocking feature, but it's seriously lacking; things like blocking based on regexen or by specifying elements (check out the adblock element hiding helper some time) appear either impossible or very cumbersome at best.</p><p>There's also other extensions that have no equivalent in Opera.</p><p>I mean, sure, we get it, Opera is great. Yay. But honestly, if you're gonna scream bloody murder every time somebody raises concerns about Opera and says why it's not suitable for them, you're really nothing more than a fanboy. And for that matter, you're also a stupid one, since on a very general level, it's attitudes like yours that keep projects from actually making progress. You have to be able to admit that things perhaps aren't perfect (for some users, at least) before you can improve them.</p><p>Think about that for a while.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Adblock - http : //www.fanboy.co.nz/adblock/opera/ [ fanboy.co.nz ] that 's basically the same list that Adblock addon uses.Great !
I ca n't speak for the GP , but I roll my own adblock filters .
I 've tried Opera 's content blocking feature , but it 's seriously lacking ; things like blocking based on regexen or by specifying elements ( check out the adblock element hiding helper some time ) appear either impossible or very cumbersome at best.There 's also other extensions that have no equivalent in Opera.I mean , sure , we get it , Opera is great .
Yay. But honestly , if you 're gon na scream bloody murder every time somebody raises concerns about Opera and says why it 's not suitable for them , you 're really nothing more than a fanboy .
And for that matter , you 're also a stupid one , since on a very general level , it 's attitudes like yours that keep projects from actually making progress .
You have to be able to admit that things perhaps are n't perfect ( for some users , at least ) before you can improve them.Think about that for a while .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Adblock - http://www.fanboy.co.nz/adblock/opera/ [fanboy.co.nz] that's basically the same list that Adblock addon uses.Great!
I can't speak for the GP, but I roll my own adblock filters.
I've tried Opera's content blocking feature, but it's seriously lacking; things like blocking based on regexen or by specifying elements (check out the adblock element hiding helper some time) appear either impossible or very cumbersome at best.There's also other extensions that have no equivalent in Opera.I mean, sure, we get it, Opera is great.
Yay. But honestly, if you're gonna scream bloody murder every time somebody raises concerns about Opera and says why it's not suitable for them, you're really nothing more than a fanboy.
And for that matter, you're also a stupid one, since on a very general level, it's attitudes like yours that keep projects from actually making progress.
You have to be able to admit that things perhaps aren't perfect (for some users, at least) before you can improve them.Think about that for a while.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208737</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28210743</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox just has too many useful addons</title>
	<author>mdm-adph</author>
	<datestamp>1244134920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just NoScript for me, thanks.  Give me that on Chrome (or Opera!) and I'll start using them more.</p><p>However, I have a feeling NoScript's not going to be liked by Google...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just NoScript for me , thanks .
Give me that on Chrome ( or Opera !
) and I 'll start using them more.However , I have a feeling NoScript 's not going to be liked by Google.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just NoScript for me, thanks.
Give me that on Chrome (or Opera!
) and I'll start using them more.However, I have a feeling NoScript's not going to be liked by Google...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208565</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28209063</id>
	<title>Re:Squid + Gzip</title>
	<author>IBBoard</author>
	<datestamp>1244128200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, from <a href="http://www.opera.com/business/solutions/turbo/" title="opera.com">one of their pages</a> [opera.com] it is basically a proxy server with added compression (not just GZip since a lot of servers can deflate content anyway).</p><p>Since it isn't part of the Opera browser but is actually an Opera-run server, I wonder how long it'll take for someone to write a Firefox extension that piggy-backs on to those servers and gets the speed increase itself?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , from one of their pages [ opera.com ] it is basically a proxy server with added compression ( not just GZip since a lot of servers can deflate content anyway ) .Since it is n't part of the Opera browser but is actually an Opera-run server , I wonder how long it 'll take for someone to write a Firefox extension that piggy-backs on to those servers and gets the speed increase itself ?
: D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, from one of their pages [opera.com] it is basically a proxy server with added compression (not just GZip since a lot of servers can deflate content anyway).Since it isn't part of the Opera browser but is actually an Opera-run server, I wonder how long it'll take for someone to write a Firefox extension that piggy-backs on to those servers and gets the speed increase itself?
:D</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208249</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28210291</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody gives a shit</title>
	<author>Smivs</author>
	<datestamp>1244133120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>About Opera. Seriously.</p></div><p>
Nobody except a total moron! Opera has been my browser of choice for many years because it blows all others into the weeds. It's fast, secure, fully customizable and has features (Wand, for one, and a nifty on-board email client) that make it stand head and shoulders above the so-called competition. It's also got serious geek value, as well. <br> I'm currently migrating to Ubuntu from (Ugh!) Windows, and one of the major factors in my decision was that Opera was available for Linux.  <br> Yes, Chrome is good, as are Safari and Firefox, but Opera is the class leader by far.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>About Opera .
Seriously . Nobody except a total moron !
Opera has been my browser of choice for many years because it blows all others into the weeds .
It 's fast , secure , fully customizable and has features ( Wand , for one , and a nifty on-board email client ) that make it stand head and shoulders above the so-called competition .
It 's also got serious geek value , as well .
I 'm currently migrating to Ubuntu from ( Ugh !
) Windows , and one of the major factors in my decision was that Opera was available for Linux .
Yes , Chrome is good , as are Safari and Firefox , but Opera is the class leader by far .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>About Opera.
Seriously.
Nobody except a total moron!
Opera has been my browser of choice for many years because it blows all others into the weeds.
It's fast, secure, fully customizable and has features (Wand, for one, and a nifty on-board email client) that make it stand head and shoulders above the so-called competition.
It's also got serious geek value, as well.
I'm currently migrating to Ubuntu from (Ugh!
) Windows, and one of the major factors in my decision was that Opera was available for Linux.
Yes, Chrome is good, as are Safari and Firefox, but Opera is the class leader by far.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208041</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208737</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox just has too many useful addons</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1244126820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mehhh...in every thread about Opera those misconceptions.</p><p>Adblock - <a href="http://www.fanboy.co.nz/adblock/opera/" title="fanboy.co.nz">http://www.fanboy.co.nz/adblock/opera/</a> [fanboy.co.nz] that's basically the same list that Adblock addon uses. It certainly blocks everything just as well. And the functionality itself is built in, no messing around with plugins. According to my buddy who moved from FF to Opera, style file works slightly better at hiding empty spots. And, if something isn't blocked, you have a nice way of blocking this and similar elements through Opera UI.</p><p>GreaseMonkey - you do understand Opera pioneered also this functionality, right? Check UserJS (it is capable of running many GreaseMonkey scripts btw)</p><p>FxIF - built in. Didn't it ever occured to you to just right click on the frakking image and bring up properties?</p><p>del.icio.us, Twitter - something wrong with bookmarklets placed within one click, on navigation bar?</p><p>I guess the main problem of Opera is that people assume, because of beeing used to other apps, that there's now way it can pack so much in so little executable, so properly/speedy implemented.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mehhh...in every thread about Opera those misconceptions.Adblock - http : //www.fanboy.co.nz/adblock/opera/ [ fanboy.co.nz ] that 's basically the same list that Adblock addon uses .
It certainly blocks everything just as well .
And the functionality itself is built in , no messing around with plugins .
According to my buddy who moved from FF to Opera , style file works slightly better at hiding empty spots .
And , if something is n't blocked , you have a nice way of blocking this and similar elements through Opera UI.GreaseMonkey - you do understand Opera pioneered also this functionality , right ?
Check UserJS ( it is capable of running many GreaseMonkey scripts btw ) FxIF - built in .
Did n't it ever occured to you to just right click on the frakking image and bring up properties ? del.icio.us , Twitter - something wrong with bookmarklets placed within one click , on navigation bar ? I guess the main problem of Opera is that people assume , because of beeing used to other apps , that there 's now way it can pack so much in so little executable , so properly/speedy implemented .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mehhh...in every thread about Opera those misconceptions.Adblock - http://www.fanboy.co.nz/adblock/opera/ [fanboy.co.nz] that's basically the same list that Adblock addon uses.
It certainly blocks everything just as well.
And the functionality itself is built in, no messing around with plugins.
According to my buddy who moved from FF to Opera, style file works slightly better at hiding empty spots.
And, if something isn't blocked, you have a nice way of blocking this and similar elements through Opera UI.GreaseMonkey - you do understand Opera pioneered also this functionality, right?
Check UserJS (it is capable of running many GreaseMonkey scripts btw)FxIF - built in.
Didn't it ever occured to you to just right click on the frakking image and bring up properties?del.icio.us, Twitter - something wrong with bookmarklets placed within one click, on navigation bar?I guess the main problem of Opera is that people assume, because of beeing used to other apps, that there's now way it can pack so much in so little executable, so properly/speedy implemented.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208565</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28209675</id>
	<title>This is great!</title>
	<author>HolyMackerelBatman!</author>
	<datestamp>1244130420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hopefully the way things go will be something like this:

The newest generation of browsers (Firefox 3.5, Safari 4, Opera 10) all leave beta. They all pass acid3 (Chrome almost) and are standards compliant. Web developers can't resist all the HTML5 &amp; Javascript goodness and a few killer apps start to support compliant browsers only. IE dies overnight, cue celebration scene from Endor!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hopefully the way things go will be something like this : The newest generation of browsers ( Firefox 3.5 , Safari 4 , Opera 10 ) all leave beta .
They all pass acid3 ( Chrome almost ) and are standards compliant .
Web developers ca n't resist all the HTML5 &amp; Javascript goodness and a few killer apps start to support compliant browsers only .
IE dies overnight , cue celebration scene from Endor !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hopefully the way things go will be something like this:

The newest generation of browsers (Firefox 3.5, Safari 4, Opera 10) all leave beta.
They all pass acid3 (Chrome almost) and are standards compliant.
Web developers can't resist all the HTML5 &amp; Javascript goodness and a few killer apps start to support compliant browsers only.
IE dies overnight, cue celebration scene from Endor!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208613</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody gives a shit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244126220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well with the bandwidth bill they'll have after this little venture, I don't think you'll have to worry about them for too long.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well with the bandwidth bill they 'll have after this little venture , I do n't think you 'll have to worry about them for too long .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well with the bandwidth bill they'll have after this little venture, I don't think you'll have to worry about them for too long.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208041</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208249</id>
	<title>Squid + Gzip</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244124300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Given this is server side technology, I presume it's not part of the opera web browser. Sounds like they're using a proxy server with gzip added.

There's a beta stage patch for squid to allow you to do that yourself

<a href="http://devel.squid-cache.org/projects.html#gzip" title="squid-cache.org">http://devel.squid-cache.org/projects.html#gzip</a> [squid-cache.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Given this is server side technology , I presume it 's not part of the opera web browser .
Sounds like they 're using a proxy server with gzip added .
There 's a beta stage patch for squid to allow you to do that yourself http : //devel.squid-cache.org/projects.html # gzip [ squid-cache.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given this is server side technology, I presume it's not part of the opera web browser.
Sounds like they're using a proxy server with gzip added.
There's a beta stage patch for squid to allow you to do that yourself

http://devel.squid-cache.org/projects.html#gzip [squid-cache.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28209529</id>
	<title>Opera  test drive</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244129880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been using Opera 10 for about 24 hours now. It's smooth sailing. Everything works better than expected. My only complaint was one of my Opera Widgets stopped working, but maybe I just have to re-install it. Some sites that didn't work well in Opera before have been fixed.</p><p>My parents are still on dial-up (not their fault, there's no other service provided there) and I got them using it. The connection is 3-4 times faster in Opera 10 (when using Turbo) than in Opera 9 or Firefox 3. Some images get a little dulled in the Turbo transfer, but nothing serious.</p><p>Opera has been my main browser for a while now, but I always had to keep Firefox around for a few odd sites that didn't work 100\% under Opera. Those days are over.</p><p>The new automatic spell-check in Opera is nice too, glad they caught up to Firefox in that arena.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been using Opera 10 for about 24 hours now .
It 's smooth sailing .
Everything works better than expected .
My only complaint was one of my Opera Widgets stopped working , but maybe I just have to re-install it .
Some sites that did n't work well in Opera before have been fixed.My parents are still on dial-up ( not their fault , there 's no other service provided there ) and I got them using it .
The connection is 3-4 times faster in Opera 10 ( when using Turbo ) than in Opera 9 or Firefox 3 .
Some images get a little dulled in the Turbo transfer , but nothing serious.Opera has been my main browser for a while now , but I always had to keep Firefox around for a few odd sites that did n't work 100 \ % under Opera .
Those days are over.The new automatic spell-check in Opera is nice too , glad they caught up to Firefox in that arena .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been using Opera 10 for about 24 hours now.
It's smooth sailing.
Everything works better than expected.
My only complaint was one of my Opera Widgets stopped working, but maybe I just have to re-install it.
Some sites that didn't work well in Opera before have been fixed.My parents are still on dial-up (not their fault, there's no other service provided there) and I got them using it.
The connection is 3-4 times faster in Opera 10 (when using Turbo) than in Opera 9 or Firefox 3.
Some images get a little dulled in the Turbo transfer, but nothing serious.Opera has been my main browser for a while now, but I always had to keep Firefox around for a few odd sites that didn't work 100\% under Opera.
Those days are over.The new automatic spell-check in Opera is nice too, glad they caught up to Firefox in that arena.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28210437</id>
	<title>opera, the best browser on earth</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244133780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Opera is the best browser on earth,<br>I've been using it for about 3 years now, and I cant stop loving it<br>It has so much features that you may need more than 10 firefox plugins to get the functionalities, but even with this plugins, opera feels always better<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>It more simple, faster, more powerful, very stable and very "natural"<br>This turbo feature may not be it's best point, but trust me everything else is great on opera</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Opera is the best browser on earth,I 've been using it for about 3 years now , and I cant stop loving itIt has so much features that you may need more than 10 firefox plugins to get the functionalities , but even with this plugins , opera feels always better ...It more simple , faster , more powerful , very stable and very " natural " This turbo feature may not be it 's best point , but trust me everything else is great on opera</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Opera is the best browser on earth,I've been using it for about 3 years now, and I cant stop loving itIt has so much features that you may need more than 10 firefox plugins to get the functionalities, but even with this plugins, opera feels always better ...It more simple, faster, more powerful, very stable and very "natural"This turbo feature may not be it's best point, but trust me everything else is great on opera</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28219053</id>
	<title>Re:Th NoScript addon ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244143980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Umm...  I hear this so often, it's funny.   Opera has better than NoScript BUILT IN... you can edit it down to per site preference if it is allowd to run  java, js , play sound or not, etc, or even what scripts are allowed to do or not.  Sigh...   Oh yeah, it also has very configurable proxy settings that can be toggled. (thus no need for foxy proxy).     Opera can do what any of the most common plugins for FF do (adblock,noscript,firebug,spellcheck,greasemonkey, and many many others), and generally better.    Among so many other lesser known features like delayed script execution and evaluation. (I have a custom user js script that evalutates scripting on the page for exploits (keylogging, cookie stealing, unsafe hyperlinking, heap spraying and dos vectors, rogue http requests) before it even has a chance to execute, a feature not even the grease monkey scripts for FF can do to the same extent)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Umm... I hear this so often , it 's funny .
Opera has better than NoScript BUILT IN... you can edit it down to per site preference if it is allowd to run java , js , play sound or not , etc , or even what scripts are allowed to do or not .
Sigh... Oh yeah , it also has very configurable proxy settings that can be toggled .
( thus no need for foxy proxy ) .
Opera can do what any of the most common plugins for FF do ( adblock,noscript,firebug,spellcheck,greasemonkey , and many many others ) , and generally better .
Among so many other lesser known features like delayed script execution and evaluation .
( I have a custom user js script that evalutates scripting on the page for exploits ( keylogging , cookie stealing , unsafe hyperlinking , heap spraying and dos vectors , rogue http requests ) before it even has a chance to execute , a feature not even the grease monkey scripts for FF can do to the same extent )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Umm...  I hear this so often, it's funny.
Opera has better than NoScript BUILT IN... you can edit it down to per site preference if it is allowd to run  java, js , play sound or not, etc, or even what scripts are allowed to do or not.
Sigh...   Oh yeah, it also has very configurable proxy settings that can be toggled.
(thus no need for foxy proxy).
Opera can do what any of the most common plugins for FF do (adblock,noscript,firebug,spellcheck,greasemonkey, and many many others), and generally better.
Among so many other lesser known features like delayed script execution and evaluation.
(I have a custom user js script that evalutates scripting on the page for exploits (keylogging, cookie stealing, unsafe hyperlinking, heap spraying and dos vectors, rogue http requests) before it even has a chance to execute, a feature not even the grease monkey scripts for FF can do to the same extent)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28215197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208851</id>
	<title>Imagine Hamlet utter:</title>
	<author>WaroDaBeast</author>
	<datestamp>1244127180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&ldquo;To be or to not be, that is the question.&rdquo;</htmltext>
<tokenext>   To be or to not be , that is the question.   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>“To be or to not be, that is the question.”</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28213911</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody gives a shit</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1244148000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bandwidth? Do you have any idea how many 56k users it takes to clog a 100mbit line, let alone multiple gbit lines?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p><p>Compressing that data takes CPU power, and memory to temporarily cache it. But considering the quad or octo-core servers we have available now, all packed with 48-192GB of memory.... this service could probably run fine off four to eight servers. Just scale it northward as you approach capacity.</p><p>Not exactly breaking the bank.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bandwidth ?
Do you have any idea how many 56k users it takes to clog a 100mbit line , let alone multiple gbit lines ?
: PCompressing that data takes CPU power , and memory to temporarily cache it .
But considering the quad or octo-core servers we have available now , all packed with 48-192GB of memory.... this service could probably run fine off four to eight servers .
Just scale it northward as you approach capacity.Not exactly breaking the bank .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bandwidth?
Do you have any idea how many 56k users it takes to clog a 100mbit line, let alone multiple gbit lines?
:PCompressing that data takes CPU power, and memory to temporarily cache it.
But considering the quad or octo-core servers we have available now, all packed with 48-192GB of memory.... this service could probably run fine off four to eight servers.
Just scale it northward as you approach capacity.Not exactly breaking the bank.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28209353</id>
	<title>Opera should get off the high horse</title>
	<author>saikou</author>
	<datestamp>1244129280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And get on a smaller horse, by making itself by default behave \_exactly\_ like Firefox (or IE) regarding those "non-standard-compliant-enough" sites.<br>Add "I want to browse Opera style" for those who prefers principles over ability to view most sites normally<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>Once it gains, say, 10\% of the marketplace across most high-traffic sites, developers will bother to try to make their sites compatible with Opera too.</p><p>Otherwise it's like making a car that is great, user friendly, but can only drive on fully standard-compliant roads, causing horrible clunking and unpredictable turns and jumps on not-so-compliant roads (that won't be re-paved because other cars don't have many issues). Good for principles, bad for market share.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And get on a smaller horse , by making itself by default behave \ _exactly \ _ like Firefox ( or IE ) regarding those " non-standard-compliant-enough " sites.Add " I want to browse Opera style " for those who prefers principles over ability to view most sites normally : ) Once it gains , say , 10 \ % of the marketplace across most high-traffic sites , developers will bother to try to make their sites compatible with Opera too.Otherwise it 's like making a car that is great , user friendly , but can only drive on fully standard-compliant roads , causing horrible clunking and unpredictable turns and jumps on not-so-compliant roads ( that wo n't be re-paved because other cars do n't have many issues ) .
Good for principles , bad for market share .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And get on a smaller horse, by making itself by default behave \_exactly\_ like Firefox (or IE) regarding those "non-standard-compliant-enough" sites.Add "I want to browse Opera style" for those who prefers principles over ability to view most sites normally :)Once it gains, say, 10\% of the marketplace across most high-traffic sites, developers will bother to try to make their sites compatible with Opera too.Otherwise it's like making a car that is great, user friendly, but can only drive on fully standard-compliant roads, causing horrible clunking and unpredictable turns and jumps on not-so-compliant roads (that won't be re-paved because other cars don't have many issues).
Good for principles, bad for market share.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208583</id>
	<title>Re:Squid + Gzip</title>
	<author>Burdell</author>
	<datestamp>1244126100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is nothing new; it sounds like the same thing the "download accelerators" have been doing for years.  My ISP has been offering <a href="http://www.propel.com/" title="propel.com">Propel</a> [propel.com] for almost 5 years.  The only difference is that now a browser vendor gets to collect stats about your web use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is nothing new ; it sounds like the same thing the " download accelerators " have been doing for years .
My ISP has been offering Propel [ propel.com ] for almost 5 years .
The only difference is that now a browser vendor gets to collect stats about your web use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is nothing new; it sounds like the same thing the "download accelerators" have been doing for years.
My ISP has been offering Propel [propel.com] for almost 5 years.
The only difference is that now a browser vendor gets to collect stats about your web use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208249</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28216057</id>
	<title>Re:How to get turbo browsing with free software</title>
	<author>jspraul</author>
	<datestamp>1244115600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did you miss the '(with compression)' part? The SSH solution squashes everything, without special treatment for anything (lossless images).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you miss the ' ( with compression ) ' part ?
The SSH solution squashes everything , without special treatment for anything ( lossless images ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you miss the '(with compression)' part?
The SSH solution squashes everything, without special treatment for anything (lossless images).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28210139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208127</id>
	<title>Phenomenal browser</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244123700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Opera is a phenomenal browser. Seriously, they keep churning out useful features for their browser, and it's a pleasure to use. It definitely feels faster than the other major browsers, though they're all pretty good nowadays.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Opera is a phenomenal browser .
Seriously , they keep churning out useful features for their browser , and it 's a pleasure to use .
It definitely feels faster than the other major browsers , though they 're all pretty good nowadays .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Opera is a phenomenal browser.
Seriously, they keep churning out useful features for their browser, and it's a pleasure to use.
It definitely feels faster than the other major browsers, though they're all pretty good nowadays.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28209607</id>
	<title>Re:Ugly.</title>
	<author>Millennium</author>
	<datestamp>1244130180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I'm not an interface elitist or an apple fanboy, but I can't use software that gets on my nerves and Opera and Vista occupy the top two slots for that.</i></p><p>Sounds like an interface elitist to me. Possibly even an Apple fanboy, if you insist on "native widgets" instead of controls that are actually suited to a Web environment (for example, by responding to styling). Users of other platforms conceded the necessity of this long ago; only the Apple zealots hold out against it, and they hurt the Web by doing so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not an interface elitist or an apple fanboy , but I ca n't use software that gets on my nerves and Opera and Vista occupy the top two slots for that.Sounds like an interface elitist to me .
Possibly even an Apple fanboy , if you insist on " native widgets " instead of controls that are actually suited to a Web environment ( for example , by responding to styling ) .
Users of other platforms conceded the necessity of this long ago ; only the Apple zealots hold out against it , and they hurt the Web by doing so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not an interface elitist or an apple fanboy, but I can't use software that gets on my nerves and Opera and Vista occupy the top two slots for that.Sounds like an interface elitist to me.
Possibly even an Apple fanboy, if you insist on "native widgets" instead of controls that are actually suited to a Web environment (for example, by responding to styling).
Users of other platforms conceded the necessity of this long ago; only the Apple zealots hold out against it, and they hurt the Web by doing so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28209081</id>
	<title>Re:Ugly.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244128320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, I have never understood what their deal is with the look and feel.  This isn't helped by the fact that they're still using the ancient Qt3.</p><p>Opera feels foreign on every platform.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I have never understood what their deal is with the look and feel .
This is n't helped by the fact that they 're still using the ancient Qt3.Opera feels foreign on every platform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I have never understood what their deal is with the look and feel.
This isn't helped by the fact that they're still using the ancient Qt3.Opera feels foreign on every platform.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208845</id>
	<title>Re:Ugly.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244127180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quit being a fag, no one cares about your monochromatic mac bullshit. If it is so hideous then just shut the fuck up and don't use it. No one cares. The rest of the world who actually gets work done will use what functions and what we like while you can keep sitting in starbucks with your pirated little version of Photoshop drawing penises.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quit being a fag , no one cares about your monochromatic mac bullshit .
If it is so hideous then just shut the fuck up and do n't use it .
No one cares .
The rest of the world who actually gets work done will use what functions and what we like while you can keep sitting in starbucks with your pirated little version of Photoshop drawing penises .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quit being a fag, no one cares about your monochromatic mac bullshit.
If it is so hideous then just shut the fuck up and don't use it.
No one cares.
The rest of the world who actually gets work done will use what functions and what we like while you can keep sitting in starbucks with your pirated little version of Photoshop drawing penises.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208645</id>
	<title>Nice slashvertisment</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244126400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would try it out if it was open source.<br>I would perhaps consider it if it at least came with source code (even under a proprietary license).<br>Being accustomed to open-source, it seems very unnatural to pay for software and get no source code,<br>when the free equivalent comes with source.</p><p>Firefox is reasonable for my use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would try it out if it was open source.I would perhaps consider it if it at least came with source code ( even under a proprietary license ) .Being accustomed to open-source , it seems very unnatural to pay for software and get no source code,when the free equivalent comes with source.Firefox is reasonable for my use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would try it out if it was open source.I would perhaps consider it if it at least came with source code (even under a proprietary license).Being accustomed to open-source, it seems very unnatural to pay for software and get no source code,when the free equivalent comes with source.Firefox is reasonable for my use.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28211149</id>
	<title>Re:Opera is free-as-in-beer, BTW</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1244136600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;it's the only browser that still supports the older Mac OS X 10.3.9</p><p>But not OS 10.2.  Crud.</p><p>I see Windows Opera will work as far back as 1995.  Nice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; it 's the only browser that still supports the older Mac OS X 10.3.9But not OS 10.2 .
Crud.I see Windows Opera will work as far back as 1995 .
Nice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;it's the only browser that still supports the older Mac OS X 10.3.9But not OS 10.2.
Crud.I see Windows Opera will work as far back as 1995.
Nice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208941</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox just has too many useful addons</title>
	<author>KDEWolf</author>
	<datestamp>1244127600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yeah, so much of my web browsing today depends on a number of Firefox add-ons that simply JFW for a variety of things.  Opera could be the greatest browser on the planet, but without AdBlock Plus (no, a manually configured host-filtering hack is not equivalent) or GreaseMonkey, or any other FF extensions I occasionally find use for (FxIF, del.icio.us, TwitterFox, , I simply can't adopt it seriously.</p></div><p>You do need to read some more<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. hehe:<br>
<a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1255487&amp;cid=28202971" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">You just don't need addons, it's right here for you to use!</a> [slashdot.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , so much of my web browsing today depends on a number of Firefox add-ons that simply JFW for a variety of things .
Opera could be the greatest browser on the planet , but without AdBlock Plus ( no , a manually configured host-filtering hack is not equivalent ) or GreaseMonkey , or any other FF extensions I occasionally find use for ( FxIF , del.icio.us , TwitterFox , , I simply ca n't adopt it seriously.You do need to read some more / .
hehe : You just do n't need addons , it 's right here for you to use !
[ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, so much of my web browsing today depends on a number of Firefox add-ons that simply JFW for a variety of things.
Opera could be the greatest browser on the planet, but without AdBlock Plus (no, a manually configured host-filtering hack is not equivalent) or GreaseMonkey, or any other FF extensions I occasionally find use for (FxIF, del.icio.us, TwitterFox, , I simply can't adopt it seriously.You do need to read some more /.
hehe:
You just don't need addons, it's right here for you to use!
[slashdot.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208565</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28210781</id>
	<title>Re:'turbo'</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244135100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>so, the software somehow uses a gas or liquid turbine?  I'm confused.</p></div><p>I imagine its turbochargers in cars that ruined the prefix 'turbo,' and probably with a lot of help from great products like TurboTax.  Now it just means fast or extreme.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>so , the software somehow uses a gas or liquid turbine ?
I 'm confused.I imagine its turbochargers in cars that ruined the prefix 'turbo, ' and probably with a lot of help from great products like TurboTax .
Now it just means fast or extreme .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so, the software somehow uses a gas or liquid turbine?
I'm confused.I imagine its turbochargers in cars that ruined the prefix 'turbo,' and probably with a lot of help from great products like TurboTax.
Now it just means fast or extreme.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208725</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28209293</id>
	<title>Re:Ugly.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244129040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Calm down. This is the first beta of Opera 10. Fixing look and feel stuff usually comes near the end.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Calm down .
This is the first beta of Opera 10 .
Fixing look and feel stuff usually comes near the end .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Calm down.
This is the first beta of Opera 10.
Fixing look and feel stuff usually comes near the end.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28210089</id>
	<title>Turbo</title>
	<author>nnet</author>
	<datestamp>1244132280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So I tried the beta, enabled Turbo, hit a page on my site that shows requester IP, discovered two things: src address wasn't mine, and ipv6 is not supported. Looks like this turbo feature is just a cache, similar to what some ISPs offer as "speed increase". The src address was 64.255.180.34<p>
34.180.255.64.in-addr.arpa. 300 IN      CNAME   34.0-24.180.255.64.in-addr.arpa.
34.0-24.180.255.64.in-addr.arpa. 6835 IN PTR    r02-02.opera-mini.net.
</p><p>
Why would I want to fill up their cache with my browsing habits?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So I tried the beta , enabled Turbo , hit a page on my site that shows requester IP , discovered two things : src address was n't mine , and ipv6 is not supported .
Looks like this turbo feature is just a cache , similar to what some ISPs offer as " speed increase " .
The src address was 64.255.180.34 34.180.255.64.in-addr.arpa .
300 IN CNAME 34.0-24.180.255.64.in-addr.arpa .
34.0-24.180.255.64.in-addr.arpa. 6835 IN PTR r02-02.opera-mini.net .
Why would I want to fill up their cache with my browsing habits ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I tried the beta, enabled Turbo, hit a page on my site that shows requester IP, discovered two things: src address wasn't mine, and ipv6 is not supported.
Looks like this turbo feature is just a cache, similar to what some ISPs offer as "speed increase".
The src address was 64.255.180.34
34.180.255.64.in-addr.arpa.
300 IN      CNAME   34.0-24.180.255.64.in-addr.arpa.
34.0-24.180.255.64.in-addr.arpa. 6835 IN PTR    r02-02.opera-mini.net.
Why would I want to fill up their cache with my browsing habits?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208809</id>
	<title>Evidence</title>
	<author>Saba</author>
	<datestamp>1244127060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; Opera 10 proved itself to outperform every other desktop browser on the planet, and there are <i>graphs to prove it.</i> <br> <br>

Well damn, colour me impressed!</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Opera 10 proved itself to outperform every other desktop browser on the planet , and there are graphs to prove it .
Well damn , colour me impressed !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Opera 10 proved itself to outperform every other desktop browser on the planet, and there are graphs to prove it.
Well damn, colour me impressed!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28215785</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox just has too many useful addons</title>
	<author>IRWolfie-</author>
	<datestamp>1244114160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>does it have anything like noscript? or vimperator?

These two are the main reason i use firefox at the moment. Noscript is invaluable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>does it have anything like noscript ?
or vimperator ?
These two are the main reason i use firefox at the moment .
Noscript is invaluable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>does it have anything like noscript?
or vimperator?
These two are the main reason i use firefox at the moment.
Noscript is invaluable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208737</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28209761</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox just has too many useful addons</title>
	<author>parlancex</author>
	<datestamp>1244130780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Consider that with increased peformance ads no longer have any measurable perfect on your browsing anyway, or perhaps consider many other robust ad-blocking software packages that work directly at the socket level, blocking connections to black-listed ad-serving servers below the browser.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Consider that with increased peformance ads no longer have any measurable perfect on your browsing anyway , or perhaps consider many other robust ad-blocking software packages that work directly at the socket level , blocking connections to black-listed ad-serving servers below the browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Consider that with increased peformance ads no longer have any measurable perfect on your browsing anyway, or perhaps consider many other robust ad-blocking software packages that work directly at the socket level, blocking connections to black-listed ad-serving servers below the browser.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208565</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28209135</id>
	<title>Re:Opera is free-as-in-beer, BTW</title>
	<author>IBBoard</author>
	<datestamp>1244128500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Camino still works on OS X 10.3.9. I've got the wife's old iBook and it's the best browser I can find. Not quite as good as Firefox, but most of the way there, plus it doesn't look ugly and out of place on not just one but all desktops!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Camino still works on OS X 10.3.9 .
I 've got the wife 's old iBook and it 's the best browser I can find .
Not quite as good as Firefox , but most of the way there , plus it does n't look ugly and out of place on not just one but all desktops !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Camino still works on OS X 10.3.9.
I've got the wife's old iBook and it's the best browser I can find.
Not quite as good as Firefox, but most of the way there, plus it doesn't look ugly and out of place on not just one but all desktops!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208071</id>
	<title>How to get turbo browsing with free software</title>
	<author>Ed Avis</author>
	<datestamp>1244123520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back when my net connection was a 56kb/s modem, I used to make an ssh connection (with compression) to a machine at university, and then tunnel through that to the university's http proxy server.  That gave a handy speed increase compared to making http requests directly over the modem link.  You could also try the <a href="http://rabbit-proxy.sourceforge.net/" title="sourceforge.net">RabbIT</a> [sourceforge.net] compressing web proxy.  All this relies on having a server somewhere with a fast net connection that you can run programs on - and this is the service that Opera Software are really providing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back when my net connection was a 56kb/s modem , I used to make an ssh connection ( with compression ) to a machine at university , and then tunnel through that to the university 's http proxy server .
That gave a handy speed increase compared to making http requests directly over the modem link .
You could also try the RabbIT [ sourceforge.net ] compressing web proxy .
All this relies on having a server somewhere with a fast net connection that you can run programs on - and this is the service that Opera Software are really providing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back when my net connection was a 56kb/s modem, I used to make an ssh connection (with compression) to a machine at university, and then tunnel through that to the university's http proxy server.
That gave a handy speed increase compared to making http requests directly over the modem link.
You could also try the RabbIT [sourceforge.net] compressing web proxy.
All this relies on having a server somewhere with a fast net connection that you can run programs on - and this is the service that Opera Software are really providing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28209957</id>
	<title>Re:Ugly.</title>
	<author>Bill, Shooter of Bul</author>
	<datestamp>1244131740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow, that critic seems <a href="http://www.osnews.com/story/21611/Opera\_10\_Beta\_Is\_Out" title="osnews.com">oddly familiar</a> [osnews.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , that critic seems oddly familiar [ osnews.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, that critic seems oddly familiar [osnews.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28214133</id>
	<title>Re:Phenomenal browser</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1244148840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's worth noting that pre-Opera9, most of those site glitches were Opera related.</p><p>element.style.backgroundColor = '#ffff80';</p><p>Works fine in just about every browser. Works in FF(all), IE(all), Opera(9), Google Chrome, and probably Safari. You can use it on body elements to create crazy funky background colour shifting, and also use it for fading.</p><p>Opera 8 needs this:</p><p>element.style.bgColor = '#ffff80';</p><p>Some properties also can't be set without calling setAttribute. Ex:</p><p>element.setAttribute('bgcolor', '#ffff80');</p><p>I haven't come across any such stupidity in Opera 9, so those sites are probably broken because they deviate from the standard. People criticize Firefox for taking a long time to implement features, but it's had great compatibility from the start. Opera only just recently acquired that.</p><p>Just pointing out that Opera is neither a bad browser nor the best one. Lots of people above are either worshipping it or slamming it. It's just another one, which prioritizes security and new features over compatibility. As a contrast, Google Chrome prioritizes security and simplicity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's worth noting that pre-Opera9 , most of those site glitches were Opera related.element.style.backgroundColor = ' # ffff80 ' ; Works fine in just about every browser .
Works in FF ( all ) , IE ( all ) , Opera ( 9 ) , Google Chrome , and probably Safari .
You can use it on body elements to create crazy funky background colour shifting , and also use it for fading.Opera 8 needs this : element.style.bgColor = ' # ffff80 ' ; Some properties also ca n't be set without calling setAttribute .
Ex : element.setAttribute ( 'bgcolor ' , ' # ffff80 ' ) ; I have n't come across any such stupidity in Opera 9 , so those sites are probably broken because they deviate from the standard .
People criticize Firefox for taking a long time to implement features , but it 's had great compatibility from the start .
Opera only just recently acquired that.Just pointing out that Opera is neither a bad browser nor the best one .
Lots of people above are either worshipping it or slamming it .
It 's just another one , which prioritizes security and new features over compatibility .
As a contrast , Google Chrome prioritizes security and simplicity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's worth noting that pre-Opera9, most of those site glitches were Opera related.element.style.backgroundColor = '#ffff80';Works fine in just about every browser.
Works in FF(all), IE(all), Opera(9), Google Chrome, and probably Safari.
You can use it on body elements to create crazy funky background colour shifting, and also use it for fading.Opera 8 needs this:element.style.bgColor = '#ffff80';Some properties also can't be set without calling setAttribute.
Ex:element.setAttribute('bgcolor', '#ffff80');I haven't come across any such stupidity in Opera 9, so those sites are probably broken because they deviate from the standard.
People criticize Firefox for taking a long time to implement features, but it's had great compatibility from the start.
Opera only just recently acquired that.Just pointing out that Opera is neither a bad browser nor the best one.
Lots of people above are either worshipping it or slamming it.
It's just another one, which prioritizes security and new features over compatibility.
As a contrast, Google Chrome prioritizes security and simplicity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208345</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208499</id>
	<title>Re:Squid + Gzip</title>
	<author>TheP4st</author>
	<datestamp>1244125680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>More specifically what it does is resizing images and disables a lot of plugin content that otherwise would slow the page loading to a crawl on a slow connections. This of course is done on a proxy server as you correctly assumed. Granted you end up with somewhat pixelated images and plugin content that you have to "activate" by clicking. While this is not of much interest to most of us here there is also a very big share of people that certainly can benefit from it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>More specifically what it does is resizing images and disables a lot of plugin content that otherwise would slow the page loading to a crawl on a slow connections .
This of course is done on a proxy server as you correctly assumed .
Granted you end up with somewhat pixelated images and plugin content that you have to " activate " by clicking .
While this is not of much interest to most of us here there is also a very big share of people that certainly can benefit from it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More specifically what it does is resizing images and disables a lot of plugin content that otherwise would slow the page loading to a crawl on a slow connections.
This of course is done on a proxy server as you correctly assumed.
Granted you end up with somewhat pixelated images and plugin content that you have to "activate" by clicking.
While this is not of much interest to most of us here there is also a very big share of people that certainly can benefit from it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208249</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28209505</id>
	<title>I remember when</title>
	<author>fast turtle</author>
	<datestamp>1244129760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I used to have a 33.6k dialup connection (that's all my modem did). What I ended up doing to speed up my web browsing and such was add as many of the damn advertiser websites into my hosts file. The advantages included never having to wait for a flaky doubleclick to respond, thus speeding up the page loading plus the obvious of never seeing the ads. The other trick I used to use was disable the loading of images and with IE I could at least get a placeholder to show where an image was. This really sped things up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to have a 33.6k dialup connection ( that 's all my modem did ) .
What I ended up doing to speed up my web browsing and such was add as many of the damn advertiser websites into my hosts file .
The advantages included never having to wait for a flaky doubleclick to respond , thus speeding up the page loading plus the obvious of never seeing the ads .
The other trick I used to use was disable the loading of images and with IE I could at least get a placeholder to show where an image was .
This really sped things up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to have a 33.6k dialup connection (that's all my modem did).
What I ended up doing to speed up my web browsing and such was add as many of the damn advertiser websites into my hosts file.
The advantages included never having to wait for a flaky doubleclick to respond, thus speeding up the page loading plus the obvious of never seeing the ads.
The other trick I used to use was disable the loading of images and with IE I could at least get a placeholder to show where an image was.
This really sped things up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28210139</id>
	<title>Re:How to get turbo browsing with free software</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1244132520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;That gave a handy speed increase compared to making http requests directly over the modem link</p><p>That's not quite the same.  The summary read: "Opera Turbo shrinks pages before sending them."  If it operates like my Netscape Web Accelerator, it squashes everything.  Text is shrunk to about 5\% original size, images to around 10\% original size, and Java and other executables shrunk to 20\%.   This approach makes my 50k dialup have an apparent speed equal to my 750k DSL connection!</p><p>The only drawback is that the images, when compressed, look like crap but if you're only interesting in browsing the internet for information, not the pron, then that's okay and acceptable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; That gave a handy speed increase compared to making http requests directly over the modem linkThat 's not quite the same .
The summary read : " Opera Turbo shrinks pages before sending them .
" If it operates like my Netscape Web Accelerator , it squashes everything .
Text is shrunk to about 5 \ % original size , images to around 10 \ % original size , and Java and other executables shrunk to 20 \ % .
This approach makes my 50k dialup have an apparent speed equal to my 750k DSL connection ! The only drawback is that the images , when compressed , look like crap but if you 're only interesting in browsing the internet for information , not the pron , then that 's okay and acceptable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;That gave a handy speed increase compared to making http requests directly over the modem linkThat's not quite the same.
The summary read: "Opera Turbo shrinks pages before sending them.
"  If it operates like my Netscape Web Accelerator, it squashes everything.
Text is shrunk to about 5\% original size, images to around 10\% original size, and Java and other executables shrunk to 20\%.
This approach makes my 50k dialup have an apparent speed equal to my 750k DSL connection!The only drawback is that the images, when compressed, look like crap but if you're only interesting in browsing the internet for information, not the pron, then that's okay and acceptable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208071</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28209481</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox just has too many useful addons</title>
	<author>icebraining</author>
	<datestamp>1244129700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about DownThemAll, NoScript, Brief and Vimperator? Maybe Opera can work for most people, but Firefox is still so much more adaptable...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about DownThemAll , NoScript , Brief and Vimperator ?
Maybe Opera can work for most people , but Firefox is still so much more adaptable.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about DownThemAll, NoScript, Brief and Vimperator?
Maybe Opera can work for most people, but Firefox is still so much more adaptable...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208737</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208643</id>
	<title>Re:Opera is free-as-in-beer, BTW</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244126340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Opera has been free for the best part of a decade now. Before that it had an ad which you could pay to remove.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Opera has been free for the best part of a decade now .
Before that it had an ad which you could pay to remove .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Opera has been free for the best part of a decade now.
Before that it had an ad which you could pay to remove.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208255</id>
	<title>Ugly.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244124360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Words cannot describe how ugly this is on OS X. The purple colour (a colour option picked up from an earlier version) clashes with the grey of any other window, that can be changed though. The black is overbearing and doesnt meld with the title bar. The whole thing stands out like a sore thumb. I somehow feel like the chrome looks like a webpage, rather than something for browsing web pages.</p><p>I cannot believe someone who created the Firefox icon could create something so hideous and inappropriate, especially when Opera marketshare is bad enough already. I could not bear to look at this all day, every day, it would drive me mad.</p><p>A browser should be transparent, a thin veneer between me and the web page. Not a clown honking his horn in my face.</p><p>I went into preferences and changed to the Mac "native" theme and no particular colour, mildly improved, but still the black is overpowering, the new-tab button is the wrong colour, and the side pane has a tinge of blue that doesnt work well with the OS X grey. The tab touching the title bar also just looks poor and conflicting.</p><p>This is the same terrible interface design they've had since 2006. It's goudy, non-native, clashes with the websites you view, and generally gets in the way, the toolkit underneath still rears it's ugly head in how the app works, and the general layout of the widgets. The dialogues throughout the app crap all over the spacing guides in the HIG. Every inch of this app is annoying and grates on me. I'm not an interface elitist or an apple fanboy, but I can't use software that gets on my nerves and Opera and Vista occupy the top two slots for that.</p><p>The browser is eclectic, with too many preferences, too complicated preferences, too many customisation options. Features not everybody needs, or wants.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Words can not describe how ugly this is on OS X. The purple colour ( a colour option picked up from an earlier version ) clashes with the grey of any other window , that can be changed though .
The black is overbearing and doesnt meld with the title bar .
The whole thing stands out like a sore thumb .
I somehow feel like the chrome looks like a webpage , rather than something for browsing web pages.I can not believe someone who created the Firefox icon could create something so hideous and inappropriate , especially when Opera marketshare is bad enough already .
I could not bear to look at this all day , every day , it would drive me mad.A browser should be transparent , a thin veneer between me and the web page .
Not a clown honking his horn in my face.I went into preferences and changed to the Mac " native " theme and no particular colour , mildly improved , but still the black is overpowering , the new-tab button is the wrong colour , and the side pane has a tinge of blue that doesnt work well with the OS X grey .
The tab touching the title bar also just looks poor and conflicting.This is the same terrible interface design they 've had since 2006 .
It 's goudy , non-native , clashes with the websites you view , and generally gets in the way , the toolkit underneath still rears it 's ugly head in how the app works , and the general layout of the widgets .
The dialogues throughout the app crap all over the spacing guides in the HIG .
Every inch of this app is annoying and grates on me .
I 'm not an interface elitist or an apple fanboy , but I ca n't use software that gets on my nerves and Opera and Vista occupy the top two slots for that.The browser is eclectic , with too many preferences , too complicated preferences , too many customisation options .
Features not everybody needs , or wants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Words cannot describe how ugly this is on OS X. The purple colour (a colour option picked up from an earlier version) clashes with the grey of any other window, that can be changed though.
The black is overbearing and doesnt meld with the title bar.
The whole thing stands out like a sore thumb.
I somehow feel like the chrome looks like a webpage, rather than something for browsing web pages.I cannot believe someone who created the Firefox icon could create something so hideous and inappropriate, especially when Opera marketshare is bad enough already.
I could not bear to look at this all day, every day, it would drive me mad.A browser should be transparent, a thin veneer between me and the web page.
Not a clown honking his horn in my face.I went into preferences and changed to the Mac "native" theme and no particular colour, mildly improved, but still the black is overpowering, the new-tab button is the wrong colour, and the side pane has a tinge of blue that doesnt work well with the OS X grey.
The tab touching the title bar also just looks poor and conflicting.This is the same terrible interface design they've had since 2006.
It's goudy, non-native, clashes with the websites you view, and generally gets in the way, the toolkit underneath still rears it's ugly head in how the app works, and the general layout of the widgets.
The dialogues throughout the app crap all over the spacing guides in the HIG.
Every inch of this app is annoying and grates on me.
I'm not an interface elitist or an apple fanboy, but I can't use software that gets on my nerves and Opera and Vista occupy the top two slots for that.The browser is eclectic, with too many preferences, too complicated preferences, too many customisation options.
Features not everybody needs, or wants.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208745</id>
	<title>Re:Phenomenal browser</title>
	<author>Abcd1234</author>
	<datestamp>1244126820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean like the native widgets Firefox supports as of version 3?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean like the native widgets Firefox supports as of version 3 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean like the native widgets Firefox supports as of version 3?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208353</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208035</id>
	<title>first</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244123340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>first</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>first</tokentext>
<sentencetext>first</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28209583</id>
	<title>Re:Phenomenal browser</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244130060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Name me a worthwhile site that doesn't render correctly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Name me a worthwhile site that does n't render correctly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Name me a worthwhile site that doesn't render correctly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208345</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28210691</id>
	<title>"every other desktop browser on the planet?"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244134740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love claims like this.  It's like the radio station that plays the "top ten songs of all time" or a restaurant that serves "the best corned beef on rye in the Universe"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love claims like this .
It 's like the radio station that plays the " top ten songs of all time " or a restaurant that serves " the best corned beef on rye in the Universe "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love claims like this.
It's like the radio station that plays the "top ten songs of all time" or a restaurant that serves "the best corned beef on rye in the Universe"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28217467</id>
	<title>Re:Phenomenal browser</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244125440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On my Fedora 10 x86\_64, Opera 9 crashes more often than Firefox + Adobe labs alpha refresh Flash when running lots of open tabs &amp; windows. Maybe Opera 10 will be better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On my Fedora 10 x86 \ _64 , Opera 9 crashes more often than Firefox + Adobe labs alpha refresh Flash when running lots of open tabs &amp; windows .
Maybe Opera 10 will be better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On my Fedora 10 x86\_64, Opera 9 crashes more often than Firefox + Adobe labs alpha refresh Flash when running lots of open tabs &amp; windows.
Maybe Opera 10 will be better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28212611</id>
	<title>Re:Ugly.</title>
	<author>amicusNYCL</author>
	<datestamp>1244143020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The original author of that got destroyed on his own comments page.  I'm not sure if he decided to also anonymously troll Slashdot or if another AC decided to troll for him.  He's even saying he's going to rewrite the article:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>addendum: As an apology to the community for the reckless and inadequate review I will be doing it again, properly, taking into consideration your fine comments.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The original author of that got destroyed on his own comments page .
I 'm not sure if he decided to also anonymously troll Slashdot or if another AC decided to troll for him .
He 's even saying he 's going to rewrite the article : addendum : As an apology to the community for the reckless and inadequate review I will be doing it again , properly , taking into consideration your fine comments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The original author of that got destroyed on his own comments page.
I'm not sure if he decided to also anonymously troll Slashdot or if another AC decided to troll for him.
He's even saying he's going to rewrite the article:addendum: As an apology to the community for the reckless and inadequate review I will be doing it again, properly, taking into consideration your fine comments.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28209957</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28210735</id>
	<title>Re:Ugly.</title>
	<author>ifrag</author>
	<datestamp>1244134920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'm not an interface elitist or an apple fanboy</p></div></blockquote><p>
Thanks for clearing that up.  If you hadn't I'm sure everyone would have come to the wrong conclusion.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not an interface elitist or an apple fanboy Thanks for clearing that up .
If you had n't I 'm sure everyone would have come to the wrong conclusion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not an interface elitist or an apple fanboy
Thanks for clearing that up.
If you hadn't I'm sure everyone would have come to the wrong conclusion.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28211143</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox just has too many useful addons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244136540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LOL, you realise both those extensions you mention come as standard in Opera...</p><p>It's called Content Blocking and UserJS in Opera world, and existed LONG before Mozilla got around to copying them....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LOL , you realise both those extensions you mention come as standard in Opera...It 's called Content Blocking and UserJS in Opera world , and existed LONG before Mozilla got around to copying them... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LOL, you realise both those extensions you mention come as standard in Opera...It's called Content Blocking and UserJS in Opera world, and existed LONG before Mozilla got around to copying them....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208565</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28214209</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody gives a shit</title>
	<author>pwfffff</author>
	<datestamp>1244106000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Nobody gives a shit about Opera."<br>"Nobody except a total moron!"</p><p>You do realize the logical conclusion of this, right?</p><p>"Nobody except a total moron gives a shit about Opera."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Nobody gives a shit about Opera .
" " Nobody except a total moron !
" You do realize the logical conclusion of this , right ?
" Nobody except a total moron gives a shit about Opera .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Nobody gives a shit about Opera.
""Nobody except a total moron!
"You do realize the logical conclusion of this, right?
"Nobody except a total moron gives a shit about Opera.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28210291</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28209205</id>
	<title>Re:Ugly.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244128740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How to tell if you have SPS (Small Penis Syndrom): Read parent post</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How to tell if you have SPS ( Small Penis Syndrom ) : Read parent post</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How to tell if you have SPS (Small Penis Syndrom): Read parent post</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28210891</id>
	<title>Re:How to get turbo browsing with free software</title>
	<author>Ed Avis</author>
	<datestamp>1244135460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It depends on what it means by 'shrinks'.  If it's just gzip compression, then yes you do get that by tunnelling over an ssh proxy.  If you want to recompress images as well, use RabbIT.  Anything more than that (intelligent summarizing of text? rewriting bloated Javascript?) is an AI-complete problem.</p><p>I also found that cutting the overhead of TCP handshakes, DNS lookups etc. by just sending requests to a proxy server over an already-existing ssh tunnel noticeably reduces the delay between clicking on a link and the page starting to appear (the wait period that used to show 'host contacted, waiting for reply...' and all that in early browsers like Netscape).  This is before the effect of any content compression.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It depends on what it means by 'shrinks' .
If it 's just gzip compression , then yes you do get that by tunnelling over an ssh proxy .
If you want to recompress images as well , use RabbIT .
Anything more than that ( intelligent summarizing of text ?
rewriting bloated Javascript ?
) is an AI-complete problem.I also found that cutting the overhead of TCP handshakes , DNS lookups etc .
by just sending requests to a proxy server over an already-existing ssh tunnel noticeably reduces the delay between clicking on a link and the page starting to appear ( the wait period that used to show 'host contacted , waiting for reply... ' and all that in early browsers like Netscape ) .
This is before the effect of any content compression .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It depends on what it means by 'shrinks'.
If it's just gzip compression, then yes you do get that by tunnelling over an ssh proxy.
If you want to recompress images as well, use RabbIT.
Anything more than that (intelligent summarizing of text?
rewriting bloated Javascript?
) is an AI-complete problem.I also found that cutting the overhead of TCP handshakes, DNS lookups etc.
by just sending requests to a proxy server over an already-existing ssh tunnel noticeably reduces the delay between clicking on a link and the page starting to appear (the wait period that used to show 'host contacted, waiting for reply...' and all that in early browsers like Netscape).
This is before the effect of any content compression.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28210139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208687</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox just has too many useful addons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244126580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have to agree with this. I've been browsing for so long with NoScript and AdBlock that I can't go back. No one should have to endure purple monkeys and flashing balloon animations on their pages.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to agree with this .
I 've been browsing for so long with NoScript and AdBlock that I ca n't go back .
No one should have to endure purple monkeys and flashing balloon animations on their pages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to agree with this.
I've been browsing for so long with NoScript and AdBlock that I can't go back.
No one should have to endure purple monkeys and flashing balloon animations on their pages.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208565</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28211159</id>
	<title>Re:Phenomenal browser</title>
	<author>Wild Bill TX</author>
	<datestamp>1244136660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Facebook's new brokenness in Opera has been driving me insane.  You can join the discussion on it and bug report here: <a href="http://forum.developers.facebook.com/viewtopic.php?id=34783" title="facebook.com" rel="nofollow">http://forum.developers.facebook.com/viewtopic.php?id=34783</a> [facebook.com]
<br> <br>
It's fairly absurd, really.  The push that broke things did not seem to introduce any visible changes to the site, only internal changes that don't work in Opera.  The errors also affect Facebook Connect, so every site on the Internet using Facebook connect suddenly no longer works in Opera.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Facebook 's new brokenness in Opera has been driving me insane .
You can join the discussion on it and bug report here : http : //forum.developers.facebook.com/viewtopic.php ? id = 34783 [ facebook.com ] It 's fairly absurd , really .
The push that broke things did not seem to introduce any visible changes to the site , only internal changes that do n't work in Opera .
The errors also affect Facebook Connect , so every site on the Internet using Facebook connect suddenly no longer works in Opera .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Facebook's new brokenness in Opera has been driving me insane.
You can join the discussion on it and bug report here: http://forum.developers.facebook.com/viewtopic.php?id=34783 [facebook.com]
 
It's fairly absurd, really.
The push that broke things did not seem to introduce any visible changes to the site, only internal changes that don't work in Opera.
The errors also affect Facebook Connect, so every site on the Internet using Facebook connect suddenly no longer works in Opera.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208345</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28214625</id>
	<title>Re:Phenomenal browser</title>
	<author>Mex</author>
	<datestamp>1244108340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is true, I have 30 tabs open in my Opera and they are all immediately responsive, including the ones with video. My only problem is that sometimes I load a couple of videos and I forget which tab is playing them so I spend a few seconds trying to shut down 3 video streams or something.</p><p>Best browser ever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is true , I have 30 tabs open in my Opera and they are all immediately responsive , including the ones with video .
My only problem is that sometimes I load a couple of videos and I forget which tab is playing them so I spend a few seconds trying to shut down 3 video streams or something.Best browser ever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is true, I have 30 tabs open in my Opera and they are all immediately responsive, including the ones with video.
My only problem is that sometimes I load a couple of videos and I forget which tab is playing them so I spend a few seconds trying to shut down 3 video streams or something.Best browser ever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28211849</id>
	<title>Re:Phenomenal browser</title>
	<author>ceka</author>
	<datestamp>1244139600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It definitely feels faster than the other major browsers</p></div><p>I have the opposite experience: It feels slow for me.</p><p>I tried Opera just yesterday after the launch the beta. And reaction time for scrolling the window feels slow, at least considerably slower than FF.</p><p>When I scroll the slashdot page up/down in Firefox it feels instantaneous. In Opera I first see the scrollbar move then there is a half-a-second delay before the rest of the page moves.

</p><p>Does anyone else notice similar behavior?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It definitely feels faster than the other major browsersI have the opposite experience : It feels slow for me.I tried Opera just yesterday after the launch the beta .
And reaction time for scrolling the window feels slow , at least considerably slower than FF.When I scroll the slashdot page up/down in Firefox it feels instantaneous .
In Opera I first see the scrollbar move then there is a half-a-second delay before the rest of the page moves .
Does anyone else notice similar behavior ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It definitely feels faster than the other major browsersI have the opposite experience: It feels slow for me.I tried Opera just yesterday after the launch the beta.
And reaction time for scrolling the window feels slow, at least considerably slower than FF.When I scroll the slashdot page up/down in Firefox it feels instantaneous.
In Opera I first see the scrollbar move then there is a half-a-second delay before the rest of the page moves.
Does anyone else notice similar behavior?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28210431</id>
	<title>Sloppy Summary</title>
	<author>Jamie's Nightmare</author>
	<datestamp>1244133720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The summary states:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Javascript benchmarks put the new browser in fourth place overall, after Chrome 2, Safari 4 and Firefox, but it indeed passes the Acid3 test with a perfect score.</p></div><p>But the link provided in that statement?  They didn't even test Opera 10 in that study, until the very end of the article where it placed <b>fifth</b>, not forth.  The link in the previous sentence is the one showing the 4th place results.</p><p>Don't get me wrong, I love Opera, but I hate sloppy slashdotting.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The summary states : Javascript benchmarks put the new browser in fourth place overall , after Chrome 2 , Safari 4 and Firefox , but it indeed passes the Acid3 test with a perfect score.But the link provided in that statement ?
They did n't even test Opera 10 in that study , until the very end of the article where it placed fifth , not forth .
The link in the previous sentence is the one showing the 4th place results.Do n't get me wrong , I love Opera , but I hate sloppy slashdotting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summary states:Javascript benchmarks put the new browser in fourth place overall, after Chrome 2, Safari 4 and Firefox, but it indeed passes the Acid3 test with a perfect score.But the link provided in that statement?
They didn't even test Opera 10 in that study, until the very end of the article where it placed fifth, not forth.
The link in the previous sentence is the one showing the 4th place results.Don't get me wrong, I love Opera, but I hate sloppy slashdotting.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28210185</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody gives a shit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244132700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>About Opera. Seriously.</p></div><p>Really?  That build of FireFox you're using today would be barely recognizable if Opera had never come into being.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>About Opera .
Seriously.Really ? That build of FireFox you 're using today would be barely recognizable if Opera had never come into being .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>About Opera.
Seriously.Really?  That build of FireFox you're using today would be barely recognizable if Opera had never come into being.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208041</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208565</id>
	<title>Firefox just has too many useful addons</title>
	<author>Octorian</author>
	<datestamp>1244125980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, so much of my web browsing today depends on a number of Firefox add-ons that simply JFW for a variety of things.  Opera could be the greatest browser on the planet, but without AdBlock Plus (no, a manually configured host-filtering hack is not equivalent) or GreaseMonkey, or any other FF extensions I occasionally find use for (FxIF, del.icio.us, TwitterFox, , I simply can't adopt it seriously.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , so much of my web browsing today depends on a number of Firefox add-ons that simply JFW for a variety of things .
Opera could be the greatest browser on the planet , but without AdBlock Plus ( no , a manually configured host-filtering hack is not equivalent ) or GreaseMonkey , or any other FF extensions I occasionally find use for ( FxIF , del.icio.us , TwitterFox , , I simply ca n't adopt it seriously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, so much of my web browsing today depends on a number of Firefox add-ons that simply JFW for a variety of things.
Opera could be the greatest browser on the planet, but without AdBlock Plus (no, a manually configured host-filtering hack is not equivalent) or GreaseMonkey, or any other FF extensions I occasionally find use for (FxIF, del.icio.us, TwitterFox, , I simply can't adopt it seriously.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208443</id>
	<title>Re:Phenomenal browser</title>
	<author>rishistar</author>
	<datestamp>1244125380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I totally agree with this - in fact I started using Opera at version 5 and even paid for it. The BIG feature that made it brilliant above the competition in the year 2000 was the fact that with a single key press image downloads could be turned off, which really really helped when using the Caribbean dial up connection I had to use at the time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I totally agree with this - in fact I started using Opera at version 5 and even paid for it .
The BIG feature that made it brilliant above the competition in the year 2000 was the fact that with a single key press image downloads could be turned off , which really really helped when using the Caribbean dial up connection I had to use at the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I totally agree with this - in fact I started using Opera at version 5 and even paid for it.
The BIG feature that made it brilliant above the competition in the year 2000 was the fact that with a single key press image downloads could be turned off, which really really helped when using the Caribbean dial up connection I had to use at the time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208345</id>
	<title>Re:Phenomenal browser</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244124720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i've been using opera for quite a while, and i agree that it is an awesome browser.</p><p>the main problem however is that it's got bad compatibility with lots of sites. not really their problem, just that many sites don't bother to make sure everything works with opera.</p><p>besides obvious things like online banking, and microsoft junk, i've since a few weeks been having problems on facebook. lots of things suddenly stopped working, and it's seriously annoying....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i 've been using opera for quite a while , and i agree that it is an awesome browser.the main problem however is that it 's got bad compatibility with lots of sites .
not really their problem , just that many sites do n't bother to make sure everything works with opera.besides obvious things like online banking , and microsoft junk , i 've since a few weeks been having problems on facebook .
lots of things suddenly stopped working , and it 's seriously annoying... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i've been using opera for quite a while, and i agree that it is an awesome browser.the main problem however is that it's got bad compatibility with lots of sites.
not really their problem, just that many sites don't bother to make sure everything works with opera.besides obvious things like online banking, and microsoft junk, i've since a few weeks been having problems on facebook.
lots of things suddenly stopped working, and it's seriously annoying....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28214167</id>
	<title>In the fourth place overall</title>
	<author>chrysalis</author>
	<datestamp>1244149080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"In the fourth place overall, after Chrome 2, Safari 4 and Firefox"</p><p>Or said in a different way: no other browser performs worse, except IE.</p><p>And just like IE, it's still closed-source, proprietary software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" In the fourth place overall , after Chrome 2 , Safari 4 and Firefox " Or said in a different way : no other browser performs worse , except IE.And just like IE , it 's still closed-source , proprietary software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"In the fourth place overall, after Chrome 2, Safari 4 and Firefox"Or said in a different way: no other browser performs worse, except IE.And just like IE, it's still closed-source, proprietary software.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28212387</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody gives a shit</title>
	<author>tekiegreg</author>
	<datestamp>1244141880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder if they'll eventually go commercial with the Opera Turbo feature and offer for a monthly fee only.  Try and make up the cost...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if they 'll eventually go commercial with the Opera Turbo feature and offer for a monthly fee only .
Try and make up the cost.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if they'll eventually go commercial with the Opera Turbo feature and offer for a monthly fee only.
Try and make up the cost...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208531</id>
	<title>Re:Phenomenal browser</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1244125800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...It definitely feels faster than the other major browsers...</p></div><p>Especially since it remains fully responsive with much bigger number of open tabs than other browsers. So...you just open interesting pages in new tabs by middleclick where they load without locking the UI (Opera is quite multithreaded AFAIK) and wait, ready, for you (yeah, in that light I'm not that interested in Opera Turbo feature...perhaps when I'll be on 3G)</p><p>Plus it has several properly implemented ways of navigating said large number of tabs tabs (you don't have scroll tabbar or "window" menu, sidebar has treeview, and..."hold down RMB and, without releasing, move scrollwheel"), and also full keyboard navigation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...It definitely feels faster than the other major browsers...Especially since it remains fully responsive with much bigger number of open tabs than other browsers .
So...you just open interesting pages in new tabs by middleclick where they load without locking the UI ( Opera is quite multithreaded AFAIK ) and wait , ready , for you ( yeah , in that light I 'm not that interested in Opera Turbo feature...perhaps when I 'll be on 3G ) Plus it has several properly implemented ways of navigating said large number of tabs tabs ( you do n't have scroll tabbar or " window " menu , sidebar has treeview , and... " hold down RMB and , without releasing , move scrollwheel " ) , and also full keyboard navigation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...It definitely feels faster than the other major browsers...Especially since it remains fully responsive with much bigger number of open tabs than other browsers.
So...you just open interesting pages in new tabs by middleclick where they load without locking the UI (Opera is quite multithreaded AFAIK) and wait, ready, for you (yeah, in that light I'm not that interested in Opera Turbo feature...perhaps when I'll be on 3G)Plus it has several properly implemented ways of navigating said large number of tabs tabs (you don't have scroll tabbar or "window" menu, sidebar has treeview, and..."hold down RMB and, without releasing, move scrollwheel"), and also full keyboard navigation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28213553</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox just has too many useful addons</title>
	<author>93 Escort Wagon</author>
	<datestamp>1244146560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I guess the main problem of Opera is that people assume, because of beeing used to other apps, that there's now way it can pack so much in so little executable, so properly/speedy implemented.</p></div><p>I love these occasional Opera stories on Slashdot because it gives the Opera fans a chance to make all sorts of these somewhat absurd little statements. Well, at least no one has dragged out the "it's so much more standards compliant than any other browser" line... yet.</p><p>I'm glad you like your browser. The more browsers we have to choose from, the better. But I've tried Opera on a number of occasions, and I just never found it at all compelling. To each his own.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess the main problem of Opera is that people assume , because of beeing used to other apps , that there 's now way it can pack so much in so little executable , so properly/speedy implemented.I love these occasional Opera stories on Slashdot because it gives the Opera fans a chance to make all sorts of these somewhat absurd little statements .
Well , at least no one has dragged out the " it 's so much more standards compliant than any other browser " line... yet.I 'm glad you like your browser .
The more browsers we have to choose from , the better .
But I 've tried Opera on a number of occasions , and I just never found it at all compelling .
To each his own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess the main problem of Opera is that people assume, because of beeing used to other apps, that there's now way it can pack so much in so little executable, so properly/speedy implemented.I love these occasional Opera stories on Slashdot because it gives the Opera fans a chance to make all sorts of these somewhat absurd little statements.
Well, at least no one has dragged out the "it's so much more standards compliant than any other browser" line... yet.I'm glad you like your browser.
The more browsers we have to choose from, the better.
But I've tried Opera on a number of occasions, and I just never found it at all compelling.
To each his own.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208737</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208495</id>
	<title>Opera is free-as-in-beer, BTW</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1244125680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>For some reason I thought Opera was a pay browser (or had ads or something making it not free-as-in-beer). Yesterday I happened to visit their page and apparently it's offered without charge for desktop platforms (and without source code, of course). Ironically, it's the only browser that still supports the older Mac OS X 10.3.9; Apple's own Safari hasn't for years, and Firefox 3.x doesn't either.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For some reason I thought Opera was a pay browser ( or had ads or something making it not free-as-in-beer ) .
Yesterday I happened to visit their page and apparently it 's offered without charge for desktop platforms ( and without source code , of course ) .
Ironically , it 's the only browser that still supports the older Mac OS X 10.3.9 ; Apple 's own Safari has n't for years , and Firefox 3.x does n't either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For some reason I thought Opera was a pay browser (or had ads or something making it not free-as-in-beer).
Yesterday I happened to visit their page and apparently it's offered without charge for desktop platforms (and without source code, of course).
Ironically, it's the only browser that still supports the older Mac OS X 10.3.9; Apple's own Safari hasn't for years, and Firefox 3.x doesn't either.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28211667</id>
	<title>Major Issues</title>
	<author>freeridr</author>
	<datestamp>1244138700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been using Opera 10 for linux for the last couple months, trying the bleeding edge Opera 10 (upped to beta, not noticing much different behavior - tabs look great) and the latest stable 9.  I had issues with 9, which is why I grabbed 10 early.  The problems seem to be with specific sites, and I wonder if anyone has the same.  As far as I can tell Opera cannot, for its life, deal with Slashdot.  The browser greys out several times, I can't scroll smoothly, takes years to load.  Ironically the Opera crew built in a feature where you just type "/." into the address bar to come here too.  9 and the bleeding edge of 10 also treated gmail poorly, when I move the mouse over an email's message box and click my middle button to paste something (which I can do over the subject and address fields) I get moved to a different page, losing the most recent typing.  This was fixed for the beta realease and I am jumping with joy.  Opera also likes to disappear when I click on the text box for messages on both gmail and Facebook and it hates loading google maps, sometimes just refuses.  Google maps is still definitely an issue, but time will still have to tell about improvements to stability.  For Slashdot and Goolge maps I usually give up and open a Firefox window, which is what I had to do to post (this morning it took 5 refreshes to get the title bar to show up, but the browser still greyed out several times).  Crashes once or twice a day.  Really too bad, it has some rad features (basically takes everything I liked in chrome and rolls it into something similar to Firefox, which is nice since there's no chrome for linux yet).  Firefox still seems snappier too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been using Opera 10 for linux for the last couple months , trying the bleeding edge Opera 10 ( upped to beta , not noticing much different behavior - tabs look great ) and the latest stable 9 .
I had issues with 9 , which is why I grabbed 10 early .
The problems seem to be with specific sites , and I wonder if anyone has the same .
As far as I can tell Opera can not , for its life , deal with Slashdot .
The browser greys out several times , I ca n't scroll smoothly , takes years to load .
Ironically the Opera crew built in a feature where you just type " / .
" into the address bar to come here too .
9 and the bleeding edge of 10 also treated gmail poorly , when I move the mouse over an email 's message box and click my middle button to paste something ( which I can do over the subject and address fields ) I get moved to a different page , losing the most recent typing .
This was fixed for the beta realease and I am jumping with joy .
Opera also likes to disappear when I click on the text box for messages on both gmail and Facebook and it hates loading google maps , sometimes just refuses .
Google maps is still definitely an issue , but time will still have to tell about improvements to stability .
For Slashdot and Goolge maps I usually give up and open a Firefox window , which is what I had to do to post ( this morning it took 5 refreshes to get the title bar to show up , but the browser still greyed out several times ) .
Crashes once or twice a day .
Really too bad , it has some rad features ( basically takes everything I liked in chrome and rolls it into something similar to Firefox , which is nice since there 's no chrome for linux yet ) .
Firefox still seems snappier too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been using Opera 10 for linux for the last couple months, trying the bleeding edge Opera 10 (upped to beta, not noticing much different behavior - tabs look great) and the latest stable 9.
I had issues with 9, which is why I grabbed 10 early.
The problems seem to be with specific sites, and I wonder if anyone has the same.
As far as I can tell Opera cannot, for its life, deal with Slashdot.
The browser greys out several times, I can't scroll smoothly, takes years to load.
Ironically the Opera crew built in a feature where you just type "/.
" into the address bar to come here too.
9 and the bleeding edge of 10 also treated gmail poorly, when I move the mouse over an email's message box and click my middle button to paste something (which I can do over the subject and address fields) I get moved to a different page, losing the most recent typing.
This was fixed for the beta realease and I am jumping with joy.
Opera also likes to disappear when I click on the text box for messages on both gmail and Facebook and it hates loading google maps, sometimes just refuses.
Google maps is still definitely an issue, but time will still have to tell about improvements to stability.
For Slashdot and Goolge maps I usually give up and open a Firefox window, which is what I had to do to post (this morning it took 5 refreshes to get the title bar to show up, but the browser still greyed out several times).
Crashes once or twice a day.
Really too bad, it has some rad features (basically takes everything I liked in chrome and rolls it into something similar to Firefox, which is nice since there's no chrome for linux yet).
Firefox still seems snappier too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208717</id>
	<title>The significance of Opera Turbo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244126640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is not so much for using public WiFi. The big win of Opera Turbo is when you use your laptop tethered to a cell phone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is not so much for using public WiFi .
The big win of Opera Turbo is when you use your laptop tethered to a cell phone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is not so much for using public WiFi.
The big win of Opera Turbo is when you use your laptop tethered to a cell phone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28215197</id>
	<title>Th NoScript addon ...</title>
	<author>g00ey</author>
	<datestamp>1244111040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Something that prevents me from switching over to Opera is the FireFox addon called NoScript. I want to be in control of what scripts (such as flash and javascript) are being run in my browser. Many big sites are cluttered with those applets and swf's bringing down the perfornance and I'm happy to block 'em all out as this both cranks up the protection of my privacy a notch, gets a lot faster and a little less memory hungry.

<br> <br>Opera features what they call widgets (http://widgets.opera.com) which are claimed to be tantamount to FireFox addons but there is no such thing such as NoScript or FoxyProxy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Something that prevents me from switching over to Opera is the FireFox addon called NoScript .
I want to be in control of what scripts ( such as flash and javascript ) are being run in my browser .
Many big sites are cluttered with those applets and swf 's bringing down the perfornance and I 'm happy to block 'em all out as this both cranks up the protection of my privacy a notch , gets a lot faster and a little less memory hungry .
Opera features what they call widgets ( http : //widgets.opera.com ) which are claimed to be tantamount to FireFox addons but there is no such thing such as NoScript or FoxyProxy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Something that prevents me from switching over to Opera is the FireFox addon called NoScript.
I want to be in control of what scripts (such as flash and javascript) are being run in my browser.
Many big sites are cluttered with those applets and swf's bringing down the perfornance and I'm happy to block 'em all out as this both cranks up the protection of my privacy a notch, gets a lot faster and a little less memory hungry.
Opera features what they call widgets (http://widgets.opera.com) which are claimed to be tantamount to FireFox addons but there is no such thing such as NoScript or FoxyProxy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28210125</id>
	<title>Re:Phenomenal browser</title>
	<author>Racemaniac</author>
	<datestamp>1244132460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it may not occur to you, but there's plenty more than just correct rendering.<br>on facebook lots of interactive things suddenly stopped working, online banking scripts don't work, etc....<br>and i have seen sites that don't render perfectly, like the website of a pharmaceutical company my sister works at. when she asked to the people maintaining the site why it didn't render correctly on opera, they said opera's share was too small to be bothered with to make it work perfectly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it may not occur to you , but there 's plenty more than just correct rendering.on facebook lots of interactive things suddenly stopped working , online banking scripts do n't work , etc....and i have seen sites that do n't render perfectly , like the website of a pharmaceutical company my sister works at .
when she asked to the people maintaining the site why it did n't render correctly on opera , they said opera 's share was too small to be bothered with to make it work perfectly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it may not occur to you, but there's plenty more than just correct rendering.on facebook lots of interactive things suddenly stopped working, online banking scripts don't work, etc....and i have seen sites that don't render perfectly, like the website of a pharmaceutical company my sister works at.
when she asked to the people maintaining the site why it didn't render correctly on opera, they said opera's share was too small to be bothered with to make it work perfectly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28209583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28212255</id>
	<title>Re:Phenomenal browser</title>
	<author>amicusNYCL</author>
	<datestamp>1244141340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>besides obvious things like online banking, and microsoft junk,</p></div><p>Microsoft, probably more than anyone else, has actually gotten their act together with regard to Opera.  It used to be that they were actually delivering Opera a separate stylesheet to manually move everything off the page and mess up the margins, but now I can even use the MSDN articles just fine with Opera.  I certainly don't miss an opportunity to rub my Opera user agent string all over their logs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>besides obvious things like online banking , and microsoft junk,Microsoft , probably more than anyone else , has actually gotten their act together with regard to Opera .
It used to be that they were actually delivering Opera a separate stylesheet to manually move everything off the page and mess up the margins , but now I can even use the MSDN articles just fine with Opera .
I certainly do n't miss an opportunity to rub my Opera user agent string all over their logs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>besides obvious things like online banking, and microsoft junk,Microsoft, probably more than anyone else, has actually gotten their act together with regard to Opera.
It used to be that they were actually delivering Opera a separate stylesheet to manually move everything off the page and mess up the margins, but now I can even use the MSDN articles just fine with Opera.
I certainly don't miss an opportunity to rub my Opera user agent string all over their logs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208345</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28211545</id>
	<title>Re:Opera should get off the high horse</title>
	<author>BtEO</author>
	<datestamp>1244138220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's not how it works in reality though. Every browser ever made has bugs, sites will have to work around those bugs, and depending on the developers in question you might get one, two, or as many browsers as the developer is willing to test in, sets of workarounds.<br> <br>
Not to mention so much of the web is still a horrible mess of tag-soup where each browser vendor has had to make up support, and each other vendor has had to guess or reverse engineer what its competitors are doing.<br> <br>
Further to that Opera has, on at least two occasions that I remember, encountered examples of broken code because they support too many standards. Most notably in the case of when they introduced WebForms 2 support and several sites using previously non-standard values (the spec said all unknown values should be treated as "text") for &lt;input type=""&gt; suddenly were using values that meant very different things. There were also many problems caused because Opera was I believe the only browser to ever correctly support the third parameter of addEventListener(). Opera has since had to break its support because Mozilla concluded that too many sites would break if they implemented fully-correct support and ultimately I believe the spec has, or will be superceded with a version that reflects that end result.<br> <br>
And as a final point in my not-so-subtle suggestion that the biggest problem with site compatibility is actually web developers not knowing their job properly: Opera 10's user-agent is actually "Opera/9.80 (Windows NT 5.1; U; en) Presto/2.2.15 Version/10.00" because several high-profile sites assumed that no browser would ever reach a double digit version number (Flash has also seen this problem in a few places since version 10 of the plugin arrived.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not how it works in reality though .
Every browser ever made has bugs , sites will have to work around those bugs , and depending on the developers in question you might get one , two , or as many browsers as the developer is willing to test in , sets of workarounds .
Not to mention so much of the web is still a horrible mess of tag-soup where each browser vendor has had to make up support , and each other vendor has had to guess or reverse engineer what its competitors are doing .
Further to that Opera has , on at least two occasions that I remember , encountered examples of broken code because they support too many standards .
Most notably in the case of when they introduced WebForms 2 support and several sites using previously non-standard values ( the spec said all unknown values should be treated as " text " ) for suddenly were using values that meant very different things .
There were also many problems caused because Opera was I believe the only browser to ever correctly support the third parameter of addEventListener ( ) .
Opera has since had to break its support because Mozilla concluded that too many sites would break if they implemented fully-correct support and ultimately I believe the spec has , or will be superceded with a version that reflects that end result .
And as a final point in my not-so-subtle suggestion that the biggest problem with site compatibility is actually web developers not knowing their job properly : Opera 10 's user-agent is actually " Opera/9.80 ( Windows NT 5.1 ; U ; en ) Presto/2.2.15 Version/10.00 " because several high-profile sites assumed that no browser would ever reach a double digit version number ( Flash has also seen this problem in a few places since version 10 of the plugin arrived .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not how it works in reality though.
Every browser ever made has bugs, sites will have to work around those bugs, and depending on the developers in question you might get one, two, or as many browsers as the developer is willing to test in, sets of workarounds.
Not to mention so much of the web is still a horrible mess of tag-soup where each browser vendor has had to make up support, and each other vendor has had to guess or reverse engineer what its competitors are doing.
Further to that Opera has, on at least two occasions that I remember, encountered examples of broken code because they support too many standards.
Most notably in the case of when they introduced WebForms 2 support and several sites using previously non-standard values (the spec said all unknown values should be treated as "text") for  suddenly were using values that meant very different things.
There were also many problems caused because Opera was I believe the only browser to ever correctly support the third parameter of addEventListener().
Opera has since had to break its support because Mozilla concluded that too many sites would break if they implemented fully-correct support and ultimately I believe the spec has, or will be superceded with a version that reflects that end result.
And as a final point in my not-so-subtle suggestion that the biggest problem with site compatibility is actually web developers not knowing their job properly: Opera 10's user-agent is actually "Opera/9.80 (Windows NT 5.1; U; en) Presto/2.2.15 Version/10.00" because several high-profile sites assumed that no browser would ever reach a double digit version number (Flash has also seen this problem in a few places since version 10 of the plugin arrived.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28209353</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28211741</id>
	<title>Non-Standard = Ambiguous</title>
	<author>Kelson</author>
	<datestamp>1244139000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, have you got some specs for exactly the way IE and Gecko handle <b>every single case</b> of non-standard code?  Including cases where it's clear the code is broken, but it's not clear what the author meant, and multiple interpretations are equally valid?</p><p>No?  There's no specification?  They'll have to reverse-engineer it by visiting every page on the internet with IE and Firefox and seeing what those browsers do with them?  Gee, that sounds workable!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , have you got some specs for exactly the way IE and Gecko handle every single case of non-standard code ?
Including cases where it 's clear the code is broken , but it 's not clear what the author meant , and multiple interpretations are equally valid ? No ?
There 's no specification ?
They 'll have to reverse-engineer it by visiting every page on the internet with IE and Firefox and seeing what those browsers do with them ?
Gee , that sounds workable !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, have you got some specs for exactly the way IE and Gecko handle every single case of non-standard code?
Including cases where it's clear the code is broken, but it's not clear what the author meant, and multiple interpretations are equally valid?No?
There's no specification?
They'll have to reverse-engineer it by visiting every page on the internet with IE and Firefox and seeing what those browsers do with them?
Gee, that sounds workable!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28209353</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28218887</id>
	<title>Fails to mention many other tidbits...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244141880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>   Nobody seems to have noticed the nice things added to opera dragon fly with this update, first thing I noticed (with great joy) the addition of the FF equivalent of the "Why Slow" plugin.   Or the quick configure speed dial at the bottom right, and the addition of some new prefs under opera:config  , like auto updating.</p><p>Personally the primary reason I have always loved opera is it's fantastic tabbed browsing.  I simply can't live without the duplicate tab option, which not only duplicates the tab, but duplicates the history and session of that tab. (so few understand how incredibly usefull this can be).   I love the new tab preview pulldown,(I always have dozens of tabs open)      Opera is also a very secure browser. It does not allow many things that are used to exploit other browsers.  I know everyone is so gagga over FF plugins, but frankly FF's plugin model leaves security holes big enough to drive a mac truck thru.   The difference between 0wning , and being 0wned.. is Opera. =p</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody seems to have noticed the nice things added to opera dragon fly with this update , first thing I noticed ( with great joy ) the addition of the FF equivalent of the " Why Slow " plugin .
Or the quick configure speed dial at the bottom right , and the addition of some new prefs under opera : config , like auto updating.Personally the primary reason I have always loved opera is it 's fantastic tabbed browsing .
I simply ca n't live without the duplicate tab option , which not only duplicates the tab , but duplicates the history and session of that tab .
( so few understand how incredibly usefull this can be ) .
I love the new tab preview pulldown , ( I always have dozens of tabs open ) Opera is also a very secure browser .
It does not allow many things that are used to exploit other browsers .
I know everyone is so gagga over FF plugins , but frankly FF 's plugin model leaves security holes big enough to drive a mac truck thru .
The difference between 0wning , and being 0wned.. is Opera .
= p</tokentext>
<sentencetext>   Nobody seems to have noticed the nice things added to opera dragon fly with this update, first thing I noticed (with great joy) the addition of the FF equivalent of the "Why Slow" plugin.
Or the quick configure speed dial at the bottom right, and the addition of some new prefs under opera:config  , like auto updating.Personally the primary reason I have always loved opera is it's fantastic tabbed browsing.
I simply can't live without the duplicate tab option, which not only duplicates the tab, but duplicates the history and session of that tab.
(so few understand how incredibly usefull this can be).
I love the new tab preview pulldown,(I always have dozens of tabs open)      Opera is also a very secure browser.
It does not allow many things that are used to exploit other browsers.
I know everyone is so gagga over FF plugins, but frankly FF's plugin model leaves security holes big enough to drive a mac truck thru.
The difference between 0wning , and being 0wned.. is Opera.
=p</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28211187</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox just has too many useful addons</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1244136720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about women who flash their breasts?<br>I like them ads.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about women who flash their breasts ? I like them ads .
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about women who flash their breasts?I like them ads.
;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28211895</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox just has too many useful addons</title>
	<author>freeridr</author>
	<datestamp>1244139840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's the Firefox add ons that keep us from switching to Safari, Chrome or Opera.  Little things like adding direct download links to the hypemachine, widening the gmail text box and removing adds, allowing google image search to go directly to the image rather than creating frames.....that level of customizability just isn't there yet in other browsers.  The first will likely be Opera.  The customizability really is incredible.  My first install wasted aver an hour of exploration into the browser's abilities.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the Firefox add ons that keep us from switching to Safari , Chrome or Opera .
Little things like adding direct download links to the hypemachine , widening the gmail text box and removing adds , allowing google image search to go directly to the image rather than creating frames.....that level of customizability just is n't there yet in other browsers .
The first will likely be Opera .
The customizability really is incredible .
My first install wasted aver an hour of exploration into the browser 's abilities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the Firefox add ons that keep us from switching to Safari, Chrome or Opera.
Little things like adding direct download links to the hypemachine, widening the gmail text box and removing adds, allowing google image search to go directly to the image rather than creating frames.....that level of customizability just isn't there yet in other browsers.
The first will likely be Opera.
The customizability really is incredible.
My first install wasted aver an hour of exploration into the browser's abilities.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208565</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28215957</id>
	<title>Re:Phenomenal browser : 110\% agreement here! apk</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244115060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><div class="quote"><p><b>"Opera is a phenomenal browser."</b> - by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 04, @06:28PM</p></div><p>Per my subject-line above? Well, <b>I've been saying the same as you have, &amp; for years now</b> (since around 2001 really before I came here around 2005)!</p><p>Evidences thereof are here -&gt; <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=286721&amp;cid=20452183" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=286721&amp;cid=20452183</a> [slashdot.org] about version 9.23, &amp; here -&gt; <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=367219&amp;threshold=-1&amp;commentsort=0&amp;mode=thread&amp;cid=21434061" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=367219&amp;threshold=-1&amp;commentsort=0&amp;mode=thread&amp;cid=21434061</a> [slashdot.org] about version 9.24, &amp; here -&gt; <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=169309&amp;cid=14112880" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=169309&amp;cid=14112880</a> [slashdot.org] about version 8.51 (when it became FREE shortly after that) &amp; before that!</p><p>Let's put it THIS way:  When others COPY YOU? Only 1 saying applies - "Imitation IS the sincerest form of flattery", &amp; just about everyone knows where tabbed browsing came from (Opera), &amp; where other webbrowsers got their ideas for to use it also... answer IS Opera!</p><p>Opera? Hey - it truly is "the good stuff"!</p><p>AND?</p><p><b>Opera's been shown in tests to be consistently overall FASTER than other webbrowsers</b>, in tests such as this one -&gt; <a href="http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html#win" title="howtocreate.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html#win</a> [howtocreate.co.uk] &amp; ESPECIALLY in Windows (the MOST USED OS THERE IS, bar none)...</p><p><b>Opera's also been shown to be more standards compliant than its competition</b> (passing the ACID tests @ the same time as others, or before others even)!</p><p><b> Opera's lastly</b> (but not least) <b>been shown to consistently bear less "bugs" in the way of security vulnerabilities as well</b>, per test results I noted in the url's above from SECUNIA &amp; the like...</p><p>(Hey - What more could somebody want?)</p><p>Typically, as far as "programmatic efficiency" also (not just for speed)? Opera's the browser that though it bears more features "natively" (meaning without addons)?? It occupies LESS MEMORY than its competitors also... &amp; starts up faster to boot!</p><p>Can't beat it!</p><p>APK</p><p>P.S.=&gt; Others have said it here in this thread though, &amp; it's true: MOST of the others are pretty damn good though (especially FireFox imo @ least, &amp; they are great in particular @ fixing bugs fast, I have helped they in this capacity in the past &amp; they fixed what I noted in less than 1 day's time (regarding a home-grown message board over @ NTCompatible.com a few years back to which they responded to myself, AND OUR FORUMS THERE, in person no less - talk about fast, personable service! What I like about FireFox is their wealth of addons (for myriad purposes))... Opera has an addon widgets community, but, it's NOT as "fast moving/growing" as that of FireFox... still, what is my "weapon-of-choice" online? The truly "Superior Warrior", in Opera! apk</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Opera is a phenomenal browser .
" - by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 04 , @ 06 : 28PMPer my subject-line above ?
Well , I 've been saying the same as you have , &amp; for years now ( since around 2001 really before I came here around 2005 ) ! Evidences thereof are here - &gt; http : //slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 286721&amp;cid = 20452183 [ slashdot.org ] about version 9.23 , &amp; here - &gt; http : //slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 367219&amp;threshold = -1&amp;commentsort = 0&amp;mode = thread&amp;cid = 21434061 [ slashdot.org ] about version 9.24 , &amp; here - &gt; http : //slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 169309&amp;cid = 14112880 [ slashdot.org ] about version 8.51 ( when it became FREE shortly after that ) &amp; before that ! Let 's put it THIS way : When others COPY YOU ?
Only 1 saying applies - " Imitation IS the sincerest form of flattery " , &amp; just about everyone knows where tabbed browsing came from ( Opera ) , &amp; where other webbrowsers got their ideas for to use it also... answer IS Opera ! Opera ?
Hey - it truly is " the good stuff " ! AND ? Opera 's been shown in tests to be consistently overall FASTER than other webbrowsers , in tests such as this one - &gt; http : //www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html # win [ howtocreate.co.uk ] &amp; ESPECIALLY in Windows ( the MOST USED OS THERE IS , bar none ) ...Opera 's also been shown to be more standards compliant than its competition ( passing the ACID tests @ the same time as others , or before others even ) !
Opera 's lastly ( but not least ) been shown to consistently bear less " bugs " in the way of security vulnerabilities as well , per test results I noted in the url 's above from SECUNIA &amp; the like... ( Hey - What more could somebody want ?
) Typically , as far as " programmatic efficiency " also ( not just for speed ) ?
Opera 's the browser that though it bears more features " natively " ( meaning without addons ) ? ?
It occupies LESS MEMORY than its competitors also... &amp; starts up faster to boot ! Ca n't beat it ! APKP.S. = &gt; Others have said it here in this thread though , &amp; it 's true : MOST of the others are pretty damn good though ( especially FireFox imo @ least , &amp; they are great in particular @ fixing bugs fast , I have helped they in this capacity in the past &amp; they fixed what I noted in less than 1 day 's time ( regarding a home-grown message board over @ NTCompatible.com a few years back to which they responded to myself , AND OUR FORUMS THERE , in person no less - talk about fast , personable service !
What I like about FireFox is their wealth of addons ( for myriad purposes ) ) ... Opera has an addon widgets community , but , it 's NOT as " fast moving/growing " as that of FireFox... still , what is my " weapon-of-choice " online ?
The truly " Superior Warrior " , in Opera !
apk</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Opera is a phenomenal browser.
" - by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 04, @06:28PMPer my subject-line above?
Well, I've been saying the same as you have, &amp; for years now (since around 2001 really before I came here around 2005)!Evidences thereof are here -&gt; http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=286721&amp;cid=20452183 [slashdot.org] about version 9.23, &amp; here -&gt; http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=367219&amp;threshold=-1&amp;commentsort=0&amp;mode=thread&amp;cid=21434061 [slashdot.org] about version 9.24, &amp; here -&gt; http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=169309&amp;cid=14112880 [slashdot.org] about version 8.51 (when it became FREE shortly after that) &amp; before that!Let's put it THIS way:  When others COPY YOU?
Only 1 saying applies - "Imitation IS the sincerest form of flattery", &amp; just about everyone knows where tabbed browsing came from (Opera), &amp; where other webbrowsers got their ideas for to use it also... answer IS Opera!Opera?
Hey - it truly is "the good stuff"!AND?Opera's been shown in tests to be consistently overall FASTER than other webbrowsers, in tests such as this one -&gt; http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html#win [howtocreate.co.uk] &amp; ESPECIALLY in Windows (the MOST USED OS THERE IS, bar none)...Opera's also been shown to be more standards compliant than its competition (passing the ACID tests @ the same time as others, or before others even)!
Opera's lastly (but not least) been shown to consistently bear less "bugs" in the way of security vulnerabilities as well, per test results I noted in the url's above from SECUNIA &amp; the like...(Hey - What more could somebody want?
)Typically, as far as "programmatic efficiency" also (not just for speed)?
Opera's the browser that though it bears more features "natively" (meaning without addons)??
It occupies LESS MEMORY than its competitors also... &amp; starts up faster to boot!Can't beat it!APKP.S.=&gt; Others have said it here in this thread though, &amp; it's true: MOST of the others are pretty damn good though (especially FireFox imo @ least, &amp; they are great in particular @ fixing bugs fast, I have helped they in this capacity in the past &amp; they fixed what I noted in less than 1 day's time (regarding a home-grown message board over @ NTCompatible.com a few years back to which they responded to myself, AND OUR FORUMS THERE, in person no less - talk about fast, personable service!
What I like about FireFox is their wealth of addons (for myriad purposes))... Opera has an addon widgets community, but, it's NOT as "fast moving/growing" as that of FireFox... still, what is my "weapon-of-choice" online?
The truly "Superior Warrior", in Opera!
apk
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28222095</id>
	<title>Re:Th NoScript addon ...</title>
	<author>jp10558</author>
	<datestamp>1244215500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, I don't think anyone has claimed that Widgets are like Extensions. That said, I do believe there were UserJS that is like NoScript.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I do n't think anyone has claimed that Widgets are like Extensions .
That said , I do believe there were UserJS that is like NoScript .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I don't think anyone has claimed that Widgets are like Extensions.
That said, I do believe there were UserJS that is like NoScript.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28215197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208353</id>
	<title>Re:Phenomenal browser</title>
	<author>Jurily</author>
	<datestamp>1244124780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It definitely feels faster than the other major browsers, though they're all pretty good nowadays.</p></div><p>It uses native widgets. You hear me, Chrome and Firefox?!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It definitely feels faster than the other major browsers , though they 're all pretty good nowadays.It uses native widgets .
You hear me , Chrome and Firefox ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It definitely feels faster than the other major browsers, though they're all pretty good nowadays.It uses native widgets.
You hear me, Chrome and Firefox?
!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208725</id>
	<title>'turbo'</title>
	<author>SCHecklerX</author>
	<datestamp>1244126700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>so, the software somehow uses a gas or liquid turbine?  I'm confused.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>so , the software somehow uses a gas or liquid turbine ?
I 'm confused .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so, the software somehow uses a gas or liquid turbine?
I'm confused.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28217375</id>
	<title>Re:Opera test drive</title>
	<author>NEOGEOman</author>
	<datestamp>1244124480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The spellcheck is great, but the dictionary seems to be very old.  It doesn't recognize words like URL, internet, or slashdot.  At least it recognizes OPERA, though I'm sure that's only 'cause the other uses predate the browser.  =)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The spellcheck is great , but the dictionary seems to be very old .
It does n't recognize words like URL , internet , or slashdot .
At least it recognizes OPERA , though I 'm sure that 's only 'cause the other uses predate the browser .
= )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The spellcheck is great, but the dictionary seems to be very old.
It doesn't recognize words like URL, internet, or slashdot.
At least it recognizes OPERA, though I'm sure that's only 'cause the other uses predate the browser.
=)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28209529</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1228223_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28217375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28209529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1228223_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28215785
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208737
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208565
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1228223_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28210735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1228223_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208745
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208127
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1228223_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28222095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28215197
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1228223_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28209223
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1228223_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28214625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208127
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1228223_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28211265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208071
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1228223_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28213583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208071
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1228223_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208249
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1228223_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208825
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208495
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1228223_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28209761
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208565
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1228223_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28210781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208725
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1228223_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28212719
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28210139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208071
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1228223_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28211143
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208565
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1228223_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28211545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28209353
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1228223_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28212387
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208041
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1228223_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28217467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208127
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1228223_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28209481
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208737
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208565
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1228223_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28209607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1228223_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28211149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208495
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1228223_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208249
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1228223_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28216511
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208737
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208565
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1228223_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208643
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208495
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1228223_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28211849
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208127
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1228223_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28211187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208565
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1228223_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28212611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28209957
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1228223_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28209293
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1228223_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28211159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208127
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1228223_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28215957
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208127
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1228223_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28213911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208041
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1228223_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208443
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208127
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1228223_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28219053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28215197
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1228223_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28212255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208127
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1228223_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28214133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208127
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1228223_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28210125
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28209583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208127
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1228223_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28211741
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28209353
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1228223_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28212393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208127
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1228223_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28213379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28210139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208071
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1228223_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28209063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208249
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1228223_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208941
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208565
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1228223_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28211895
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208565
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1228223_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28210743
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208565
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1228223_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28216057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28210139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208071
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1228223_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28209205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1228223_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28213553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208737
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208565
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1228223_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28210185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208041
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1228223_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28209135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208495
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1228223_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28210891
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28210139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208071
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1228223_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28214209
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28210291
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208041
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1228223_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_1228223_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28209081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_1228223.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208041
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208613
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28212387
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28213911
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28210291
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28214209
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28210185
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_1228223.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208255
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28209081
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28209607
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28209293
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28209223
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28209957
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28212611
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28210735
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28209205
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208845
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_1228223.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208035
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_1228223.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208645
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_1228223.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28211667
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_1228223.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208725
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28210781
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_1228223.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28209529
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28217375
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_1228223.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208127
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28215957
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28211849
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208531
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28214625
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28217467
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208345
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28211159
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28214133
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28212255
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28209583
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28210125
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28212393
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208443
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208353
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208745
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_1228223.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208249
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208583
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208499
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28209063
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_1228223.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208071
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28211265
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28210139
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28212719
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28213379
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28216057
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28210891
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28213583
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_1228223.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208495
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208643
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28211149
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208825
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28209135
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_1228223.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28210089
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_1228223.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28215197
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28219053
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28222095
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_1228223.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208565
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28210743
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28211895
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28211143
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208941
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208687
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28211187
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28209761
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28208737
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28216511
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28213553
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28209481
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28215785
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_1228223.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28209353
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28211741
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_1228223.28211545
</commentlist>
</conversation>
