<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_05_021252</id>
	<title>Google vs. Microsoft On the Desktop</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1244216460000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://e-piphanies.typepad.com/epiphanies/" rel="nofollow">Michael\_Curator</a> writes <i>"Gary Edwards, president of the now-defunct Open Document Foundation, helps sort out the <a href="http://industry.bnet.com/technology/10002039/googles-long-shot-at-kicking-microsoft-off-the-desktop/">challenges Google faces displacing Microsoft on the desktop</a>, pitting the strengths of Microsoft's proprietary stack against the developer candy that HTML 5 represents."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Michael \ _Curator writes " Gary Edwards , president of the now-defunct Open Document Foundation , helps sort out the challenges Google faces displacing Microsoft on the desktop , pitting the strengths of Microsoft 's proprietary stack against the developer candy that HTML 5 represents .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Michael\_Curator writes "Gary Edwards, president of the now-defunct Open Document Foundation, helps sort out the challenges Google faces displacing Microsoft on the desktop, pitting the strengths of Microsoft's proprietary stack against the developer candy that HTML 5 represents.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28219319</id>
	<title>Amazingly we should side with... Microsoft!</title>
	<author>Nicopa</author>
	<datestamp>1244234040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The standard desktop is better than Google desktop. Yes, everybody says, to put Google in a good light: "standard compliant" browsers, but that means nonstandard compliant mail, nonstandard everything else. We won't own software, we'll be always customers, dumb terminals, served from huge company's "clouds". Free software will be over, irrelevant. We won't be able to improve and modify our environment, we can't improve Gmail ourselves, there's no alternative/better/innnovative client for Gmail.</p><p>Economic forces are taking technology down a terrible path. The past is better: a world of protocols, servers and clients. A common neutral space...</p><p>The "portable" desktop, having your data everywhere should be solved by other means... I don't know, perhaps we should have personal servers, or at least we should contract personal servers from some kind of "personal server providers", which should be a standard and non-monopolistic thing. The "presence providers" envisioned by the XMPP protocol comes to mind...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The standard desktop is better than Google desktop .
Yes , everybody says , to put Google in a good light : " standard compliant " browsers , but that means nonstandard compliant mail , nonstandard everything else .
We wo n't own software , we 'll be always customers , dumb terminals , served from huge company 's " clouds " .
Free software will be over , irrelevant .
We wo n't be able to improve and modify our environment , we ca n't improve Gmail ourselves , there 's no alternative/better/innnovative client for Gmail.Economic forces are taking technology down a terrible path .
The past is better : a world of protocols , servers and clients .
A common neutral space...The " portable " desktop , having your data everywhere should be solved by other means... I do n't know , perhaps we should have personal servers , or at least we should contract personal servers from some kind of " personal server providers " , which should be a standard and non-monopolistic thing .
The " presence providers " envisioned by the XMPP protocol comes to mind.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The standard desktop is better than Google desktop.
Yes, everybody says, to put Google in a good light: "standard compliant" browsers, but that means nonstandard compliant mail, nonstandard everything else.
We won't own software, we'll be always customers, dumb terminals, served from huge company's "clouds".
Free software will be over, irrelevant.
We won't be able to improve and modify our environment, we can't improve Gmail ourselves, there's no alternative/better/innnovative client for Gmail.Economic forces are taking technology down a terrible path.
The past is better: a world of protocols, servers and clients.
A common neutral space...The "portable" desktop, having your data everywhere should be solved by other means... I don't know, perhaps we should have personal servers, or at least we should contract personal servers from some kind of "personal server providers", which should be a standard and non-monopolistic thing.
The "presence providers" envisioned by the XMPP protocol comes to mind...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28250149</id>
	<title>Re:Amazingly we should side with... Microsoft!</title>
	<author>MikeBabcock</author>
	<datestamp>1244471400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're actually seeing this the opposite way that I do.  If most of the software my users want to use is served by the cloud, then I can install Ubuntu on their desktops without fear of compatibility issues with the software they want to use.  Windows becomes less relevant as fewer people use the Windows API to write their software, and this strikes fear into Microsoft.</p><p>It used to be people asked me if their computer could be used to run Microsoft Office, and now they ask if it will load Facebook and play their favourite flash and Java games.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're actually seeing this the opposite way that I do .
If most of the software my users want to use is served by the cloud , then I can install Ubuntu on their desktops without fear of compatibility issues with the software they want to use .
Windows becomes less relevant as fewer people use the Windows API to write their software , and this strikes fear into Microsoft.It used to be people asked me if their computer could be used to run Microsoft Office , and now they ask if it will load Facebook and play their favourite flash and Java games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're actually seeing this the opposite way that I do.
If most of the software my users want to use is served by the cloud, then I can install Ubuntu on their desktops without fear of compatibility issues with the software they want to use.
Windows becomes less relevant as fewer people use the Windows API to write their software, and this strikes fear into Microsoft.It used to be people asked me if their computer could be used to run Microsoft Office, and now they ask if it will load Facebook and play their favourite flash and Java games.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28219319</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28220213</id>
	<title>or browser reliabilitiy without crashing, cough FF</title>
	<author>cheekyboy</author>
	<datestamp>1244203200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pick a tab any tab, watch it suck all cpu because stupid advertising companies write bad JS that while loops forever killing all other tabs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pick a tab any tab , watch it suck all cpu because stupid advertising companies write bad JS that while loops forever killing all other tabs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pick a tab any tab, watch it suck all cpu because stupid advertising companies write bad JS that while loops forever killing all other tabs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28218289</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28222767</id>
	<title>Microsoft fights back</title>
	<author>Akir</author>
	<datestamp>1244218140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As it turns out, the early builds of IE9 are starting to implement HTML 5. For instance, they support the video tag. However, they made a statement that they are only planning on implementing the intel INDEO video codec, with PWM audio. And they're finally supporting CSS and SVG propperly, but only if the color scheme matches the scheme they chose for Windows 7. And after years of debate, they now support an early draft of VRML.<br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br>

I'm obviously lying, since Microsoft always plans on the "let's not improve the product until it's at least 10 years behind the times" plan.<br> <br>

Sadly, though, The way I described their new version of IE is waaaaaaaaaaaay too realistic.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As it turns out , the early builds of IE9 are starting to implement HTML 5 .
For instance , they support the video tag .
However , they made a statement that they are only planning on implementing the intel INDEO video codec , with PWM audio .
And they 're finally supporting CSS and SVG propperly , but only if the color scheme matches the scheme they chose for Windows 7 .
And after years of debate , they now support an early draft of VRML .
I 'm obviously lying , since Microsoft always plans on the " let 's not improve the product until it 's at least 10 years behind the times " plan .
Sadly , though , The way I described their new version of IE is waaaaaaaaaaaay too realistic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As it turns out, the early builds of IE9 are starting to implement HTML 5.
For instance, they support the video tag.
However, they made a statement that they are only planning on implementing the intel INDEO video codec, with PWM audio.
And they're finally supporting CSS and SVG propperly, but only if the color scheme matches the scheme they chose for Windows 7.
And after years of debate, they now support an early draft of VRML.
I'm obviously lying, since Microsoft always plans on the "let's not improve the product until it's at least 10 years behind the times" plan.
Sadly, though, The way I described their new version of IE is waaaaaaaaaaaay too realistic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28218945</id>
	<title>Either option better than door #3</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244142360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google, Microsoft - either option works for me since they'd both work for the most part. Just as long as the choice is not IBM software or Lotus anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google , Microsoft - either option works for me since they 'd both work for the most part .
Just as long as the choice is not IBM software or Lotus anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google, Microsoft - either option works for me since they'd both work for the most part.
Just as long as the choice is not IBM software or Lotus anything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28220425</id>
	<title>Re:Amazingly we should side with... Microsoft!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244205720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps this is where social networking sites will evolve to: service providers for our information. It wouldn't be that greater step for the facebooks and myspaces of the world to add a bunch of servers and rent space on them with interfaces that can interact with cloud services. After all, it seems that most people already have an account and use it in order to store various photos and information about themselves.</p><p>If the technology for interacting with the cloud is open and well documented it'd make sure those who don't mind leaving their documents, data and information in the hands of 3rd parties can do so, while leaving the option to do it yourself open.</p><p>I'm quite cynical about the cloud at this point as there isn't nearly enough of a global network to make me want to have something relying on a connection to work. However, I think it's a nice idea for the future, if implemented sensibly and away from any political or corporate interests.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps this is where social networking sites will evolve to : service providers for our information .
It would n't be that greater step for the facebooks and myspaces of the world to add a bunch of servers and rent space on them with interfaces that can interact with cloud services .
After all , it seems that most people already have an account and use it in order to store various photos and information about themselves.If the technology for interacting with the cloud is open and well documented it 'd make sure those who do n't mind leaving their documents , data and information in the hands of 3rd parties can do so , while leaving the option to do it yourself open.I 'm quite cynical about the cloud at this point as there is n't nearly enough of a global network to make me want to have something relying on a connection to work .
However , I think it 's a nice idea for the future , if implemented sensibly and away from any political or corporate interests .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps this is where social networking sites will evolve to: service providers for our information.
It wouldn't be that greater step for the facebooks and myspaces of the world to add a bunch of servers and rent space on them with interfaces that can interact with cloud services.
After all, it seems that most people already have an account and use it in order to store various photos and information about themselves.If the technology for interacting with the cloud is open and well documented it'd make sure those who don't mind leaving their documents, data and information in the hands of 3rd parties can do so, while leaving the option to do it yourself open.I'm quite cynical about the cloud at this point as there isn't nearly enough of a global network to make me want to have something relying on a connection to work.
However, I think it's a nice idea for the future, if implemented sensibly and away from any political or corporate interests.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28219319</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28219035</id>
	<title>OS-less netbook</title>
	<author>OutputLogic</author>
	<datestamp>1244143620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hypothetically speaking, if there is a powerful <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java\_processor" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Java processor</a> [wikipedia.org] that runs Java Virtual Machine (JVM) in hardware, and a browser application written in Java, you'd get an OS-less <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netbook" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">netbook

</a> [wikipedia.org]<br> <br>- <a href="http://outputlogic.com/" title="outputlogic.com" rel="nofollow">OutputLogic</a> [outputlogic.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hypothetically speaking , if there is a powerful Java processor [ wikipedia.org ] that runs Java Virtual Machine ( JVM ) in hardware , and a browser application written in Java , you 'd get an OS-less netbook [ wikipedia.org ] - OutputLogic [ outputlogic.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hypothetically speaking, if there is a powerful Java processor [wikipedia.org] that runs Java Virtual Machine (JVM) in hardware, and a browser application written in Java, you'd get an OS-less netbook

 [wikipedia.org] - OutputLogic [outputlogic.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28218855</id>
	<title>Gary Edwards?</title>
	<author>bmo</author>
	<datestamp>1244141520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, uh, wasn't he one of the ones that threw a tantrum (along with sam and marbux) when he didn't get his way with preserving Microsoft "dark matter" (undocumented RTF encoding) in ODF and then proclaimed that ODF is doomed to fail and all that nonsense when everyone told him to stuff it where it doesn't shine??</p><p>I am shocked.  Simply shocked to see that he's extolling Microsoft's "virtues".</p><p>Nothing to see here, folks, just another softie trying to sabotage open standards by throwing chairs at it.</p><p>--<br>BMO</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , uh , was n't he one of the ones that threw a tantrum ( along with sam and marbux ) when he did n't get his way with preserving Microsoft " dark matter " ( undocumented RTF encoding ) in ODF and then proclaimed that ODF is doomed to fail and all that nonsense when everyone told him to stuff it where it does n't shine ?
? I am shocked .
Simply shocked to see that he 's extolling Microsoft 's " virtues " .Nothing to see here , folks , just another softie trying to sabotage open standards by throwing chairs at it.--BMO</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, uh, wasn't he one of the ones that threw a tantrum (along with sam and marbux) when he didn't get his way with preserving Microsoft "dark matter" (undocumented RTF encoding) in ODF and then proclaimed that ODF is doomed to fail and all that nonsense when everyone told him to stuff it where it doesn't shine?
?I am shocked.
Simply shocked to see that he's extolling Microsoft's "virtues".Nothing to see here, folks, just another softie trying to sabotage open standards by throwing chairs at it.--BMO</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28223861</id>
	<title>Thanks for troll modding</title>
	<author>SlappyBastard</author>
	<datestamp>1244222100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does anyone on Slashdot ever feel just the slightest bit retarded for being reflexively anti-Microsoft?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone on Slashdot ever feel just the slightest bit retarded for being reflexively anti-Microsoft ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone on Slashdot ever feel just the slightest bit retarded for being reflexively anti-Microsoft?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28229505</id>
	<title>Re:Amazingly we should side with... Microsoft!</title>
	<author>AnyoneEB</author>
	<datestamp>1244214240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed. Ironically, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google\_Wave" title="wikipedia.org">Google Wave</a> [wikipedia.org] might be [part of] the solution.</p><p>Having your data be portable really should not be a problem. Storing it (encrypted?) in a Wave would be one way. Really it seems like you should be able to have your data automatically get replicated (encrypted) across all of your friends' computers (somehow registered with your own) with the assumption that it is very unlikely all of them would be down when you attempt to retrieve a document. Of course, that would require that all of your friends' computers weren't NATed.</p><p>To be fair, you can "improve" your own GMail experience via GreaseMonkey scripts. There are a few Firefox extensions which are basically bundles of scripts to add various features/tweaks to GMail. On the other hand, GMail is still very much so non-free with the very major issue that you cannot use it without letting Google see all of your e-mail. As far as I know, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SquirrelMail" title="wikipedia.org">SquirrelMail</a> [wikipedia.org] is its closest competitor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
Ironically , Google Wave [ wikipedia.org ] might be [ part of ] the solution.Having your data be portable really should not be a problem .
Storing it ( encrypted ?
) in a Wave would be one way .
Really it seems like you should be able to have your data automatically get replicated ( encrypted ) across all of your friends ' computers ( somehow registered with your own ) with the assumption that it is very unlikely all of them would be down when you attempt to retrieve a document .
Of course , that would require that all of your friends ' computers were n't NATed.To be fair , you can " improve " your own GMail experience via GreaseMonkey scripts .
There are a few Firefox extensions which are basically bundles of scripts to add various features/tweaks to GMail .
On the other hand , GMail is still very much so non-free with the very major issue that you can not use it without letting Google see all of your e-mail .
As far as I know , SquirrelMail [ wikipedia.org ] is its closest competitor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
Ironically, Google Wave [wikipedia.org] might be [part of] the solution.Having your data be portable really should not be a problem.
Storing it (encrypted?
) in a Wave would be one way.
Really it seems like you should be able to have your data automatically get replicated (encrypted) across all of your friends' computers (somehow registered with your own) with the assumption that it is very unlikely all of them would be down when you attempt to retrieve a document.
Of course, that would require that all of your friends' computers weren't NATed.To be fair, you can "improve" your own GMail experience via GreaseMonkey scripts.
There are a few Firefox extensions which are basically bundles of scripts to add various features/tweaks to GMail.
On the other hand, GMail is still very much so non-free with the very major issue that you cannot use it without letting Google see all of your e-mail.
As far as I know, SquirrelMail [wikipedia.org] is its closest competitor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28219319</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28218289</id>
	<title>Re:Take away the cloud</title>
	<author>docbrody</author>
	<datestamp>1244134860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>But Microsoft people have a good point about the cloud.  Forget speed, think about reliability.  And by reliability of the cloud, I actually mean reliability of your internet connection.<br> <br>
I think it will be a long time before the internet/cloud can compete with local internal storage.  So for Google to compete, cloud features are an awesome additional feature, but to really succeed, I think they need to be able to go toe-to-toe with Microsoft on the desktop without requiring an internet connection.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But Microsoft people have a good point about the cloud .
Forget speed , think about reliability .
And by reliability of the cloud , I actually mean reliability of your internet connection .
I think it will be a long time before the internet/cloud can compete with local internal storage .
So for Google to compete , cloud features are an awesome additional feature , but to really succeed , I think they need to be able to go toe-to-toe with Microsoft on the desktop without requiring an internet connection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But Microsoft people have a good point about the cloud.
Forget speed, think about reliability.
And by reliability of the cloud, I actually mean reliability of your internet connection.
I think it will be a long time before the internet/cloud can compete with local internal storage.
So for Google to compete, cloud features are an awesome additional feature, but to really succeed, I think they need to be able to go toe-to-toe with Microsoft on the desktop without requiring an internet connection.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28218199</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28219315</id>
	<title>Re:Take away the cloud</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244234040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't really think local internal storage is more reliable than the cloud?</p><p>Most users really don't have raids nor proper backup. I feel my documents are much more secure (and accessible) in my gmail than on my disk partition (come to count it, currently I have 9! not counting numerous USB disks or flash cards). And each can die moment, and I don't even think to start taking care of backuping them all up. Even if they don't die, get rewritten or formatted I will add or replace another computing device and migrating is always a pain, even for me.</p><p>Number of PCs per user is only going up, and the cloud is the only solution to the data mess that comes with.<br>And with smartphones and blackberries things get even better if you opt for the cloud.</p><p>I agree speed does not seem to be an issue (I still waste more time locating / browsing for my documents than it takes me to move them across the net).</p><p>Internet connection is  reliable as electricity or mobile networks (if not more so<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-) and we are so depended on it anyway (probably more than we are aware) that it does not make sense to constrain and lock down your documents with no clear benefit.</p><p>All my data on disks, diskettes, cdroms, printouts from 10 years are lost or destroyed except for my online home space at my ex college and my geocities page (oh wait, that's gone too<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't really think local internal storage is more reliable than the cloud ? Most users really do n't have raids nor proper backup .
I feel my documents are much more secure ( and accessible ) in my gmail than on my disk partition ( come to count it , currently I have 9 !
not counting numerous USB disks or flash cards ) .
And each can die moment , and I do n't even think to start taking care of backuping them all up .
Even if they do n't die , get rewritten or formatted I will add or replace another computing device and migrating is always a pain , even for me.Number of PCs per user is only going up , and the cloud is the only solution to the data mess that comes with.And with smartphones and blackberries things get even better if you opt for the cloud.I agree speed does not seem to be an issue ( I still waste more time locating / browsing for my documents than it takes me to move them across the net ) .Internet connection is reliable as electricity or mobile networks ( if not more so : - ) and we are so depended on it anyway ( probably more than we are aware ) that it does not make sense to constrain and lock down your documents with no clear benefit.All my data on disks , diskettes , cdroms , printouts from 10 years are lost or destroyed except for my online home space at my ex college and my geocities page ( oh wait , that 's gone too : ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't really think local internal storage is more reliable than the cloud?Most users really don't have raids nor proper backup.
I feel my documents are much more secure (and accessible) in my gmail than on my disk partition (come to count it, currently I have 9!
not counting numerous USB disks or flash cards).
And each can die moment, and I don't even think to start taking care of backuping them all up.
Even if they don't die, get rewritten or formatted I will add or replace another computing device and migrating is always a pain, even for me.Number of PCs per user is only going up, and the cloud is the only solution to the data mess that comes with.And with smartphones and blackberries things get even better if you opt for the cloud.I agree speed does not seem to be an issue (I still waste more time locating / browsing for my documents than it takes me to move them across the net).Internet connection is  reliable as electricity or mobile networks (if not more so :-) and we are so depended on it anyway (probably more than we are aware) that it does not make sense to constrain and lock down your documents with no clear benefit.All my data on disks, diskettes, cdroms, printouts from 10 years are lost or destroyed except for my online home space at my ex college and my geocities page (oh wait, that's gone too :).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28218289</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28220071</id>
	<title>Gobboldygook</title>
	<author>omb</author>
	<datestamp>1244201520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This comment says almost nothing:<br><br>The Office game is almost over, OOO is good enough, and existing anti-trust, most recently in Russia increases the challenge.<br><br>AD and Exchange are currently coporate lock-ins and the Open Source community must look for its commercial partners, Google, IBM and Oracle to help fund drop-in replacements.<br><br>It is very unlikely that MS will get a lot of traction with a new proprietary program, especially outside the USA</htmltext>
<tokenext>This comment says almost nothing : The Office game is almost over , OOO is good enough , and existing anti-trust , most recently in Russia increases the challenge.AD and Exchange are currently coporate lock-ins and the Open Source community must look for its commercial partners , Google , IBM and Oracle to help fund drop-in replacements.It is very unlikely that MS will get a lot of traction with a new proprietary program , especially outside the USA</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This comment says almost nothing:The Office game is almost over, OOO is good enough, and existing anti-trust, most recently in Russia increases the challenge.AD and Exchange are currently coporate lock-ins and the Open Source community must look for its commercial partners, Google, IBM and Oracle to help fund drop-in replacements.It is very unlikely that MS will get a lot of traction with a new proprietary program, especially outside the USA</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28219105</id>
	<title>Cloud vs Desktop? Aren't they the same?</title>
	<author>caywen</author>
	<datestamp>1244144760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't the deskop really just the next evolution of the cloud? Once the desktop becomes an active participant in the cloud?

I think the next step will simply be to make all your desktop apps available anywhere. We're just about there already with remote desktop connections. Isn't the path of remote desktops and virtualization just as valid a distributed computing model? In the future, there might be so much bandwidth and parallel computing power available, a single server could serve remote connections to thousands of simultaneous virtual Win7/OSX/Linux machines. And you won't have to actually rewrite OpenOffice 10.0 for web.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't the deskop really just the next evolution of the cloud ?
Once the desktop becomes an active participant in the cloud ?
I think the next step will simply be to make all your desktop apps available anywhere .
We 're just about there already with remote desktop connections .
Is n't the path of remote desktops and virtualization just as valid a distributed computing model ?
In the future , there might be so much bandwidth and parallel computing power available , a single server could serve remote connections to thousands of simultaneous virtual Win7/OSX/Linux machines .
And you wo n't have to actually rewrite OpenOffice 10.0 for web .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't the deskop really just the next evolution of the cloud?
Once the desktop becomes an active participant in the cloud?
I think the next step will simply be to make all your desktop apps available anywhere.
We're just about there already with remote desktop connections.
Isn't the path of remote desktops and virtualization just as valid a distributed computing model?
In the future, there might be so much bandwidth and parallel computing power available, a single server could serve remote connections to thousands of simultaneous virtual Win7/OSX/Linux machines.
And you won't have to actually rewrite OpenOffice 10.0 for web.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28220133</id>
	<title>Google, Microsoft, what's to choose</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244202120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're both hoping to make you dependent on them. They're like drug pushers with a license to push.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're both hoping to make you dependent on them .
They 're like drug pushers with a license to push .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're both hoping to make you dependent on them.
They're like drug pushers with a license to push.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28218801</id>
	<title>Re:Take away the cloud</title>
	<author>chabotc</author>
	<datestamp>1244140620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Save to remote server" ?</p><p>Personally I think that a end-user would be slightly confused by such mumbo jumbo, I mean, do you really know a lot of non-technies that know what a 'cervaaar' is?</p><p>If such an option were to be added, please let it be called "Save it to Google docs"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Save to remote server " ? Personally I think that a end-user would be slightly confused by such mumbo jumbo , I mean , do you really know a lot of non-technies that know what a 'cervaaar ' is ? If such an option were to be added , please let it be called " Save it to Google docs " : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Save to remote server" ?Personally I think that a end-user would be slightly confused by such mumbo jumbo, I mean, do you really know a lot of non-technies that know what a 'cervaaar' is?If such an option were to be added, please let it be called "Save it to Google docs" :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28218359</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28219085</id>
	<title>Where is the foundation on which you build?</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1244144400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Chrome. Safari. Firefox.</p><p> "The edge of the web."</p><p> God alone knows what that means. Market share dominated by the home user and the enthusiast. Chrome very immature.</p><p> Internet Explorer. The browser you use at work. Rich tools for deployment and management by the system administrator...</p><p>In the simplest terms:</p><p> You can build a business ground up from the loading dock and point of sale to the clerks in accounting to the guys and gals in middle management and the executive suite and never leave the working environment of "MS Office."</p><p>That has enormous implications for recruitment, staffing and training at every level.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Chrome .
Safari. Firefox .
" The edge of the web .
" God alone knows what that means .
Market share dominated by the home user and the enthusiast .
Chrome very immature .
Internet Explorer .
The browser you use at work .
Rich tools for deployment and management by the system administrator...In the simplest terms : You can build a business ground up from the loading dock and point of sale to the clerks in accounting to the guys and gals in middle management and the executive suite and never leave the working environment of " MS Office .
" That has enormous implications for recruitment , staffing and training at every level .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chrome.
Safari. Firefox.
"The edge of the web.
" God alone knows what that means.
Market share dominated by the home user and the enthusiast.
Chrome very immature.
Internet Explorer.
The browser you use at work.
Rich tools for deployment and management by the system administrator...In the simplest terms: You can build a business ground up from the loading dock and point of sale to the clerks in accounting to the guys and gals in middle management and the executive suite and never leave the working environment of "MS Office.
"That has enormous implications for recruitment, staffing and training at every level.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28218297</id>
	<title>Re:Take away the cloud</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244134980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When Google claims the desktop from Microsoft in 2013, will Linux claim the win?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When Google claims the desktop from Microsoft in 2013 , will Linux claim the win ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When Google claims the desktop from Microsoft in 2013, will Linux claim the win?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28218199</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28218199</id>
	<title>Take away the cloud</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244133900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>What I think would be best for Google would be to fork a version of OOo to include "Save to the cloud" support and integration with Google Docs. Along with integration with every e-mail client by using perhaps HTML e-mail or a plugin to enable Google Docs support. Create an iPhone app, plugins for MS Office, make it easy for anyone with any program to access and use Google Docs and it will succeed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What I think would be best for Google would be to fork a version of OOo to include " Save to the cloud " support and integration with Google Docs .
Along with integration with every e-mail client by using perhaps HTML e-mail or a plugin to enable Google Docs support .
Create an iPhone app , plugins for MS Office , make it easy for anyone with any program to access and use Google Docs and it will succeed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I think would be best for Google would be to fork a version of OOo to include "Save to the cloud" support and integration with Google Docs.
Along with integration with every e-mail client by using perhaps HTML e-mail or a plugin to enable Google Docs support.
Create an iPhone app, plugins for MS Office, make it easy for anyone with any program to access and use Google Docs and it will succeed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28221659</id>
	<title>Google the evil one now?</title>
	<author>cjjjer</author>
	<datestamp>1244213340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1. Make a desktop that uses a browser for it's application container<br>
2. Make a browser with a fast JavaScript engine and HTML5 to make a better UI<br>
3. Make a framework to support applications made for said browser<br>
4. User experience is now dependant on said apps and browser<br>
5. ???<br>
6. Profit<br> <br>
Seems pretty clear to me what Google is trying to do, something MS has already tried and almost succeeded in.  Except Google does not want a market share to gain profit they want advertising dollars for profit.  Is there any difference?</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Make a desktop that uses a browser for it 's application container 2 .
Make a browser with a fast JavaScript engine and HTML5 to make a better UI 3 .
Make a framework to support applications made for said browser 4 .
User experience is now dependant on said apps and browser 5 .
? ? ? 6 .
Profit Seems pretty clear to me what Google is trying to do , something MS has already tried and almost succeeded in .
Except Google does not want a market share to gain profit they want advertising dollars for profit .
Is there any difference ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Make a desktop that uses a browser for it's application container
2.
Make a browser with a fast JavaScript engine and HTML5 to make a better UI
3.
Make a framework to support applications made for said browser
4.
User experience is now dependant on said apps and browser
5.
???
6.
Profit 
Seems pretty clear to me what Google is trying to do, something MS has already tried and almost succeeded in.
Except Google does not want a market share to gain profit they want advertising dollars for profit.
Is there any difference?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28220123</id>
	<title>Bad Idea = Google - Desktop</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244202000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Allowing Google to be the desktop is a really bad idea.</p><p>Why would you allow an advertiser to basically own everything on your PC?  They'd have access to everything you do on your PC.</p><p>That's just crazy, unless you are a Nielson TV watching family.</p><p>I'd rather have an MS OS/Desktop than a Google OS.</p><p>"Don't be evil"  but use all the data you can get your hands on to target advertising and build consumer profiles is really what google is about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Allowing Google to be the desktop is a really bad idea.Why would you allow an advertiser to basically own everything on your PC ?
They 'd have access to everything you do on your PC.That 's just crazy , unless you are a Nielson TV watching family.I 'd rather have an MS OS/Desktop than a Google OS .
" Do n't be evil " but use all the data you can get your hands on to target advertising and build consumer profiles is really what google is about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Allowing Google to be the desktop is a really bad idea.Why would you allow an advertiser to basically own everything on your PC?
They'd have access to everything you do on your PC.That's just crazy, unless you are a Nielson TV watching family.I'd rather have an MS OS/Desktop than a Google OS.
"Don't be evil"  but use all the data you can get your hands on to target advertising and build consumer profiles is really what google is about.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28221771</id>
	<title>Re:Take away the cloud</title>
	<author>krewemaynard</author>
	<datestamp>1244213880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But Microsoft people have a good point about the cloud.  Forget speed, think about reliability.  And by reliability of the cloud, I actually mean reliability of your internet connection.


I think it will be a long time before the internet/cloud can compete with local internal storage.  So for Google to compete, cloud features are an awesome additional feature, but to really succeed, I think they need to be able to go toe-to-toe with Microsoft on the desktop without requiring an internet connection.</p></div><p>Google Gears pretty much takes care of the flaky connection problem. Keep a local cache, and sync everything when the Net connection comes back up.<br> <br>

I would love to see Google Docs incorporated into OOo. I've tried an OOo plugin before that was supposed to save to and open from Google Docs...don't remember the name of it, but it kinda sucked anyway. Some enterprising Google engineer could probably whip up a solution in their 20\% time, but I'd really love to see it as an official project.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But Microsoft people have a good point about the cloud .
Forget speed , think about reliability .
And by reliability of the cloud , I actually mean reliability of your internet connection .
I think it will be a long time before the internet/cloud can compete with local internal storage .
So for Google to compete , cloud features are an awesome additional feature , but to really succeed , I think they need to be able to go toe-to-toe with Microsoft on the desktop without requiring an internet connection.Google Gears pretty much takes care of the flaky connection problem .
Keep a local cache , and sync everything when the Net connection comes back up .
I would love to see Google Docs incorporated into OOo .
I 've tried an OOo plugin before that was supposed to save to and open from Google Docs...do n't remember the name of it , but it kinda sucked anyway .
Some enterprising Google engineer could probably whip up a solution in their 20 \ % time , but I 'd really love to see it as an official project .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But Microsoft people have a good point about the cloud.
Forget speed, think about reliability.
And by reliability of the cloud, I actually mean reliability of your internet connection.
I think it will be a long time before the internet/cloud can compete with local internal storage.
So for Google to compete, cloud features are an awesome additional feature, but to really succeed, I think they need to be able to go toe-to-toe with Microsoft on the desktop without requiring an internet connection.Google Gears pretty much takes care of the flaky connection problem.
Keep a local cache, and sync everything when the Net connection comes back up.
I would love to see Google Docs incorporated into OOo.
I've tried an OOo plugin before that was supposed to save to and open from Google Docs...don't remember the name of it, but it kinda sucked anyway.
Some enterprising Google engineer could probably whip up a solution in their 20\% time, but I'd really love to see it as an official project.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28218289</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28237313</id>
	<title>Re:Thanks for troll modding</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244290800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah we ought to let MS regain its dominance. They won't screw us anymore. (I feel so smart now)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah we ought to let MS regain its dominance .
They wo n't screw us anymore .
( I feel so smart now )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah we ought to let MS regain its dominance.
They won't screw us anymore.
(I feel so smart now)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28223861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28219247</id>
	<title>Re:Take away the cloud</title>
	<author>El\_Muerte\_TDS</author>
	<datestamp>1244233140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed, "Save to the cloud" should be renamed to "Vaporize".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed , " Save to the cloud " should be renamed to " Vaporize " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed, "Save to the cloud" should be renamed to "Vaporize".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28218359</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28218359</id>
	<title>Re:Take away the cloud</title>
	<author>fractoid</author>
	<datestamp>1244135760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What I think would be best for Google would be to fork a version of OOo to include "Save to the cloud" support and integration with Google Docs.</p> </div><p>"Save to the cloud"? Oh god, make the buzzing stop! You mean "add an option to OpenOffice to save your files to a remote server". Calling it "the cloud" is like calling the contents of your hard drive "cyberspace".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What I think would be best for Google would be to fork a version of OOo to include " Save to the cloud " support and integration with Google Docs .
" Save to the cloud " ?
Oh god , make the buzzing stop !
You mean " add an option to OpenOffice to save your files to a remote server " .
Calling it " the cloud " is like calling the contents of your hard drive " cyberspace " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I think would be best for Google would be to fork a version of OOo to include "Save to the cloud" support and integration with Google Docs.
"Save to the cloud"?
Oh god, make the buzzing stop!
You mean "add an option to OpenOffice to save your files to a remote server".
Calling it "the cloud" is like calling the contents of your hard drive "cyberspace".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28218199</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28219039</id>
	<title>Desktop?</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1244143680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google dont need to displace Microsoft from the desktop. What google is doing is displacing the desktop itself. Once you have the same info and roughly the same functionality from your cellphone, netbook, computer, gaming device, whoever else computer and so on, "Desktop" is becoming meaningless. Microsoft must give away the desktop and embrace the cloud to have any chance, just because it isnt a battlefield anymore.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google dont need to displace Microsoft from the desktop .
What google is doing is displacing the desktop itself .
Once you have the same info and roughly the same functionality from your cellphone , netbook , computer , gaming device , whoever else computer and so on , " Desktop " is becoming meaningless .
Microsoft must give away the desktop and embrace the cloud to have any chance , just because it isnt a battlefield anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google dont need to displace Microsoft from the desktop.
What google is doing is displacing the desktop itself.
Once you have the same info and roughly the same functionality from your cellphone, netbook, computer, gaming device, whoever else computer and so on, "Desktop" is becoming meaningless.
Microsoft must give away the desktop and embrace the cloud to have any chance, just because it isnt a battlefield anymore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28219151</id>
	<title>Re:Take away the cloud</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244145360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think it will be a long time before the internet/cloud can compete with local internal storage.</p></div><p>People say this a lot, but it mystifies me.  The cloud is empirically much more reliable than internal storage; hard drives crash all the time and lose *all* their data.  Unless you're running a RAID and doing daily offsite backups your data is safer in the cloud because they do it for you.  Nobody I know has ever lost any data stored on GMail, Flickr, or similar.  The worst that I've ever seen happen is someone might not be able to log in for a few hours; maybe up to a day in an extreme case.  On the other hand, practically everyone I know has experienced a hard drive crash, sometimes losing valuable data forever, and always resulting in hours if not days of wasted time (reinstalling everything, etc).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it will be a long time before the internet/cloud can compete with local internal storage.People say this a lot , but it mystifies me .
The cloud is empirically much more reliable than internal storage ; hard drives crash all the time and lose * all * their data .
Unless you 're running a RAID and doing daily offsite backups your data is safer in the cloud because they do it for you .
Nobody I know has ever lost any data stored on GMail , Flickr , or similar .
The worst that I 've ever seen happen is someone might not be able to log in for a few hours ; maybe up to a day in an extreme case .
On the other hand , practically everyone I know has experienced a hard drive crash , sometimes losing valuable data forever , and always resulting in hours if not days of wasted time ( reinstalling everything , etc ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it will be a long time before the internet/cloud can compete with local internal storage.People say this a lot, but it mystifies me.
The cloud is empirically much more reliable than internal storage; hard drives crash all the time and lose *all* their data.
Unless you're running a RAID and doing daily offsite backups your data is safer in the cloud because they do it for you.
Nobody I know has ever lost any data stored on GMail, Flickr, or similar.
The worst that I've ever seen happen is someone might not be able to log in for a few hours; maybe up to a day in an extreme case.
On the other hand, practically everyone I know has experienced a hard drive crash, sometimes losing valuable data forever, and always resulting in hours if not days of wasted time (reinstalling everything, etc).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28218289</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28219491</id>
	<title>Re:Take away the cloud</title>
	<author>diegocgteleline.es</author>
	<datestamp>1244193360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I think it will be a long time before the internet/cloud can compete with local internal storage.</i></p><p>Yeah, tell that to the email clients...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it will be a long time before the internet/cloud can compete with local internal storage.Yeah , tell that to the email clients.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it will be a long time before the internet/cloud can compete with local internal storage.Yeah, tell that to the email clients...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28218289</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28219925</id>
	<title>Astroturf from Gary Edwards</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244199900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh come on, Timmothy.  Edwards has already been discredited for his astroturfing fake ODF news which he ran under the "Foundation"  he's now moved his shit to Facebook and others.  His foundation <a href="http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/10/cracks-in-foundation.html" title="robweir.com" rel="nofollow">actively lobbied against ODF</a> [robweir.com].  He was a shill then, or at least one of Bill's "Useful Idiots", and he's the same now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh come on , Timmothy .
Edwards has already been discredited for his astroturfing fake ODF news which he ran under the " Foundation " he 's now moved his shit to Facebook and others .
His foundation actively lobbied against ODF [ robweir.com ] .
He was a shill then , or at least one of Bill 's " Useful Idiots " , and he 's the same now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh come on, Timmothy.
Edwards has already been discredited for his astroturfing fake ODF news which he ran under the "Foundation"  he's now moved his shit to Facebook and others.
His foundation actively lobbied against ODF [robweir.com].
He was a shill then, or at least one of Bill's "Useful Idiots", and he's the same now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28219047</id>
	<title>Re:Take away the cloud</title>
	<author>blowdart</author>
	<datestamp>1244143800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Funnily enough Microsoft office already has this, with <a href="http://www.officelive.com/en-GB/" title="officelive.com" rel="nofollow">Office Live</a> [officelive.com]. I have Open from Office Live and Save to Office Live in my file menu.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Funnily enough Microsoft office already has this , with Office Live [ officelive.com ] .
I have Open from Office Live and Save to Office Live in my file menu .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funnily enough Microsoft office already has this, with Office Live [officelive.com].
I have Open from Office Live and Save to Office Live in my file menu.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28218801</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28218279</id>
	<title>Re:Take away the cloud</title>
	<author>orngjce223</author>
	<datestamp>1244134740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I *already* compute in the cloud.  Except for the stuff that needs high security (like stuff I'd like to actually claim as intellectual property someday) - uploading that to a website that in its EULA claims the right to read your data is just stupid.</p><p>Then again, the reason I *do* do so is because I use five different computers and if it isn't the cloud, it's the sneakernet and I'm notorious for losing USB-flashdrives.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I * already * compute in the cloud .
Except for the stuff that needs high security ( like stuff I 'd like to actually claim as intellectual property someday ) - uploading that to a website that in its EULA claims the right to read your data is just stupid.Then again , the reason I * do * do so is because I use five different computers and if it is n't the cloud , it 's the sneakernet and I 'm notorious for losing USB-flashdrives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I *already* compute in the cloud.
Except for the stuff that needs high security (like stuff I'd like to actually claim as intellectual property someday) - uploading that to a website that in its EULA claims the right to read your data is just stupid.Then again, the reason I *do* do so is because I use five different computers and if it isn't the cloud, it's the sneakernet and I'm notorious for losing USB-flashdrives.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28218199</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_021252_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28237313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28223861
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_021252_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28218297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28218199
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_021252_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28221771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28218289
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28218199
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_021252_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28219491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28218289
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28218199
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_021252_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28219047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28218801
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28218359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28218199
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_021252_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28220213
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28218289
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28218199
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_021252_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28220425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28219319
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_021252_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28219247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28218359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28218199
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_021252_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28229505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28219319
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_021252_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28219151
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28218289
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28218199
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_021252_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28218279
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28218199
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_021252_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28250149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28219319
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_021252_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28219315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28218289
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28218199
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_021252.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28218855
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_021252.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28223861
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28237313
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_021252.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28218199
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28218297
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28218279
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28218289
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28219315
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28219491
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28220213
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28219151
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28221771
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28218359
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28218801
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28219047
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28219247
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_021252.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28219319
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28250149
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28220425
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28229505
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_021252.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_021252.28219035
</commentlist>
</conversation>
