<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_14_1649237</id>
	<title>YouTube, HTML5, and Comparing H.264 With Theora</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1245008040000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://notnews.today.com/" rel="nofollow">David Gerard</a> writes <i>"Google Chrome includes Ogg support for the &lt;video&gt; element. It also includes support for the hideously encumbered H.264 format. Nice as an extra, but ... they're also testing HTML5 YouTube <a href="http://www.labnol.org/internet/youtube-video-without-flash-player/9016/"> <em>only</em> for H.264</a> &mdash; meaning the largest video provider on the Net will make H.264 the primary codec and relegate the <a href="//slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/07/2352203&amp;tid=188">equally good open format Ogg/Theora</a> firmly to the sidelines. Mike Shaver from Mozilla has fairly unambiguously asked Chris DiBona from Google <a href="http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020363.html">what the heck Google thinks it's doing</a>."</i>
DiBona responded with concerns that switching to Theora while maintaining quality would take up an incredible amount of bandwidth for a site like YouTube, though he made clear his support for the continued improvement of the project. Greg Maxwell jumped into the debate by <a href="http://people.xiph.org/~greg/video/ytcompare/comparison.html">comparing the quality of Ogg/Theora+Vorbis</a> with the current YouTube implementations using H.263+MP3 and H.264+AAC. At the lower bitrate, Theora seems to have the clear edge, while the higher bitrate may slightly favor H.264. He concludes that YouTube's adoption of "an open unencumbered format in addition to or instead of their current offerings would not cause problems on the basis of quality or bitrate."</htmltext>
<tokenext>David Gerard writes " Google Chrome includes Ogg support for the element .
It also includes support for the hideously encumbered H.264 format .
Nice as an extra , but ... they 're also testing HTML5 YouTube only for H.264    meaning the largest video provider on the Net will make H.264 the primary codec and relegate the equally good open format Ogg/Theora firmly to the sidelines .
Mike Shaver from Mozilla has fairly unambiguously asked Chris DiBona from Google what the heck Google thinks it 's doing .
" DiBona responded with concerns that switching to Theora while maintaining quality would take up an incredible amount of bandwidth for a site like YouTube , though he made clear his support for the continued improvement of the project .
Greg Maxwell jumped into the debate by comparing the quality of Ogg/Theora + Vorbis with the current YouTube implementations using H.263 + MP3 and H.264 + AAC .
At the lower bitrate , Theora seems to have the clear edge , while the higher bitrate may slightly favor H.264 .
He concludes that YouTube 's adoption of " an open unencumbered format in addition to or instead of their current offerings would not cause problems on the basis of quality or bitrate .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>David Gerard writes "Google Chrome includes Ogg support for the  element.
It also includes support for the hideously encumbered H.264 format.
Nice as an extra, but ... they're also testing HTML5 YouTube  only for H.264 — meaning the largest video provider on the Net will make H.264 the primary codec and relegate the equally good open format Ogg/Theora firmly to the sidelines.
Mike Shaver from Mozilla has fairly unambiguously asked Chris DiBona from Google what the heck Google thinks it's doing.
"
DiBona responded with concerns that switching to Theora while maintaining quality would take up an incredible amount of bandwidth for a site like YouTube, though he made clear his support for the continued improvement of the project.
Greg Maxwell jumped into the debate by comparing the quality of Ogg/Theora+Vorbis with the current YouTube implementations using H.263+MP3 and H.264+AAC.
At the lower bitrate, Theora seems to have the clear edge, while the higher bitrate may slightly favor H.264.
He concludes that YouTube's adoption of "an open unencumbered format in addition to or instead of their current offerings would not cause problems on the basis of quality or bitrate.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329903</id>
	<title>Re:The Failure Of Linux,Open Source And Slashdot</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1244980440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It would have been quicker for you to throw a chair to let off some steam.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would have been quicker for you to throw a chair to let off some steam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would have been quicker for you to throw a chair to let off some steam.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328777</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329331</id>
	<title>Re:repeat of ogg?</title>
	<author>Overly Critical Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1244974740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What amuses me is the bias.  The submitter wrote "hideously encumbered H.264 format."  Hideously encumbered?  Give me a break.  It's as "encumbered" as MP3 is, and everybody uses MP3s.</p><p>Even Theora's developers say <a href="http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/theora/2009-March/002088.html" title="xiph.org" rel="nofollow">full H.264 edges out Theora</a> [xiph.org].  We're just supposed to adopt Theora simply because it's not "encumbered."  Well, outside the echo chamber, not a lot of people care about that.  Not to mention that H.264 has hardware acceleration support.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What amuses me is the bias .
The submitter wrote " hideously encumbered H.264 format .
" Hideously encumbered ?
Give me a break .
It 's as " encumbered " as MP3 is , and everybody uses MP3s.Even Theora 's developers say full H.264 edges out Theora [ xiph.org ] .
We 're just supposed to adopt Theora simply because it 's not " encumbered .
" Well , outside the echo chamber , not a lot of people care about that .
Not to mention that H.264 has hardware acceleration support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What amuses me is the bias.
The submitter wrote "hideously encumbered H.264 format.
"  Hideously encumbered?
Give me a break.
It's as "encumbered" as MP3 is, and everybody uses MP3s.Even Theora's developers say full H.264 edges out Theora [xiph.org].
We're just supposed to adopt Theora simply because it's not "encumbered.
"  Well, outside the echo chamber, not a lot of people care about that.
Not to mention that H.264 has hardware acceleration support.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328529</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329409</id>
	<title>Re:repeat of ogg?</title>
	<author>iMacGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1244975400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt;  Theora just scores higher on a scoring algorithm when compared ot a single h264 encoder, the open-source x264.

It doesn't even do that; it only scored higher when using Xiph's PSNR tool, because it respected a buggy colorspace header written by ffmpeg that didn't match the video. x264 won rather heavily when that was fixed, but<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. never retracted the story.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Theora just scores higher on a scoring algorithm when compared ot a single h264 encoder , the open-source x264 .
It does n't even do that ; it only scored higher when using Xiph 's PSNR tool , because it respected a buggy colorspace header written by ffmpeg that did n't match the video .
x264 won rather heavily when that was fixed , but / .
never retracted the story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;  Theora just scores higher on a scoring algorithm when compared ot a single h264 encoder, the open-source x264.
It doesn't even do that; it only scored higher when using Xiph's PSNR tool, because it respected a buggy colorspace header written by ffmpeg that didn't match the video.
x264 won rather heavily when that was fixed, but /.
never retracted the story.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328695</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329793</id>
	<title>Re:repeat of ogg?</title>
	<author>hedwards</author>
	<datestamp>1244979240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's my policy, rip to FLAC or APE, or something else that's lossless. I prefer to rip my discs to images complete with properly formatted and tagged cue sheet, then convert the whole catalog of files to a new format when technology dictates that I need to do so.<br> <br>

Sure it takes time, but I can make my computer do most of that work when I'm not actually at the computer, or focused on other things. With the plus side being that I don't really have to worry about tagging and retagging or file integrity. Just set something like SFV to task to ensure that the copies are still good and rerip the odd disc if I really have to. It really does settle the format and quality decisions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's my policy , rip to FLAC or APE , or something else that 's lossless .
I prefer to rip my discs to images complete with properly formatted and tagged cue sheet , then convert the whole catalog of files to a new format when technology dictates that I need to do so .
Sure it takes time , but I can make my computer do most of that work when I 'm not actually at the computer , or focused on other things .
With the plus side being that I do n't really have to worry about tagging and retagging or file integrity .
Just set something like SFV to task to ensure that the copies are still good and rerip the odd disc if I really have to .
It really does settle the format and quality decisions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's my policy, rip to FLAC or APE, or something else that's lossless.
I prefer to rip my discs to images complete with properly formatted and tagged cue sheet, then convert the whole catalog of files to a new format when technology dictates that I need to do so.
Sure it takes time, but I can make my computer do most of that work when I'm not actually at the computer, or focused on other things.
With the plus side being that I don't really have to worry about tagging and retagging or file integrity.
Just set something like SFV to task to ensure that the copies are still good and rerip the odd disc if I really have to.
It really does settle the format and quality decisions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328693</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28345249</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid stupid stupid...</title>
	<author>BZ</author>
	<datestamp>1245185220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; But Mozilla could pay the decoder cap fee (maxes out a $5M/year next year) and allow<br>&gt; as many people to download a H.264-enabled Firefox as they want, no?</p><p>Yes, but then it would not be open source anymore.  That is, you could download it, but not redistribute it.  And you couldn't, say, ship a browser called IceWeasel that does exactly what Firefox does without paying your own licensing fees.  Mozilla is not willing to do that.</p><p>Note the grandparent was very specific in talking about open-source browsers, not free (as in beer) browsers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; But Mozilla could pay the decoder cap fee ( maxes out a $ 5M/year next year ) and allow &gt; as many people to download a H.264-enabled Firefox as they want , no ? Yes , but then it would not be open source anymore .
That is , you could download it , but not redistribute it .
And you could n't , say , ship a browser called IceWeasel that does exactly what Firefox does without paying your own licensing fees .
Mozilla is not willing to do that.Note the grandparent was very specific in talking about open-source browsers , not free ( as in beer ) browsers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; But Mozilla could pay the decoder cap fee (maxes out a $5M/year next year) and allow&gt; as many people to download a H.264-enabled Firefox as they want, no?Yes, but then it would not be open source anymore.
That is, you could download it, but not redistribute it.
And you couldn't, say, ship a browser called IceWeasel that does exactly what Firefox does without paying your own licensing fees.
Mozilla is not willing to do that.Note the grandparent was very specific in talking about open-source browsers, not free (as in beer) browsers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329721</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328643</id>
	<title>Re:repeat of ogg?</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1244970060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've always been pretty skeptical of ogg (Vorbis...) actually catching on, and I'm pretty sure I have said so (my two big data points were the mp3s I had and Apple's complete failure to notice it).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've always been pretty skeptical of ogg ( Vorbis... ) actually catching on , and I 'm pretty sure I have said so ( my two big data points were the mp3s I had and Apple 's complete failure to notice it ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've always been pretty skeptical of ogg (Vorbis...) actually catching on, and I'm pretty sure I have said so (my two big data points were the mp3s I had and Apple's complete failure to notice it).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328529</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328893</id>
	<title>Re:repeat of ogg?</title>
	<author>julian67</author>
	<datestamp>1244971740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are an awful lot of players which support ogg.  Almost anything from Cowon, iRiver or Sansa does.  And almost all the Chinese brand/no-name/shop brand players support ogg even though they fail to explicitly state this (preferring to emblazon their players and packaging with mp3 and wma logos).  I used to import and sell mp3 and mp4 players and generally it's only the very cheapest mp4 video players which don't support ogg, that's the ones which claim asf container support is something to brag about.....usually these use an old rockchip video processor.</p><p>I have 5 personal players. 2 are old iRivers, H140 and H340, 2 are tiny no name Chinese mp3 players and one is a Chinese mp4 video player.  Only the iRivers claim to support ogg audio but the cheap mp3 players handle it fine as well.  I lived in SE Asia and every cheap mp3 player I ever checked played ogg audio too.  Not a single one made mention of it in the instructions, the specs, on the box or on the player.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are an awful lot of players which support ogg .
Almost anything from Cowon , iRiver or Sansa does .
And almost all the Chinese brand/no-name/shop brand players support ogg even though they fail to explicitly state this ( preferring to emblazon their players and packaging with mp3 and wma logos ) .
I used to import and sell mp3 and mp4 players and generally it 's only the very cheapest mp4 video players which do n't support ogg , that 's the ones which claim asf container support is something to brag about.....usually these use an old rockchip video processor.I have 5 personal players .
2 are old iRivers , H140 and H340 , 2 are tiny no name Chinese mp3 players and one is a Chinese mp4 video player .
Only the iRivers claim to support ogg audio but the cheap mp3 players handle it fine as well .
I lived in SE Asia and every cheap mp3 player I ever checked played ogg audio too .
Not a single one made mention of it in the instructions , the specs , on the box or on the player .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are an awful lot of players which support ogg.
Almost anything from Cowon, iRiver or Sansa does.
And almost all the Chinese brand/no-name/shop brand players support ogg even though they fail to explicitly state this (preferring to emblazon their players and packaging with mp3 and wma logos).
I used to import and sell mp3 and mp4 players and generally it's only the very cheapest mp4 video players which don't support ogg, that's the ones which claim asf container support is something to brag about.....usually these use an old rockchip video processor.I have 5 personal players.
2 are old iRivers, H140 and H340, 2 are tiny no name Chinese mp3 players and one is a Chinese mp4 video player.
Only the iRivers claim to support ogg audio but the cheap mp3 players handle it fine as well.
I lived in SE Asia and every cheap mp3 player I ever checked played ogg audio too.
Not a single one made mention of it in the instructions, the specs, on the box or on the player.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328529</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28333679</id>
	<title>Meh. Whatever.</title>
	<author>Millennium</author>
	<datestamp>1245070260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suspect that H.264 and Theora will emerge as dual coexisting standards for the video tag, much as GIF, JPEG, and PNG coexist as standards for the img tag. Browsers will eventually support both, either natively or through easy plug-in access, and no one will really care all that much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect that H.264 and Theora will emerge as dual coexisting standards for the video tag , much as GIF , JPEG , and PNG coexist as standards for the img tag .
Browsers will eventually support both , either natively or through easy plug-in access , and no one will really care all that much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect that H.264 and Theora will emerge as dual coexisting standards for the video tag, much as GIF, JPEG, and PNG coexist as standards for the img tag.
Browsers will eventually support both, either natively or through easy plug-in access, and no one will really care all that much.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329851</id>
	<title>Re:repeat of ogg?</title>
	<author>srussell</author>
	<datestamp>1244980020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Now, 5 years later I have a large collection of ogg files that are essentially useless. No one in the mainstream uses ogg, despite the superiority and price.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Weird.  I started out the same, but I'm <em>still</em> ripping to Vorbis ogg.  When I first started, I easily found the <a href="http://www.cowonamerica.com/products/cowon/d2/" title="cowonamerica.com">Cowon D2</a> [cowonamerica.com], which supported ogg.  When I bought my Android G1, hey!  Guess what?  The native media player supported ogg, too.  A quick Google search turns up <a href="http://wiki.xiph.org/index.php/PortablePlayers" title="xiph.org">this page</a> [xiph.org], which lists no fewer than 59 flash based portable media players that will play oggs, and 38 hard-drive based portable media players that do, too.  There are 5 smartphone platforms that support it (some of those through third-party apps for the phones).  The last two DVD players I've bought have come with support for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... what?  Playing oggs off data CDs.
<br> <br>
There are many mainstream companies that support ogg.  Some don't.  "No one," however, is simply incorrect.
<br> <br>
--- SER</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , 5 years later I have a large collection of ogg files that are essentially useless .
No one in the mainstream uses ogg , despite the superiority and price .
Weird. I started out the same , but I 'm still ripping to Vorbis ogg .
When I first started , I easily found the Cowon D2 [ cowonamerica.com ] , which supported ogg .
When I bought my Android G1 , hey !
Guess what ?
The native media player supported ogg , too .
A quick Google search turns up this page [ xiph.org ] , which lists no fewer than 59 flash based portable media players that will play oggs , and 38 hard-drive based portable media players that do , too .
There are 5 smartphone platforms that support it ( some of those through third-party apps for the phones ) .
The last two DVD players I 've bought have come with support for ... what ? Playing oggs off data CDs .
There are many mainstream companies that support ogg .
Some do n't .
" No one , " however , is simply incorrect .
--- SER</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, 5 years later I have a large collection of ogg files that are essentially useless.
No one in the mainstream uses ogg, despite the superiority and price.
Weird.  I started out the same, but I'm still ripping to Vorbis ogg.
When I first started, I easily found the Cowon D2 [cowonamerica.com], which supported ogg.
When I bought my Android G1, hey!
Guess what?
The native media player supported ogg, too.
A quick Google search turns up this page [xiph.org], which lists no fewer than 59 flash based portable media players that will play oggs, and 38 hard-drive based portable media players that do, too.
There are 5 smartphone platforms that support it (some of those through third-party apps for the phones).
The last two DVD players I've bought have come with support for ... what?  Playing oggs off data CDs.
There are many mainstream companies that support ogg.
Some don't.
"No one," however, is simply incorrect.
--- SER
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328529</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28332153</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid stupid stupid...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245004320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, Mozilla could afford it, and Apple could afford it, and Google could afford it.  But John Q. Developer hacking away in his garage after work could NOT.  Making h.264 a de facto standard would introduce a massive financial barrier to anyone trying to build a new rendering engine.  Do you think WebKit would even exist if it cost the authors potentially millions of dollars a year just to have it play Web video?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , Mozilla could afford it , and Apple could afford it , and Google could afford it .
But John Q. Developer hacking away in his garage after work could NOT .
Making h.264 a de facto standard would introduce a massive financial barrier to anyone trying to build a new rendering engine .
Do you think WebKit would even exist if it cost the authors potentially millions of dollars a year just to have it play Web video ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, Mozilla could afford it, and Apple could afford it, and Google could afford it.
But John Q. Developer hacking away in his garage after work could NOT.
Making h.264 a de facto standard would introduce a massive financial barrier to anyone trying to build a new rendering engine.
Do you think WebKit would even exist if it cost the authors potentially millions of dollars a year just to have it play Web video?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329721</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329959</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid stupid stupid...</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1244981160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Whatever problems people have regarding h.264 licensing - thinking that somehow Theora support should be tantamount while h.264 support is "nice as an extra"?</p></div></blockquote><p>I generally try to avoid commenting on grammar issues, but I think you have the word tantamount confused with paramount.</p><p>Paramount - on the mountain - says, as I think this construction intends, that most people think Theora support should be the primary goal.</p><p>Tantamount - the same amount - says, as I don't think you intended, that Theora support would be about the same thing as h.264. It's possible you understand this and this was just a Freudian slip, since the debate is whether or not the codecs' abilities are the same.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whatever problems people have regarding h.264 licensing - thinking that somehow Theora support should be tantamount while h.264 support is " nice as an extra " ? I generally try to avoid commenting on grammar issues , but I think you have the word tantamount confused with paramount.Paramount - on the mountain - says , as I think this construction intends , that most people think Theora support should be the primary goal.Tantamount - the same amount - says , as I do n't think you intended , that Theora support would be about the same thing as h.264 .
It 's possible you understand this and this was just a Freudian slip , since the debate is whether or not the codecs ' abilities are the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whatever problems people have regarding h.264 licensing - thinking that somehow Theora support should be tantamount while h.264 support is "nice as an extra"?I generally try to avoid commenting on grammar issues, but I think you have the word tantamount confused with paramount.Paramount - on the mountain - says, as I think this construction intends, that most people think Theora support should be the primary goal.Tantamount - the same amount - says, as I don't think you intended, that Theora support would be about the same thing as h.264.
It's possible you understand this and this was just a Freudian slip, since the debate is whether or not the codecs' abilities are the same.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328695</id>
	<title>Re:repeat of ogg?</title>
	<author>nxtw</author>
	<datestamp>1244970420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ogg Vorbis was better in quality than MP3 - back then (and even today) the most popular compression for music.  However, AAC and WMA are also better than MP3 - and people actually sold music in AAC and WMA formats as well as MP3.</p><p>Theroa is not better than h264 (the new popular standard for video on the Internet, many Blu-ray discs, HD satellite, and HD broadcast in some parts of the world), so it's not a repeat of Vorbis at all.  Theora just scores higher on a scoring algorithm when compared ot a single h264 encoder, the open-source x264.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ogg Vorbis was better in quality than MP3 - back then ( and even today ) the most popular compression for music .
However , AAC and WMA are also better than MP3 - and people actually sold music in AAC and WMA formats as well as MP3.Theroa is not better than h264 ( the new popular standard for video on the Internet , many Blu-ray discs , HD satellite , and HD broadcast in some parts of the world ) , so it 's not a repeat of Vorbis at all .
Theora just scores higher on a scoring algorithm when compared ot a single h264 encoder , the open-source x264 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ogg Vorbis was better in quality than MP3 - back then (and even today) the most popular compression for music.
However, AAC and WMA are also better than MP3 - and people actually sold music in AAC and WMA formats as well as MP3.Theroa is not better than h264 (the new popular standard for video on the Internet, many Blu-ray discs, HD satellite, and HD broadcast in some parts of the world), so it's not a repeat of Vorbis at all.
Theora just scores higher on a scoring algorithm when compared ot a single h264 encoder, the open-source x264.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328529</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329281</id>
	<title>Hat's off to you, I was wrong.</title>
	<author>Jamie's Nightmare</author>
	<datestamp>1244974320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You sir, knocked my socks clean off.  I had previously flagged you as a foe because I thought you were a world class prick, but you actually stood up and called "bullshit" for what it was.  I'd like to add to your fine observations.</p><p>Everyone take an extra look at the submission.  Specifically, <a href="http://encyclopediadramatica.com/David\_Gerard" title="encycloped...matica.com" rel="nofollow">David Gerard</a> [encycloped...matica.com].  Notice the spin he adds by using "hideously encumbered".  Sleazy, huh?  Wonder where he learned that trick?  Turns out David is good friends with Roy Schestowitz and Twitter, all of whom regularly contribue to everyone's favorite flame-bait website, <b>BoycottNovell</b>.  Fine, honest folks there.  What's worse, when David isn't advertising his websites on Slashdot with wanna-be Onion News articles, he's a regular editor on Wikipedia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You sir , knocked my socks clean off .
I had previously flagged you as a foe because I thought you were a world class prick , but you actually stood up and called " bullshit " for what it was .
I 'd like to add to your fine observations.Everyone take an extra look at the submission .
Specifically , David Gerard [ encycloped...matica.com ] .
Notice the spin he adds by using " hideously encumbered " .
Sleazy , huh ?
Wonder where he learned that trick ?
Turns out David is good friends with Roy Schestowitz and Twitter , all of whom regularly contribue to everyone 's favorite flame-bait website , BoycottNovell .
Fine , honest folks there .
What 's worse , when David is n't advertising his websites on Slashdot with wan na-be Onion News articles , he 's a regular editor on Wikipedia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You sir, knocked my socks clean off.
I had previously flagged you as a foe because I thought you were a world class prick, but you actually stood up and called "bullshit" for what it was.
I'd like to add to your fine observations.Everyone take an extra look at the submission.
Specifically, David Gerard [encycloped...matica.com].
Notice the spin he adds by using "hideously encumbered".
Sleazy, huh?
Wonder where he learned that trick?
Turns out David is good friends with Roy Schestowitz and Twitter, all of whom regularly contribue to everyone's favorite flame-bait website, BoycottNovell.
Fine, honest folks there.
What's worse, when David isn't advertising his websites on Slashdot with wanna-be Onion News articles, he's a regular editor on Wikipedia.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328463</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28332297</id>
	<title>I think it's time to give up on Slashdot.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245006540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I never expect Slashdot to have an unbiased point of view, but I generally expect something remotely resembling <b>accuracy</b>.</p><p>Theora does not entirely suck, but it's just not in the same ballpark as H.264 in terms of quality-per-bandwidth. Period.</p><p>Anyone who tells you otherwise is deluded or has some particular axe to grind, be it political or marketing.</p><p>The persons making the claims of Theora's competitiveness have HUGE conflict-of-interest claims in making it appear competitive, and an honest article headline and summary would have made this clear.</p><p>If your primary concern is "openness", then sure, Theora is for you. But if you want the best codec available today, and don't mind paying for it, don't delude yourself, and more importantly, <b>don't try to delude Slashdot readers</b>... it's dishonest and reflects poorly on your editorial choices.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I never expect Slashdot to have an unbiased point of view , but I generally expect something remotely resembling accuracy.Theora does not entirely suck , but it 's just not in the same ballpark as H.264 in terms of quality-per-bandwidth .
Period.Anyone who tells you otherwise is deluded or has some particular axe to grind , be it political or marketing.The persons making the claims of Theora 's competitiveness have HUGE conflict-of-interest claims in making it appear competitive , and an honest article headline and summary would have made this clear.If your primary concern is " openness " , then sure , Theora is for you .
But if you want the best codec available today , and do n't mind paying for it , do n't delude yourself , and more importantly , do n't try to delude Slashdot readers... it 's dishonest and reflects poorly on your editorial choices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I never expect Slashdot to have an unbiased point of view, but I generally expect something remotely resembling accuracy.Theora does not entirely suck, but it's just not in the same ballpark as H.264 in terms of quality-per-bandwidth.
Period.Anyone who tells you otherwise is deluded or has some particular axe to grind, be it political or marketing.The persons making the claims of Theora's competitiveness have HUGE conflict-of-interest claims in making it appear competitive, and an honest article headline and summary would have made this clear.If your primary concern is "openness", then sure, Theora is for you.
But if you want the best codec available today, and don't mind paying for it, don't delude yourself, and more importantly, don't try to delude Slashdot readers... it's dishonest and reflects poorly on your editorial choices.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28333737</id>
	<title>Re:repeat of ogg?</title>
	<author>LingNoi</author>
	<datestamp>1245070800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>the ipod accounts for the majority of all personal audio players now</p></div></blockquote><p>Only in the US, and even there I don't believe you are correct. Most people have crappy mp3 players. I know it's difficult to believe however if you left your basement.. narh, nevermind.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the ipod accounts for the majority of all personal audio players nowOnly in the US , and even there I do n't believe you are correct .
Most people have crappy mp3 players .
I know it 's difficult to believe however if you left your basement.. narh , nevermind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the ipod accounts for the majority of all personal audio players nowOnly in the US, and even there I don't believe you are correct.
Most people have crappy mp3 players.
I know it's difficult to believe however if you left your basement.. narh, nevermind.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329817</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328895</id>
	<title>Re:repeat of ogg?</title>
	<author>Jah-Wren Ryel</author>
	<datestamp>1244971740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now, 5 years later I have a large collection of ogg files that are essentially useless. No one in the mainstream uses ogg, despite the superiority and price.</p></div><p>That's more a function of the "mainstream" being dominated by Apple at ~90\% marketshare and their (a) ability to pay the mp3 and aac license fees without even noticing and (b)  interest in locking the consumer into the Apple world.  If it weren't for mp3's early prevalence making it a pre-requisite for any player, apple probably wouldn't even support that format either.</p><p>It seems clear to me that Apple's domination of the market for players is not anywhere near the economically optimal situation.  I don't think you can blame the libertarian-leaning slashdot for promoting a world-view that is free-market oriented, especially when, at the time, there was not even a hint that Apple or anyone else would grow to such dominance.</p><p>You would probably disagree, but I think it is worth supporting free market standards with as much effort as we can, even if it means we lose sometimes.  Because if we don't, we are probably going to lose all the time.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , 5 years later I have a large collection of ogg files that are essentially useless .
No one in the mainstream uses ogg , despite the superiority and price.That 's more a function of the " mainstream " being dominated by Apple at ~ 90 \ % marketshare and their ( a ) ability to pay the mp3 and aac license fees without even noticing and ( b ) interest in locking the consumer into the Apple world .
If it were n't for mp3 's early prevalence making it a pre-requisite for any player , apple probably would n't even support that format either.It seems clear to me that Apple 's domination of the market for players is not anywhere near the economically optimal situation .
I do n't think you can blame the libertarian-leaning slashdot for promoting a world-view that is free-market oriented , especially when , at the time , there was not even a hint that Apple or anyone else would grow to such dominance.You would probably disagree , but I think it is worth supporting free market standards with as much effort as we can , even if it means we lose sometimes .
Because if we do n't , we are probably going to lose all the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, 5 years later I have a large collection of ogg files that are essentially useless.
No one in the mainstream uses ogg, despite the superiority and price.That's more a function of the "mainstream" being dominated by Apple at ~90\% marketshare and their (a) ability to pay the mp3 and aac license fees without even noticing and (b)  interest in locking the consumer into the Apple world.
If it weren't for mp3's early prevalence making it a pre-requisite for any player, apple probably wouldn't even support that format either.It seems clear to me that Apple's domination of the market for players is not anywhere near the economically optimal situation.
I don't think you can blame the libertarian-leaning slashdot for promoting a world-view that is free-market oriented, especially when, at the time, there was not even a hint that Apple or anyone else would grow to such dominance.You would probably disagree, but I think it is worth supporting free market standards with as much effort as we can, even if it means we lose sometimes.
Because if we don't, we are probably going to lose all the time.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328529</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329835</id>
	<title>Re:repeat of ogg?</title>
	<author>gbarules2999</author>
	<datestamp>1244979840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sansa players all support ogg, thanks to firmware upgrades. Flac, too.<br> <br>I rip to ogg when it's a CD I know I won't delete from my Sansa Clip. It actually sounds pretty damn good.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sansa players all support ogg , thanks to firmware upgrades .
Flac , too .
I rip to ogg when it 's a CD I know I wo n't delete from my Sansa Clip .
It actually sounds pretty damn good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sansa players all support ogg, thanks to firmware upgrades.
Flac, too.
I rip to ogg when it's a CD I know I won't delete from my Sansa Clip.
It actually sounds pretty damn good.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328693</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28330427</id>
	<title>Re:repeat of ogg?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244986020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Very nice... do you have one to say that ? Sure, they have very good things (like output quality : sounds really very good, with my shure SE420 intra-headset).</p><p>But firmwares suck horribly : on my D2, still no way to load a complete album from the tagged list. I must go through the list of files (which allows loading a complete directory at once), which is a pain, and moreover a stupid one, as my music is divided between the internal flash and a HDSC (16GB+32GB by now : it would totally fit on neither), which forces me to go back and forth between folders.</p><p>This is silly at most, yet, Cowon monkeys prefer putting their efforts into crafting an animated flash UI for upcoming firmwares. Very nice, yeah... sure. Go get one, and we'll talk again about this. Cowon's concept of a bunch of formats, plus very good hardware quality doesn't change the major pain their firmware policy is.</p><p>Plus they are about the only ones that play open formats like FLAC or Ogg (there's also an outrageously expensive DJ player I saw, but that is almost all of it ; oh, yes, there also are alternative firmware, that only run on players that can't be bought for years). For now, it is cool, noticeably in my car (I go through line-in), but when I'll change it for one that as a dashboard integrated LCD, and an HDSC reader, it will be easier to only use its own player. And I'll be forced to surrender to the truth : it will be far easier to maintain another copy of my ripped CDs for the car, and it will most probably be in high rate MP3, though very sad to me, as Ogg and FLAC are practically non existent outside the computer geek world I most often belong to.</p><p>Enthusiasm doesn't imply blindness, dude. Sad, but true. Only one consumer brand allowing to play Ogg and FLAC doesn't make it easy to find a player : this just ties you to them, making it easier for them to mock you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Very nice... do you have one to say that ?
Sure , they have very good things ( like output quality : sounds really very good , with my shure SE420 intra-headset ) .But firmwares suck horribly : on my D2 , still no way to load a complete album from the tagged list .
I must go through the list of files ( which allows loading a complete directory at once ) , which is a pain , and moreover a stupid one , as my music is divided between the internal flash and a HDSC ( 16GB + 32GB by now : it would totally fit on neither ) , which forces me to go back and forth between folders.This is silly at most , yet , Cowon monkeys prefer putting their efforts into crafting an animated flash UI for upcoming firmwares .
Very nice , yeah... sure. Go get one , and we 'll talk again about this .
Cowon 's concept of a bunch of formats , plus very good hardware quality does n't change the major pain their firmware policy is.Plus they are about the only ones that play open formats like FLAC or Ogg ( there 's also an outrageously expensive DJ player I saw , but that is almost all of it ; oh , yes , there also are alternative firmware , that only run on players that ca n't be bought for years ) .
For now , it is cool , noticeably in my car ( I go through line-in ) , but when I 'll change it for one that as a dashboard integrated LCD , and an HDSC reader , it will be easier to only use its own player .
And I 'll be forced to surrender to the truth : it will be far easier to maintain another copy of my ripped CDs for the car , and it will most probably be in high rate MP3 , though very sad to me , as Ogg and FLAC are practically non existent outside the computer geek world I most often belong to.Enthusiasm does n't imply blindness , dude .
Sad , but true .
Only one consumer brand allowing to play Ogg and FLAC does n't make it easy to find a player : this just ties you to them , making it easier for them to mock you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very nice... do you have one to say that ?
Sure, they have very good things (like output quality : sounds really very good, with my shure SE420 intra-headset).But firmwares suck horribly : on my D2, still no way to load a complete album from the tagged list.
I must go through the list of files (which allows loading a complete directory at once), which is a pain, and moreover a stupid one, as my music is divided between the internal flash and a HDSC (16GB+32GB by now : it would totally fit on neither), which forces me to go back and forth between folders.This is silly at most, yet, Cowon monkeys prefer putting their efforts into crafting an animated flash UI for upcoming firmwares.
Very nice, yeah... sure. Go get one, and we'll talk again about this.
Cowon's concept of a bunch of formats, plus very good hardware quality doesn't change the major pain their firmware policy is.Plus they are about the only ones that play open formats like FLAC or Ogg (there's also an outrageously expensive DJ player I saw, but that is almost all of it ; oh, yes, there also are alternative firmware, that only run on players that can't be bought for years).
For now, it is cool, noticeably in my car (I go through line-in), but when I'll change it for one that as a dashboard integrated LCD, and an HDSC reader, it will be easier to only use its own player.
And I'll be forced to surrender to the truth : it will be far easier to maintain another copy of my ripped CDs for the car, and it will most probably be in high rate MP3, though very sad to me, as Ogg and FLAC are practically non existent outside the computer geek world I most often belong to.Enthusiasm doesn't imply blindness, dude.
Sad, but true.
Only one consumer brand allowing to play Ogg and FLAC doesn't make it easy to find a player : this just ties you to them, making it easier for them to mock you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328693</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329039</id>
	<title>Re:repeat of ogg?</title>
	<author>\_xeno\_</author>
	<datestamp>1244972640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's also the audio format that my Garmin n&#252;vi uses. If you go into the About screen it lists licensing information for several components, including an Ogg Vorbis decoder.</p><p>As I recall, starting with Unreal Tournament 2003, the "official" music format that Unreal uses is Ogg Vorbis as well. (According to the <a href="http://www.vorbis.com/faq/#dev" title="vorbis.com">Ogg Vorbis FAQ</a> [vorbis.com], I'm correct.)</p><p>So it may not be in wide use in portable media players, but it's out there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's also the audio format that my Garmin n   vi uses .
If you go into the About screen it lists licensing information for several components , including an Ogg Vorbis decoder.As I recall , starting with Unreal Tournament 2003 , the " official " music format that Unreal uses is Ogg Vorbis as well .
( According to the Ogg Vorbis FAQ [ vorbis.com ] , I 'm correct .
) So it may not be in wide use in portable media players , but it 's out there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's also the audio format that my Garmin nüvi uses.
If you go into the About screen it lists licensing information for several components, including an Ogg Vorbis decoder.As I recall, starting with Unreal Tournament 2003, the "official" music format that Unreal uses is Ogg Vorbis as well.
(According to the Ogg Vorbis FAQ [vorbis.com], I'm correct.
)So it may not be in wide use in portable media players, but it's out there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329511</id>
	<title>Maybe there's another reason.</title>
	<author>Perseid</author>
	<datestamp>1244976480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's a warning on the comparison site that a number of players, big name free players, don't correctly play Theora. In fact, Media Player Classic doesn't play it that video all. It's been many months since I've encountered a video that program couldn't play, so why if it's this great open source media codec do so many programs, some of them open source themselves, have a problem playing it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a warning on the comparison site that a number of players , big name free players , do n't correctly play Theora .
In fact , Media Player Classic does n't play it that video all .
It 's been many months since I 've encountered a video that program could n't play , so why if it 's this great open source media codec do so many programs , some of them open source themselves , have a problem playing it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a warning on the comparison site that a number of players, big name free players, don't correctly play Theora.
In fact, Media Player Classic doesn't play it that video all.
It's been many months since I've encountered a video that program couldn't play, so why if it's this great open source media codec do so many programs, some of them open source themselves, have a problem playing it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28330169</id>
	<title>the best codec</title>
	<author>dayton967</author>
	<datestamp>1244983380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have created codec that beats all of the others out of the water, and it's free and it's been around for a long time.  Its called GTFO, and it's so simple to use.  To use it, all you need to do is get your butt up outta that chair, and Go The G* Outside!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have created codec that beats all of the others out of the water , and it 's free and it 's been around for a long time .
Its called GTFO , and it 's so simple to use .
To use it , all you need to do is get your butt up outta that chair , and Go The G * Outside !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have created codec that beats all of the others out of the water, and it's free and it's been around for a long time.
Its called GTFO, and it's so simple to use.
To use it, all you need to do is get your butt up outta that chair, and Go The G* Outside!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328529</id>
	<title>repeat of ogg?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245012540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember when ogg first came out.  I read slashdot regularly, saw all the information about how great it was, how since it was free it would be easily adopted by hardware makers who didn't need to pay for the privilege.  I bought into the hype.  I ripped my cd's to ogg files, paid extra money for a neuros player because it was one of the few players that handled ogg files.</p><p>Now, 5 years later I have a large collection of ogg files that are essentially useless.  No one in the mainstream uses ogg, despite the superiority and price.  Whenever I get a new player, I have to carefully read the specs to see if it will play my oggs.  Few do.  Luckily I have the cds and I can simply re-rip them to mp3s as I find the time/care too.</p><p>My guess is that the same thing will happen with theora.  It may be superior.  It may be cheaper.  But I just don't think it will catch on.  It's another example of the slashdot echo chamber.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember when ogg first came out .
I read slashdot regularly , saw all the information about how great it was , how since it was free it would be easily adopted by hardware makers who did n't need to pay for the privilege .
I bought into the hype .
I ripped my cd 's to ogg files , paid extra money for a neuros player because it was one of the few players that handled ogg files.Now , 5 years later I have a large collection of ogg files that are essentially useless .
No one in the mainstream uses ogg , despite the superiority and price .
Whenever I get a new player , I have to carefully read the specs to see if it will play my oggs .
Few do .
Luckily I have the cds and I can simply re-rip them to mp3s as I find the time/care too.My guess is that the same thing will happen with theora .
It may be superior .
It may be cheaper .
But I just do n't think it will catch on .
It 's another example of the slashdot echo chamber .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember when ogg first came out.
I read slashdot regularly, saw all the information about how great it was, how since it was free it would be easily adopted by hardware makers who didn't need to pay for the privilege.
I bought into the hype.
I ripped my cd's to ogg files, paid extra money for a neuros player because it was one of the few players that handled ogg files.Now, 5 years later I have a large collection of ogg files that are essentially useless.
No one in the mainstream uses ogg, despite the superiority and price.
Whenever I get a new player, I have to carefully read the specs to see if it will play my oggs.
Few do.
Luckily I have the cds and I can simply re-rip them to mp3s as I find the time/care too.My guess is that the same thing will happen with theora.
It may be superior.
It may be cheaper.
But I just don't think it will catch on.
It's another example of the slashdot echo chamber.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28331531</id>
	<title>Re:repeat of ogg?</title>
	<author>Sir\_Lewk</author>
	<datestamp>1244997120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My rockbox'd 5th gen ipod is the best music player I've ever had.  My greatest fear is that it will die, along with any other 5th gen out there and I'll be forced to find something newer (provided they still don't have alternative firmwares for the newer ipods)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My rockbox 'd 5th gen ipod is the best music player I 've ever had .
My greatest fear is that it will die , along with any other 5th gen out there and I 'll be forced to find something newer ( provided they still do n't have alternative firmwares for the newer ipods )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My rockbox'd 5th gen ipod is the best music player I've ever had.
My greatest fear is that it will die, along with any other 5th gen out there and I'll be forced to find something newer (provided they still don't have alternative firmwares for the newer ipods)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328529</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329639</id>
	<title>Is embedded video going to be blockable?</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1244977860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's my biggest concern with embedded video support in Firefox. When everyone uses Flash, it's easy to stop random web pages from auto-running a pointless and loud video clip in my ear. I just install Flashblock. Can I do the same for Theora?</p><p>I ask because I just today had a movie review site auto-play a video and I went 'what the? am I running IE again?' It was truly a retro 1990s experience, and not in a good way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's my biggest concern with embedded video support in Firefox .
When everyone uses Flash , it 's easy to stop random web pages from auto-running a pointless and loud video clip in my ear .
I just install Flashblock .
Can I do the same for Theora ? I ask because I just today had a movie review site auto-play a video and I went 'what the ?
am I running IE again ?
' It was truly a retro 1990s experience , and not in a good way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's my biggest concern with embedded video support in Firefox.
When everyone uses Flash, it's easy to stop random web pages from auto-running a pointless and loud video clip in my ear.
I just install Flashblock.
Can I do the same for Theora?I ask because I just today had a movie review site auto-play a video and I went 'what the?
am I running IE again?
' It was truly a retro 1990s experience, and not in a good way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329389</id>
	<title>G1 supports it</title>
	<author>bobetov</author>
	<datestamp>1244975280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just wanted to put a plug in for the HTC-built G1 phone, which has had built-in OGG support from day one.</p><p>Very nice toy, am loving being able to SSH into my servers anywhere there's cell service.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just wanted to put a plug in for the HTC-built G1 phone , which has had built-in OGG support from day one.Very nice toy , am loving being able to SSH into my servers anywhere there 's cell service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just wanted to put a plug in for the HTC-built G1 phone, which has had built-in OGG support from day one.Very nice toy, am loving being able to SSH into my servers anywhere there's cell service.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328529</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329777</id>
	<title>Subjective viewing quality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244979120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>After comparing the 499kbit H.264, and Theora video clips of Big Buck Bunny, clearly H.264 looks better. At this bitrate, there is obvious degradation in both samples, however H.264 is much more watchable. Theora struggles with flat areas such as text, and there is an unacceptable amount of artifacts around these elements. Perhaps in time, Theora will mature to the point where it can compete.</htmltext>
<tokenext>After comparing the 499kbit H.264 , and Theora video clips of Big Buck Bunny , clearly H.264 looks better .
At this bitrate , there is obvious degradation in both samples , however H.264 is much more watchable .
Theora struggles with flat areas such as text , and there is an unacceptable amount of artifacts around these elements .
Perhaps in time , Theora will mature to the point where it can compete .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After comparing the 499kbit H.264, and Theora video clips of Big Buck Bunny, clearly H.264 looks better.
At this bitrate, there is obvious degradation in both samples, however H.264 is much more watchable.
Theora struggles with flat areas such as text, and there is an unacceptable amount of artifacts around these elements.
Perhaps in time, Theora will mature to the point where it can compete.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28360181</id>
	<title>Re:repeat of ogg?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245245700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dude you seriously need to stop reading those 'make me a drone' ipod and iphone ads. Almost every 'mp3' player on the market except US made crap can play oggs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude you seriously need to stop reading those 'make me a drone ' ipod and iphone ads .
Almost every 'mp3 ' player on the market except US made crap can play oggs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude you seriously need to stop reading those 'make me a drone' ipod and iphone ads.
Almost every 'mp3' player on the market except US made crap can play oggs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328529</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329243</id>
	<title>Re:repeat of ogg?</title>
	<author>cheftw</author>
	<datestamp>1244974020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My ipod plays ogg, but I prefer FLAC.</p><p>Just because the guy across the road plays wmvz on his Zune doesn't make your music sound worse.</p><p>How often do you buy a new player anway? Every other year maybe?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My ipod plays ogg , but I prefer FLAC.Just because the guy across the road plays wmvz on his Zune does n't make your music sound worse.How often do you buy a new player anway ?
Every other year maybe ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My ipod plays ogg, but I prefer FLAC.Just because the guy across the road plays wmvz on his Zune doesn't make your music sound worse.How often do you buy a new player anway?
Every other year maybe?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328529</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28334557</id>
	<title>Re:repeat of ogg?</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1245077640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is a repeat, let me demonstrate:</p><blockquote><div><p>Ogg Vorbis was better in quality than MP3 - back then (and even today) the most popular compression for music. However, AAC and WMA are also better than MP3 - and people actually sold music in AAC and WMA formats as well as MP3</p></div></blockquote><p>Theora is better in quality than MPEG4, the most popular compression for video.  However h264 is also better than MPEG4 - and people actually sell videos in h264 formats as well as MPEG4.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is a repeat , let me demonstrate : Ogg Vorbis was better in quality than MP3 - back then ( and even today ) the most popular compression for music .
However , AAC and WMA are also better than MP3 - and people actually sold music in AAC and WMA formats as well as MP3Theora is better in quality than MPEG4 , the most popular compression for video .
However h264 is also better than MPEG4 - and people actually sell videos in h264 formats as well as MPEG4 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is a repeat, let me demonstrate:Ogg Vorbis was better in quality than MP3 - back then (and even today) the most popular compression for music.
However, AAC and WMA are also better than MP3 - and people actually sold music in AAC and WMA formats as well as MP3Theora is better in quality than MPEG4, the most popular compression for video.
However h264 is also better than MPEG4 - and people actually sell videos in h264 formats as well as MPEG4.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328695</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328693</id>
	<title>Re:repeat of ogg?</title>
	<author>vadim\_t</author>
	<datestamp>1244970360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rip to FLAC, then encode that into whatever fits the device best.</p><p>In my experience, finding a player that does<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.ogg isn't that hard. Look at the players made by Cowon for instance, they're very nice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rip to FLAC , then encode that into whatever fits the device best.In my experience , finding a player that does .ogg is n't that hard .
Look at the players made by Cowon for instance , they 're very nice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rip to FLAC, then encode that into whatever fits the device best.In my experience, finding a player that does .ogg isn't that hard.
Look at the players made by Cowon for instance, they're very nice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328529</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329057</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid stupid stupid...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244972760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>BUT ITS NOT AS FREEE1111111!!!11!111!!1<br> <br>Fucking irrational freetards.</htmltext>
<tokenext>BUT ITS NOT AS FREEE1111111 ! ! ! 11 ! 111 !
! 1 Fucking irrational freetards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BUT ITS NOT AS FREEE1111111!!!11!111!
!1 Fucking irrational freetards.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28339159</id>
	<title>Re:Is embedded video going to be blockable?</title>
	<author>asa</author>
	<datestamp>1245097560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That's my biggest concern with embedded video support in Firefox. When everyone uses Flash, it's easy to stop random web pages from auto-running a pointless and loud video clip in my ear. I just install Flashblock. Can I do the same for Theora?</p><p>I ask because I just today had a movie review site auto-play a video and I went 'what the? am I running IE again?' It was truly a retro 1990s experience, and not in a good way.</p></div><p>I'm sure there will be a "disable auto-play" in Firefox about:config or an add-on that does it.  There may even be a general preference for it in prefs UI at some point.  Not only that, but Firefox itself can know when a background tab is playing video and give some kind of indicator which tab it is, maybe even putting a play/pause/mute control in the tab itself. That's not possible with Flash video because Flash doesn't provide an API that lets the browser know whether it's playing or not.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's my biggest concern with embedded video support in Firefox .
When everyone uses Flash , it 's easy to stop random web pages from auto-running a pointless and loud video clip in my ear .
I just install Flashblock .
Can I do the same for Theora ? I ask because I just today had a movie review site auto-play a video and I went 'what the ?
am I running IE again ?
' It was truly a retro 1990s experience , and not in a good way.I 'm sure there will be a " disable auto-play " in Firefox about : config or an add-on that does it .
There may even be a general preference for it in prefs UI at some point .
Not only that , but Firefox itself can know when a background tab is playing video and give some kind of indicator which tab it is , maybe even putting a play/pause/mute control in the tab itself .
That 's not possible with Flash video because Flash does n't provide an API that lets the browser know whether it 's playing or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's my biggest concern with embedded video support in Firefox.
When everyone uses Flash, it's easy to stop random web pages from auto-running a pointless and loud video clip in my ear.
I just install Flashblock.
Can I do the same for Theora?I ask because I just today had a movie review site auto-play a video and I went 'what the?
am I running IE again?
' It was truly a retro 1990s experience, and not in a good way.I'm sure there will be a "disable auto-play" in Firefox about:config or an add-on that does it.
There may even be a general preference for it in prefs UI at some point.
Not only that, but Firefox itself can know when a background tab is playing video and give some kind of indicator which tab it is, maybe even putting a play/pause/mute control in the tab itself.
That's not possible with Flash video because Flash doesn't provide an API that lets the browser know whether it's playing or not.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329093</id>
	<title>rip as flac</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244973060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You get a backup and you can transcode it to whatever you might ever need.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You get a backup and you can transcode it to whatever you might ever need .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You get a backup and you can transcode it to whatever you might ever need.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328529</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28333857</id>
	<title>Re:repeat of ogg?</title>
	<author>JasterBobaMereel</author>
	<datestamp>1245072300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...so you re-encode to MP3 a format that is slower more CPU intensive and a very old format<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but well supported</p><p>This is not an argument for Ogg but against MP3 which is widely supported mostly because it is widely supported</p><p>Nothing has come along to supplant it not because there is nothing better/cheaper/simpler/faster etc but because nothing else is as well supported<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p><p>Theora will be well supported simply because it will be in the HTML 5 spec and so the majority will support it, they will also support other codecs but the default will be theora<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...so you re-encode to MP3 a format that is slower more CPU intensive and a very old format ... but well supportedThis is not an argument for Ogg but against MP3 which is widely supported mostly because it is widely supportedNothing has come along to supplant it not because there is nothing better/cheaper/simpler/faster etc but because nothing else is as well supported ....Theora will be well supported simply because it will be in the HTML 5 spec and so the majority will support it , they will also support other codecs but the default will be theora ... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...so you re-encode to MP3 a format that is slower more CPU intensive and a very old format ... but well supportedThis is not an argument for Ogg but against MP3 which is widely supported mostly because it is widely supportedNothing has come along to supplant it not because there is nothing better/cheaper/simpler/faster etc but because nothing else is as well supported ....Theora will be well supported simply because it will be in the HTML 5 spec and so the majority will support it, they will also support other codecs but the default will be theora ....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328529</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329463</id>
	<title>x264 sucks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244975940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>and a specific H.264 encoder (x264) which is NOT the best encoder around</p></div></blockquote><p>So what do you recommend as a superior alternative to x264? I'm under the impression, after using x264 for years and years, that it's definitely the best current implementation of the h.264 spec available today. <br>I am actually a little aghast at the possibility that a better h264 encoder has been let loose and nobody in the scene knows about it yet.. suggestions welcome of course.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and a specific H.264 encoder ( x264 ) which is NOT the best encoder aroundSo what do you recommend as a superior alternative to x264 ?
I 'm under the impression , after using x264 for years and years , that it 's definitely the best current implementation of the h.264 spec available today .
I am actually a little aghast at the possibility that a better h264 encoder has been let loose and nobody in the scene knows about it yet.. suggestions welcome of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and a specific H.264 encoder (x264) which is NOT the best encoder aroundSo what do you recommend as a superior alternative to x264?
I'm under the impression, after using x264 for years and years, that it's definitely the best current implementation of the h.264 spec available today.
I am actually a little aghast at the possibility that a better h264 encoder has been let loose and nobody in the scene knows about it yet.. suggestions welcome of course.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328463</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28331155</id>
	<title>Re:repeat of ogg?</title>
	<author>mr\_stinky\_britches</author>
	<datestamp>1244993640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>iMacGuy wrote:<blockquote><div><p>Why won't slashdot let me change my terrible username<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

Great sig- you just made my night, thanks!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>iMacGuy wrote : Why wo n't slashdot let me change my terrible username : ( Great sig- you just made my night , thanks !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>iMacGuy wrote:Why won't slashdot let me change my terrible username :(


Great sig- you just made my night, thanks!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329409</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28330789</id>
	<title>Re:Is embedded video going to be blockable?</title>
	<author>Philip\_the\_physicist</author>
	<datestamp>1244989260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I suspect there would be an option in about:config to allow the user to ignore autoplay=true, but it would be harder to prevent a script activating the player without disabling scripting altogether, or using a very complex set of rule to decide whether to respect the command.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect there would be an option in about : config to allow the user to ignore autoplay = true , but it would be harder to prevent a script activating the player without disabling scripting altogether , or using a very complex set of rule to decide whether to respect the command .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect there would be an option in about:config to allow the user to ignore autoplay=true, but it would be harder to prevent a script activating the player without disabling scripting altogether, or using a very complex set of rule to decide whether to respect the command.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28330191</id>
	<title>Re:repeat of ogg?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244983560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is what I think I'll start doing. But my GF just bought a new Samsung player that plays both Vorbis &amp; FLAC, so there's definitely quite a few devices that handles it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is what I think I 'll start doing .
But my GF just bought a new Samsung player that plays both Vorbis &amp; FLAC , so there 's definitely quite a few devices that handles it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is what I think I'll start doing.
But my GF just bought a new Samsung player that plays both Vorbis &amp; FLAC, so there's definitely quite a few devices that handles it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328693</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328721</id>
	<title>Re:Theora FAIL</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1244970540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But right now they're using H.263, so anything is an improvement!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</p><p>I remember when I had a perfect quality 256kbit video. I uploaded it to youtube, and it got transcoded into a blurry ~512kbit mess with audio desynced.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But right now they 're using H.263 , so anything is an improvement !
: DI remember when I had a perfect quality 256kbit video .
I uploaded it to youtube , and it got transcoded into a blurry ~ 512kbit mess with audio desynced .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But right now they're using H.263, so anything is an improvement!
:DI remember when I had a perfect quality 256kbit video.
I uploaded it to youtube, and it got transcoded into a blurry ~512kbit mess with audio desynced.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328463</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28331309</id>
	<title>h253 has been around for a decade or so</title>
	<author>Grocks</author>
	<datestamp>1244995140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It has always been popular in the two-way video conferencing world.  I used it in 1998, IIRC.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It has always been popular in the two-way video conferencing world .
I used it in 1998 , IIRC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has always been popular in the two-way video conferencing world.
I used it in 1998, IIRC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328695</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329119</id>
	<title>Re:repeat of ogg?</title>
	<author>Dutch Gun</author>
	<datestamp>1244973180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ogg Vorbis is also used in video games because it has some other advantages: it supports 6-channel audio, and has support for bit-accurate decoding, allowing seamless looping of audio, and it sounds better at lower bitrates.  I know MP3s can be kludged to do some of these, but it's easier just to use Vorbis in these cases.</p><p>Our upcoming game will actually be shipping with both MP3 and Ogg Vorbis audio.  The MP3 decoder we're using is significantly more efficient than the reference Vorbis libraries, and allows us to play more simultaneously decoded channels.  However, if a piece of audio needs to loop, to use multi-channel, or if we're encoding a LOT of it (music, voice-overs, etc), we use Ogg Vorbis.</p><p>Honestly, the cost of the license isn't really an issue at all.  It's all about what does the job best for us, and MP3 and Vorbis each have strengths and weaknesses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ogg Vorbis is also used in video games because it has some other advantages : it supports 6-channel audio , and has support for bit-accurate decoding , allowing seamless looping of audio , and it sounds better at lower bitrates .
I know MP3s can be kludged to do some of these , but it 's easier just to use Vorbis in these cases.Our upcoming game will actually be shipping with both MP3 and Ogg Vorbis audio .
The MP3 decoder we 're using is significantly more efficient than the reference Vorbis libraries , and allows us to play more simultaneously decoded channels .
However , if a piece of audio needs to loop , to use multi-channel , or if we 're encoding a LOT of it ( music , voice-overs , etc ) , we use Ogg Vorbis.Honestly , the cost of the license is n't really an issue at all .
It 's all about what does the job best for us , and MP3 and Vorbis each have strengths and weaknesses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ogg Vorbis is also used in video games because it has some other advantages: it supports 6-channel audio, and has support for bit-accurate decoding, allowing seamless looping of audio, and it sounds better at lower bitrates.
I know MP3s can be kludged to do some of these, but it's easier just to use Vorbis in these cases.Our upcoming game will actually be shipping with both MP3 and Ogg Vorbis audio.
The MP3 decoder we're using is significantly more efficient than the reference Vorbis libraries, and allows us to play more simultaneously decoded channels.
However, if a piece of audio needs to loop, to use multi-channel, or if we're encoding a LOT of it (music, voice-overs, etc), we use Ogg Vorbis.Honestly, the cost of the license isn't really an issue at all.
It's all about what does the job best for us, and MP3 and Vorbis each have strengths and weaknesses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28331753</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid stupid stupid...</title>
	<author>laird</author>
	<datestamp>1244999400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"An open-source browser cannot legally read h264 video"</p><p>Browsers don't "read" any video files - they use CODECs to do so. Pretty much every OS comes with (or can easily have installed) an h.264 decoder at no cost to the user.</p><p>Many media formats have licensing costs - MP3, MP4, DivX, etc. Those costs are usually paid by the OS vendor, who covers the licensing costs in the cost of the OS. And if there's a decoder in hardware, the licensing cost is covered in the chip cost. You may not realize it, but every MP3 player pays a fee to the inventor of the MP3 format. And so on for pretty much every CODEC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" An open-source browser can not legally read h264 video " Browsers do n't " read " any video files - they use CODECs to do so .
Pretty much every OS comes with ( or can easily have installed ) an h.264 decoder at no cost to the user.Many media formats have licensing costs - MP3 , MP4 , DivX , etc .
Those costs are usually paid by the OS vendor , who covers the licensing costs in the cost of the OS .
And if there 's a decoder in hardware , the licensing cost is covered in the chip cost .
You may not realize it , but every MP3 player pays a fee to the inventor of the MP3 format .
And so on for pretty much every CODEC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"An open-source browser cannot legally read h264 video"Browsers don't "read" any video files - they use CODECs to do so.
Pretty much every OS comes with (or can easily have installed) an h.264 decoder at no cost to the user.Many media formats have licensing costs - MP3, MP4, DivX, etc.
Those costs are usually paid by the OS vendor, who covers the licensing costs in the cost of the OS.
And if there's a decoder in hardware, the licensing cost is covered in the chip cost.
You may not realize it, but every MP3 player pays a fee to the inventor of the MP3 format.
And so on for pretty much every CODEC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329721</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28330235</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid stupid stupid...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244983920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would paying this fee allow others to modify and redistribute Firefox (including the h264 implementation) without repaying the fee?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would paying this fee allow others to modify and redistribute Firefox ( including the h264 implementation ) without repaying the fee ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would paying this fee allow others to modify and redistribute Firefox (including the h264 implementation) without repaying the fee?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329721</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28336621</id>
	<title>Re:Is embedded video going to be blockable?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245086880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was about to say: I assume most browsers would have an "autoload videos" preference setting, just like they have an "autoload images" preference.  But then I looked in my browser prefs and couldn't find the "autoload images" prefs.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)  Ok, so our browers are getting worse than they were in the 1990s.  But they don't <em>have</em> to suck; someone could conceivably have a "don't start sucking bandwidth and making noise right away" setting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was about to say : I assume most browsers would have an " autoload videos " preference setting , just like they have an " autoload images " preference .
But then I looked in my browser prefs and could n't find the " autoload images " prefs .
; - ) Ok , so our browers are getting worse than they were in the 1990s .
But they do n't have to suck ; someone could conceivably have a " do n't start sucking bandwidth and making noise right away " setting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was about to say: I assume most browsers would have an "autoload videos" preference setting, just like they have an "autoload images" preference.
But then I looked in my browser prefs and couldn't find the "autoload images" prefs.
;-)  Ok, so our browers are getting worse than they were in the 1990s.
But they don't have to suck; someone could conceivably have a "don't start sucking bandwidth and making noise right away" setting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329231</id>
	<title>Oh FFS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244973840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For crying out loud, Oggfags, STFU.  I am so not interested in your stupid little format.  This is exactly the kind of OSS whining that makes Linux so unappealing.</p><p>This crap is like anime.  I love the product, generally speaking.  I hate HATE HATE HATE HATE the others who love the product.</p><p>If Ogg were awesome, it would stand on its own.  It is not, and thus it does not.</p><p>Boo effing hell damn hoo.  Too bad, so sad.  Play harder next time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For crying out loud , Oggfags , STFU .
I am so not interested in your stupid little format .
This is exactly the kind of OSS whining that makes Linux so unappealing.This crap is like anime .
I love the product , generally speaking .
I hate HATE HATE HATE HATE the others who love the product.If Ogg were awesome , it would stand on its own .
It is not , and thus it does not.Boo effing hell damn hoo .
Too bad , so sad .
Play harder next time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For crying out loud, Oggfags, STFU.
I am so not interested in your stupid little format.
This is exactly the kind of OSS whining that makes Linux so unappealing.This crap is like anime.
I love the product, generally speaking.
I hate HATE HATE HATE HATE the others who love the product.If Ogg were awesome, it would stand on its own.
It is not, and thus it does not.Boo effing hell damn hoo.
Too bad, so sad.
Play harder next time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328681</id>
	<title>hideously encumbered??</title>
	<author>bennini</author>
	<datestamp>1244970300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3y3QoFnqZc" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3y3QoFnqZc</a> [youtube.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = V3y3QoFnqZc [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3y3QoFnqZc [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328463</id>
	<title>Theora FAIL</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1245012120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Understanding <a href="http://web.mit.edu/xiphmont/Public/theora/demo7.html" title="mit.edu" rel="nofollow">TFA linked from</a> [mit.edu] <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/07/2352203&amp;tid=188" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">your "equally good" link</a> [slashdot.org] to a slashdot story? YOU FAIL IT!!! From TFA:</p><blockquote><div><p>Let me reiterate- and this is important- as folks have run way too far cherrypicking quotes from this update: Both before and after the correction, this graph shows only that Theora is improving. PSNR means very little when comparing Theora directly to x264. PSNR is an objective measure that does not represent perceived quality (though they correlate), and PSNR measurements have always been especially kind to Theora. None of these PSNR measurements, including clips where Thusnelda 'wins', mean that Thusnelda beats x264 in perceived quality, as it certainly does not (yet<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-), only that the gap is closing even before the task of detailed subjective tuning has begun in earnest.</p></div> </blockquote><p>So just to recap, you have suggested that Ogg Theora video provides quality comparable to H.264 based on a study using a specific development-version Ogg Theora video codec and a specific H.264 encoder (x264) which is NOT the best encoder around, when it in fact has inferior SnR (the only thing the study was meant to test) as compared to x264, which has inferior SnR as compared to other H.264 encoders?<br>I don't know who failed bigger, you, Soulskill, or the peoples of slashdot who actually use the firehose... but you have all failed miserably.</p><p>With all that said; is there any reason they can't add Theora support later?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Understanding TFA linked from [ mit.edu ] your " equally good " link [ slashdot.org ] to a slashdot story ?
YOU FAIL IT ! ! !
From TFA : Let me reiterate- and this is important- as folks have run way too far cherrypicking quotes from this update : Both before and after the correction , this graph shows only that Theora is improving .
PSNR means very little when comparing Theora directly to x264 .
PSNR is an objective measure that does not represent perceived quality ( though they correlate ) , and PSNR measurements have always been especially kind to Theora .
None of these PSNR measurements , including clips where Thusnelda 'wins ' , mean that Thusnelda beats x264 in perceived quality , as it certainly does not ( yet ; - ) , only that the gap is closing even before the task of detailed subjective tuning has begun in earnest .
So just to recap , you have suggested that Ogg Theora video provides quality comparable to H.264 based on a study using a specific development-version Ogg Theora video codec and a specific H.264 encoder ( x264 ) which is NOT the best encoder around , when it in fact has inferior SnR ( the only thing the study was meant to test ) as compared to x264 , which has inferior SnR as compared to other H.264 encoders ? I do n't know who failed bigger , you , Soulskill , or the peoples of slashdot who actually use the firehose... but you have all failed miserably.With all that said ; is there any reason they ca n't add Theora support later ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Understanding TFA linked from [mit.edu] your "equally good" link [slashdot.org] to a slashdot story?
YOU FAIL IT!!!
From TFA:Let me reiterate- and this is important- as folks have run way too far cherrypicking quotes from this update: Both before and after the correction, this graph shows only that Theora is improving.
PSNR means very little when comparing Theora directly to x264.
PSNR is an objective measure that does not represent perceived quality (though they correlate), and PSNR measurements have always been especially kind to Theora.
None of these PSNR measurements, including clips where Thusnelda 'wins', mean that Thusnelda beats x264 in perceived quality, as it certainly does not (yet ;-), only that the gap is closing even before the task of detailed subjective tuning has begun in earnest.
So just to recap, you have suggested that Ogg Theora video provides quality comparable to H.264 based on a study using a specific development-version Ogg Theora video codec and a specific H.264 encoder (x264) which is NOT the best encoder around, when it in fact has inferior SnR (the only thing the study was meant to test) as compared to x264, which has inferior SnR as compared to other H.264 encoders?I don't know who failed bigger, you, Soulskill, or the peoples of slashdot who actually use the firehose... but you have all failed miserably.With all that said; is there any reason they can't add Theora support later?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329721</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid stupid stupid...</title>
	<author>benwaggoner</author>
	<datestamp>1244978640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> An open-source browser cannot legally read h264 video, that is the real issue that people seem to have trouble to understand.</p></div><p>I keep hearing that, but I don't know why that would be so. MPEG-LA requires a fee for distribution of products. But Mozilla could pay the decoder cap fee (maxes out a $5M/year next year) and allow as many people to download a H.264-enabled Firefox as they want, no?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>That is why the HTML standard only mandates a format that is not impaired by any legal restrictions: Theora.</p></div><p>HTML5 does not mandate any codec or format. Ogg with Vorbis and Theora were proposed, but not included in the current draft, due to concerns by (IIRC) Nokia and Apple.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>An open-source browser can not legally read h264 video , that is the real issue that people seem to have trouble to understand.I keep hearing that , but I do n't know why that would be so .
MPEG-LA requires a fee for distribution of products .
But Mozilla could pay the decoder cap fee ( maxes out a $ 5M/year next year ) and allow as many people to download a H.264-enabled Firefox as they want , no ? That is why the HTML standard only mandates a format that is not impaired by any legal restrictions : Theora.HTML5 does not mandate any codec or format .
Ogg with Vorbis and Theora were proposed , but not included in the current draft , due to concerns by ( IIRC ) Nokia and Apple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> An open-source browser cannot legally read h264 video, that is the real issue that people seem to have trouble to understand.I keep hearing that, but I don't know why that would be so.
MPEG-LA requires a fee for distribution of products.
But Mozilla could pay the decoder cap fee (maxes out a $5M/year next year) and allow as many people to download a H.264-enabled Firefox as they want, no?That is why the HTML standard only mandates a format that is not impaired by any legal restrictions: Theora.HTML5 does not mandate any codec or format.
Ogg with Vorbis and Theora were proposed, but not included in the current draft, due to concerns by (IIRC) Nokia and Apple.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328817</id>
	<title>Re:repeat of ogg?</title>
	<author>IntlHarvester</author>
	<datestamp>1244971140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>how since it was free it would be easily adopted by hardware makers who didn't need to pay for the privilege.</p> </div><p>Problem is that nobody knows if this is true or not. Major manufacturers such as Apple would rather pay the MPEG tax than deal with a potential lawsuit. I don't know if this figures into Google's thinking, but they're obviously a big target.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>how since it was free it would be easily adopted by hardware makers who did n't need to pay for the privilege .
Problem is that nobody knows if this is true or not .
Major manufacturers such as Apple would rather pay the MPEG tax than deal with a potential lawsuit .
I do n't know if this figures into Google 's thinking , but they 're obviously a big target .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how since it was free it would be easily adopted by hardware makers who didn't need to pay for the privilege.
Problem is that nobody knows if this is true or not.
Major manufacturers such as Apple would rather pay the MPEG tax than deal with a potential lawsuit.
I don't know if this figures into Google's thinking, but they're obviously a big target.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328529</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328899</id>
	<title>Re:Theora FAIL</title>
	<author>wgoodman</author>
	<datestamp>1244971740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you're so irritated that this got posted, why not vote things down on the firehose instead of just talking shit about those that voted it up?<br> <br>You're one of those people who bitches about whomever is the president, but doesn't bother to vote, aren't you?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're so irritated that this got posted , why not vote things down on the firehose instead of just talking shit about those that voted it up ?
You 're one of those people who bitches about whomever is the president , but does n't bother to vote , are n't you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're so irritated that this got posted, why not vote things down on the firehose instead of just talking shit about those that voted it up?
You're one of those people who bitches about whomever is the president, but doesn't bother to vote, aren't you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328463</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28344317</id>
	<title>Tarkin</title>
	<author>Schraegstrichpunkt</author>
	<datestamp>1245087120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anyone want to dig up the Ogg Tarkin project?  Theora's getting pretty old, and we could use a new codec.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone want to dig up the Ogg Tarkin project ?
Theora 's getting pretty old , and we could use a new codec .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone want to dig up the Ogg Tarkin project?
Theora's getting pretty old, and we could use a new codec.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28336509</id>
	<title>Rediculous</title>
	<author>Touvan</author>
	<datestamp>1245086400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I understand the desire for Theora support, but calling fowl on Google in this case is downright underhanded. They obviously used h264, because that's what they have laying around! They've been encoding into that format for a while now. This format is nothing new for Youtube.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I understand the desire for Theora support , but calling fowl on Google in this case is downright underhanded .
They obviously used h264 , because that 's what they have laying around !
They 've been encoding into that format for a while now .
This format is nothing new for Youtube .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I understand the desire for Theora support, but calling fowl on Google in this case is downright underhanded.
They obviously used h264, because that's what they have laying around!
They've been encoding into that format for a while now.
This format is nothing new for Youtube.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329129</id>
	<title>David Gerard</title>
	<author>mnemonic\_</author>
	<datestamp>1244973240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, David Gerard is a well known Wikipedian blowhard who thinks IT tradesmen are among the most cultured, objective intellectuals today.  He'll probably get a round of back-pats from Jimmy Wales and the other Wikipedia admin cronies for the amazing achievement of getting a story FP'd on Slashdot.  This is quite a high for him.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , David Gerard is a well known Wikipedian blowhard who thinks IT tradesmen are among the most cultured , objective intellectuals today .
He 'll probably get a round of back-pats from Jimmy Wales and the other Wikipedia admin cronies for the amazing achievement of getting a story FP 'd on Slashdot .
This is quite a high for him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, David Gerard is a well known Wikipedian blowhard who thinks IT tradesmen are among the most cultured, objective intellectuals today.
He'll probably get a round of back-pats from Jimmy Wales and the other Wikipedia admin cronies for the amazing achievement of getting a story FP'd on Slashdot.
This is quite a high for him.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328463</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329105</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid stupid stupid...</title>
	<author>loufoque</author>
	<datestamp>1244973120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An open-source browser cannot legally read h264 video, that is the real issue that people seem to have trouble to understand. That is why the HTML standard only mandates a format that is not impaired by any legal restrictions: Theora.</p><p>Not being able to legally play DVDs, Blurays, connect your ipod, etc. on linux are already big problems, we don't need another one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An open-source browser can not legally read h264 video , that is the real issue that people seem to have trouble to understand .
That is why the HTML standard only mandates a format that is not impaired by any legal restrictions : Theora.Not being able to legally play DVDs , Blurays , connect your ipod , etc .
on linux are already big problems , we do n't need another one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An open-source browser cannot legally read h264 video, that is the real issue that people seem to have trouble to understand.
That is why the HTML standard only mandates a format that is not impaired by any legal restrictions: Theora.Not being able to legally play DVDs, Blurays, connect your ipod, etc.
on linux are already big problems, we don't need another one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328979</id>
	<title>Re:repeat of ogg?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244972280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only 5 years ago, storage space was already cheap enough that you could have easily gone with FLAC, and your problems of today wouldn't exist.</p><p>Your problem isn't ogg -- your problem was choosing a lossy codec for archiving purposes (where only lossless makes sense).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only 5 years ago , storage space was already cheap enough that you could have easily gone with FLAC , and your problems of today would n't exist.Your problem is n't ogg -- your problem was choosing a lossy codec for archiving purposes ( where only lossless makes sense ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only 5 years ago, storage space was already cheap enough that you could have easily gone with FLAC, and your problems of today wouldn't exist.Your problem isn't ogg -- your problem was choosing a lossy codec for archiving purposes (where only lossless makes sense).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328529</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28335149</id>
	<title>Android Re:repeat of ogg?</title>
	<author>Tryfen</author>
	<datestamp>1245080700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's odd is that Android not only allows the playing of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.ogg files, <em>all</em> of the included ringtones are in the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.ogg format.</p><p><a href="http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Android+ogg" title="google.co.uk">http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Android+ogg</a> [google.co.uk]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's odd is that Android not only allows the playing of .ogg files , all of the included ringtones are in the .ogg format.http : //www.google.co.uk/search ? q = Android + ogg [ google.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's odd is that Android not only allows the playing of .ogg files, all of the included ringtones are in the .ogg format.http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Android+ogg [google.co.uk]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328529</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329885</id>
	<title>Hideously encumbered?</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1244980260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow, that's some real balanced reporting there. Theora has not proven itself immune to lawsuits from patent holders, so who knows what issues may arise there? And what is so "hideous" about patents applying to H.264, especially when it is easily licensable?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , that 's some real balanced reporting there .
Theora has not proven itself immune to lawsuits from patent holders , so who knows what issues may arise there ?
And what is so " hideous " about patents applying to H.264 , especially when it is easily licensable ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, that's some real balanced reporting there.
Theora has not proven itself immune to lawsuits from patent holders, so who knows what issues may arise there?
And what is so "hideous" about patents applying to H.264, especially when it is easily licensable?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28332039</id>
	<title>honsetly</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245002940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That won't stop google, Most of their video's are already coded in h264, it would cost them months of encoding / processing to convert them all back to vorbis/theora.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That wo n't stop google , Most of their video 's are already coded in h264 , it would cost them months of encoding / processing to convert them all back to vorbis/theora .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That won't stop google, Most of their video's are already coded in h264, it would cost them months of encoding / processing to convert them all back to vorbis/theora.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328733</id>
	<title>Re:repeat of ogg?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244970660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're ripping them, you're probably breaking the law. Fair use is what the RIAA chooses, not what you choose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're ripping them , you 're probably breaking the law .
Fair use is what the RIAA chooses , not what you choose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're ripping them, you're probably breaking the law.
Fair use is what the RIAA chooses, not what you choose.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328529</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329963</id>
	<title>Here's what I think.</title>
	<author>jocknerd</author>
	<datestamp>1244981220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"...will make H.264 the primary codec and relegate the equally good open format Ogg/Theora firmly to the sidelines."</p><p>Equally good my ass. H.264 is way beyound what Ogg/Theora is capable of.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...will make H.264 the primary codec and relegate the equally good open format Ogg/Theora firmly to the sidelines .
" Equally good my ass .
H.264 is way beyound what Ogg/Theora is capable of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...will make H.264 the primary codec and relegate the equally good open format Ogg/Theora firmly to the sidelines.
"Equally good my ass.
H.264 is way beyound what Ogg/Theora is capable of.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328745</id>
	<title>Re:repeat of ogg?</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1244970660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ogg players are still quite common. I got an MP3 player a while ago, and was surprised to find it played ogg. I got it because it advertised FLAC support.</p><p>I would take ogg over mp3, and aac over both of those.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ogg players are still quite common .
I got an MP3 player a while ago , and was surprised to find it played ogg .
I got it because it advertised FLAC support.I would take ogg over mp3 , and aac over both of those .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ogg players are still quite common.
I got an MP3 player a while ago, and was surprised to find it played ogg.
I got it because it advertised FLAC support.I would take ogg over mp3, and aac over both of those.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328529</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329581</id>
	<title>Re:repeat of ogg?</title>
	<author>MobileTatsu-NJG</author>
	<datestamp>1244977320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ogg Vorbis was better in quality than MP3</p></div><p>As I recall, it also took up a lot more CPU cycles, and portable music manufacturers didn't want to use it because of poor battery performance.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ogg Vorbis was better in quality than MP3As I recall , it also took up a lot more CPU cycles , and portable music manufacturers did n't want to use it because of poor battery performance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ogg Vorbis was better in quality than MP3As I recall, it also took up a lot more CPU cycles, and portable music manufacturers didn't want to use it because of poor battery performance.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328695</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28332973</id>
	<title>Yes It Can</title>
	<author>cyclomedia</author>
	<datestamp>1245058860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes it can, as another poster pointed out - if i have the codec installed in my system then the browser should be able to play it, the browser should not be shipping codecs and decoders, it should be hooking into my os</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes it can , as another poster pointed out - if i have the codec installed in my system then the browser should be able to play it , the browser should not be shipping codecs and decoders , it should be hooking into my os</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes it can, as another poster pointed out - if i have the codec installed in my system then the browser should be able to play it, the browser should not be shipping codecs and decoders, it should be hooking into my os</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329311</id>
	<title>" what the heck Google thinks it's doing."</title>
	<author>JamesP</author>
	<datestamp>1244974560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's easy.</p><p>Convert the bazillion videos in youtube to Theora and store them in two formats.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's easy.Convert the bazillion videos in youtube to Theora and store them in two formats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's easy.Convert the bazillion videos in youtube to Theora and store them in two formats.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28333377</id>
	<title>Re:The Failure Of Linux,Open Source And Slashdot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245066120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Translation: Everyone should think like me, I hate Ubuntu's colour choice hence everyone else should hate it too because I am king of the planet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Translation : Everyone should think like me , I hate Ubuntu 's colour choice hence everyone else should hate it too because I am king of the planet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Translation: Everyone should think like me, I hate Ubuntu's colour choice hence everyone else should hate it too because I am king of the planet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328777</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328839</id>
	<title>Google has a huge problem on its hands...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244971320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they don't start focusing on their core search.  Just because Microsoft has bumbled in search for the last ten years doesn't mean that they won't get it right.  They are clearly patient and willing to keep the assault up, and even if you do not like Bing, it is a huge step in the right direction for MS, and honestly, having played with it, I think Bing is better than what Google does in some ways.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they do n't start focusing on their core search .
Just because Microsoft has bumbled in search for the last ten years does n't mean that they wo n't get it right .
They are clearly patient and willing to keep the assault up , and even if you do not like Bing , it is a huge step in the right direction for MS , and honestly , having played with it , I think Bing is better than what Google does in some ways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they don't start focusing on their core search.
Just because Microsoft has bumbled in search for the last ten years doesn't mean that they won't get it right.
They are clearly patient and willing to keep the assault up, and even if you do not like Bing, it is a huge step in the right direction for MS, and honestly, having played with it, I think Bing is better than what Google does in some ways.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28331693</id>
	<title>Re:repeat of ogg?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244998620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's less about the price and quality of the codec and more about the implications for open source.</p><p>If you include an MP3 codec in your application, you may well get one of these <a href="http://www.chillingeffects.org/patent/notice.cgi?NoticeID=464" title="chillingeffects.org" rel="nofollow">nastygrams</a> [chillingeffects.org] from Fraunhofer Institute seeking payment of patent royalties. The MPEG4 Licensing Authority will be similarly nasty with implementations of AAC.</p><p>This is the reason many Linux distributions (including Ubuntu and Fedora) have deliberately disabled MP3 and AAC support. It is not possible to pay royalties on a product that is distributed for free. The same, however, is not true for hardware players, where the royalty is usually a reasonably small compared to the cost of manufacturing each unit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's less about the price and quality of the codec and more about the implications for open source.If you include an MP3 codec in your application , you may well get one of these nastygrams [ chillingeffects.org ] from Fraunhofer Institute seeking payment of patent royalties .
The MPEG4 Licensing Authority will be similarly nasty with implementations of AAC.This is the reason many Linux distributions ( including Ubuntu and Fedora ) have deliberately disabled MP3 and AAC support .
It is not possible to pay royalties on a product that is distributed for free .
The same , however , is not true for hardware players , where the royalty is usually a reasonably small compared to the cost of manufacturing each unit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's less about the price and quality of the codec and more about the implications for open source.If you include an MP3 codec in your application, you may well get one of these nastygrams [chillingeffects.org] from Fraunhofer Institute seeking payment of patent royalties.
The MPEG4 Licensing Authority will be similarly nasty with implementations of AAC.This is the reason many Linux distributions (including Ubuntu and Fedora) have deliberately disabled MP3 and AAC support.
It is not possible to pay royalties on a product that is distributed for free.
The same, however, is not true for hardware players, where the royalty is usually a reasonably small compared to the cost of manufacturing each unit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328529</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28341513</id>
	<title>Some quality-tuned H.264 v. Theora samples</title>
	<author>benwaggoner</author>
	<datestamp>1245064740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Given the original comparisons between Theora and YouTube's H.263 and H.264 encodes, I thought I'd do some samples showing what H.264 is capable of doing.  YouTube doesn't use High Profile (no 8x8 blocks) nor CABAC entropy coding, and so leaves a lot of bits on the floor.</p><p>Note the third sample uses the high bitrate frame size and the low bitrate data rate, and still outperforms all the YouTube and Theora clips in video and audio quality.</p><p><a href="http://cid-bee3c9ac9541c85b.skydrive.live.com/browse.aspx/.Public/BBB\%7C\_Compare?lc=1033" title="live.com">http://cid-bee3c9ac9541c85b.skydrive.live.com/browse.aspx/.Public/BBB\%7C\_Compare?lc=1033</a> [live.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Given the original comparisons between Theora and YouTube 's H.263 and H.264 encodes , I thought I 'd do some samples showing what H.264 is capable of doing .
YouTube does n't use High Profile ( no 8x8 blocks ) nor CABAC entropy coding , and so leaves a lot of bits on the floor.Note the third sample uses the high bitrate frame size and the low bitrate data rate , and still outperforms all the YouTube and Theora clips in video and audio quality.http : //cid-bee3c9ac9541c85b.skydrive.live.com/browse.aspx/.Public/BBB \ % 7C \ _Compare ? lc = 1033 [ live.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given the original comparisons between Theora and YouTube's H.263 and H.264 encodes, I thought I'd do some samples showing what H.264 is capable of doing.
YouTube doesn't use High Profile (no 8x8 blocks) nor CABAC entropy coding, and so leaves a lot of bits on the floor.Note the third sample uses the high bitrate frame size and the low bitrate data rate, and still outperforms all the YouTube and Theora clips in video and audio quality.http://cid-bee3c9ac9541c85b.skydrive.live.com/browse.aspx/.Public/BBB\%7C\_Compare?lc=1033 [live.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328773</id>
	<title>Re:repeat of ogg?</title>
	<author>Bagels</author>
	<datestamp>1244970900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not to defend ogg vorbis too much, but it has actually achieved success in a few realms - it's the audio format of choice on Wikipedia, which is one of the web's most popular sites, and it's used in tons of video games (precisely because it doesn't need to be licensed, I think).  The things that made it successful in those areas (matching ideology and price/compression performance, respectively) don't really mean much to the average MP3 player user, though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to defend ogg vorbis too much , but it has actually achieved success in a few realms - it 's the audio format of choice on Wikipedia , which is one of the web 's most popular sites , and it 's used in tons of video games ( precisely because it does n't need to be licensed , I think ) .
The things that made it successful in those areas ( matching ideology and price/compression performance , respectively ) do n't really mean much to the average MP3 player user , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to defend ogg vorbis too much, but it has actually achieved success in a few realms - it's the audio format of choice on Wikipedia, which is one of the web's most popular sites, and it's used in tons of video games (precisely because it doesn't need to be licensed, I think).
The things that made it successful in those areas (matching ideology and price/compression performance, respectively) don't really mean much to the average MP3 player user, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328529</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329817</id>
	<title>Re:repeat of ogg?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244979600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the ipod accounts for the majority of all personal audio players now, does it play ogg/vorbis or ogg/theora as default? no. it does not. this ogg isnt seen as a fully supported format. the only reason the cheapo nasty players play ogg is for that reason, they are cheap because they dont pay for any licences.<br>personally, i would rather pay for a licence and used a good format than get a cheaper player and use a crappy one just because its free</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the ipod accounts for the majority of all personal audio players now , does it play ogg/vorbis or ogg/theora as default ?
no. it does not .
this ogg isnt seen as a fully supported format .
the only reason the cheapo nasty players play ogg is for that reason , they are cheap because they dont pay for any licences.personally , i would rather pay for a licence and used a good format than get a cheaper player and use a crappy one just because its free</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the ipod accounts for the majority of all personal audio players now, does it play ogg/vorbis or ogg/theora as default?
no. it does not.
this ogg isnt seen as a fully supported format.
the only reason the cheapo nasty players play ogg is for that reason, they are cheap because they dont pay for any licences.personally, i would rather pay for a licence and used a good format than get a cheaper player and use a crappy one just because its free</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328893</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329061</id>
	<title>hardware acceleration</title>
	<author>codename.matrix</author>
	<datestamp>1244972760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't h.264 the only one of those two that has hardware acceleration. When you want to deliver high quality video on a website for many and even smaller devices it makes a lot of sense to use the format that can be decoded by available hardware decoders. Modern mobile phones can decode h264 in hardware, so can even low-end CPU Netbooks. H264 sounds like the obvious choice for internet video to me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't h.264 the only one of those two that has hardware acceleration .
When you want to deliver high quality video on a website for many and even smaller devices it makes a lot of sense to use the format that can be decoded by available hardware decoders .
Modern mobile phones can decode h264 in hardware , so can even low-end CPU Netbooks .
H264 sounds like the obvious choice for internet video to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't h.264 the only one of those two that has hardware acceleration.
When you want to deliver high quality video on a website for many and even smaller devices it makes a lot of sense to use the format that can be decoded by available hardware decoders.
Modern mobile phones can decode h264 in hardware, so can even low-end CPU Netbooks.
H264 sounds like the obvious choice for internet video to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328553</id>
	<title>"the equally good open format Ogg/Theora"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245012660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ahhh hahahah haaa!!! Good one!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ahhh hahahah haaa ! ! !
Good one !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ahhh hahahah haaa!!!
Good one!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28330055</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid stupid stupid...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244982120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Mozilla could pay the decoder cap fee (maxes out a $5M/year next year)</p></div><p>And what about Firefox forks? Other browsers using Gecko? Konqueror? Don't care, doesn't matter?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mozilla could pay the decoder cap fee ( maxes out a $ 5M/year next year ) And what about Firefox forks ?
Other browsers using Gecko ?
Konqueror ? Do n't care , does n't matter ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mozilla could pay the decoder cap fee (maxes out a $5M/year next year)And what about Firefox forks?
Other browsers using Gecko?
Konqueror? Don't care, doesn't matter?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329721</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329635</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid stupid stupid...</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1244977800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An open-source browser cannot legally read h264 video, that is the real issue that people seem to have trouble to understand. That is why the HTML standard only mandates a format that is not impaired by any legal restrictions: Theora.</p><p>Most companies obviously prefer to pay a license and avoid the legal risk. Consumers like myself do "apt-get install x264" and it installs from the *buntu multiverse repository. The people that actually seem to care are very, very few. Personally I'd damn near like a ban on everything else, h264 works just perfect under Linux IMO. I guess if you're on Windows it sucks to be you, but I cant' say I care<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An open-source browser can not legally read h264 video , that is the real issue that people seem to have trouble to understand .
That is why the HTML standard only mandates a format that is not impaired by any legal restrictions : Theora.Most companies obviously prefer to pay a license and avoid the legal risk .
Consumers like myself do " apt-get install x264 " and it installs from the * buntu multiverse repository .
The people that actually seem to care are very , very few .
Personally I 'd damn near like a ban on everything else , h264 works just perfect under Linux IMO .
I guess if you 're on Windows it sucks to be you , but I cant ' say I care : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An open-source browser cannot legally read h264 video, that is the real issue that people seem to have trouble to understand.
That is why the HTML standard only mandates a format that is not impaired by any legal restrictions: Theora.Most companies obviously prefer to pay a license and avoid the legal risk.
Consumers like myself do "apt-get install x264" and it installs from the *buntu multiverse repository.
The people that actually seem to care are very, very few.
Personally I'd damn near like a ban on everything else, h264 works just perfect under Linux IMO.
I guess if you're on Windows it sucks to be you, but I cant' say I care :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328777</id>
	<title>The Failure Of Linux,Open Source And Slashdot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244970960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This absolutely embarrassing Slashdot episode is perfect example of the failure of the open source community.</p><p>Over ten years it's been that Linux and its community has moved from being a tiny niche OS to today where it is attempting to be a mainstream desktop operating system for the broad consumer market.</p><p>Ten years of rah-rah cheerleading instead of cold hard critics and honest reporting of open source software vs commercial competitors.</p><p>Ten years of this site being nothing more than one big +5 Insightful circle jerk within the open source community.</p><p>Isn't it time for the open source community to grow the fuck up?</p><p>Time for the open source community to finally give those stupid little +5 Insightful and Funny replies like "did you submit a patch?" "well I LIKE the baby shit brown Ubuntu colour scheme" "teh power of choice!" "works for me" and on and on and on with the bullshit.</p><p>Linux, open source, and Slashdot are the laughing stock of the computing world for exactly crap like this x246 bullshit.</p><p>Writing commercial grade consumer level software is HARD. Spouting bullshit on Slashdot is not a substitute for the arduous and time consuming process of getting software to that level.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This absolutely embarrassing Slashdot episode is perfect example of the failure of the open source community.Over ten years it 's been that Linux and its community has moved from being a tiny niche OS to today where it is attempting to be a mainstream desktop operating system for the broad consumer market.Ten years of rah-rah cheerleading instead of cold hard critics and honest reporting of open source software vs commercial competitors.Ten years of this site being nothing more than one big + 5 Insightful circle jerk within the open source community.Is n't it time for the open source community to grow the fuck up ? Time for the open source community to finally give those stupid little + 5 Insightful and Funny replies like " did you submit a patch ?
" " well I LIKE the baby shit brown Ubuntu colour scheme " " teh power of choice !
" " works for me " and on and on and on with the bullshit.Linux , open source , and Slashdot are the laughing stock of the computing world for exactly crap like this x246 bullshit.Writing commercial grade consumer level software is HARD .
Spouting bullshit on Slashdot is not a substitute for the arduous and time consuming process of getting software to that level .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>This absolutely embarrassing Slashdot episode is perfect example of the failure of the open source community.Over ten years it's been that Linux and its community has moved from being a tiny niche OS to today where it is attempting to be a mainstream desktop operating system for the broad consumer market.Ten years of rah-rah cheerleading instead of cold hard critics and honest reporting of open source software vs commercial competitors.Ten years of this site being nothing more than one big +5 Insightful circle jerk within the open source community.Isn't it time for the open source community to grow the fuck up?Time for the open source community to finally give those stupid little +5 Insightful and Funny replies like "did you submit a patch?
" "well I LIKE the baby shit brown Ubuntu colour scheme" "teh power of choice!
" "works for me" and on and on and on with the bullshit.Linux, open source, and Slashdot are the laughing stock of the computing world for exactly crap like this x246 bullshit.Writing commercial grade consumer level software is HARD.
Spouting bullshit on Slashdot is not a substitute for the arduous and time consuming process of getting software to that level.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328463</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28330363</id>
	<title>You forgot my Palm Pre you insensitive clod</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244985180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You forgot my Palm Pre you insensitive clod!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot my Palm Pre you insensitive clod ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot my Palm Pre you insensitive clod!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28331463</id>
	<title>This makes me angry</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244996520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm an avid supporter of open source, but spreading such bullshit about Theora vs H.264 isn't helping the cause. Reminds me of Gimp fanbois.</p><p>The test is flawed in several aspects:<br>* Youtube's encoder is piss poor. Maybe that's because Google favors fast/less CPU-heavy encoding over good. He should have used an equally advanced alpha version of an H.264 encoder and compared encoding time and CPU load as well.<br>* H.263 is really old and Youtube only keeps supporting it for old Flash player versions. Nobody would consider switching to H.263 now. Comparing 2009 Theora to Youtube's crippled version of H.263 is like comparing OpenOffice Writer 3.1 to MS Word 5.5.<br>* The source is a computer animation. It has much less fluctuation and noise than a filmed movie. Animations are not representative of online video, much less of Youtube user content.<br>* He resized the lossless source from 640x360 to 480x270 and then again from 480x270 to 400x226. WTF? Why not from the original?<br>* Neither 270 nor 226 are divisible by 16. WTF?</p><p>Theora's last chance is to produce a really "equally good" codec before end 2010. Wishful thinking won't help.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm an avid supporter of open source , but spreading such bullshit about Theora vs H.264 is n't helping the cause .
Reminds me of Gimp fanbois.The test is flawed in several aspects : * Youtube 's encoder is piss poor .
Maybe that 's because Google favors fast/less CPU-heavy encoding over good .
He should have used an equally advanced alpha version of an H.264 encoder and compared encoding time and CPU load as well .
* H.263 is really old and Youtube only keeps supporting it for old Flash player versions .
Nobody would consider switching to H.263 now .
Comparing 2009 Theora to Youtube 's crippled version of H.263 is like comparing OpenOffice Writer 3.1 to MS Word 5.5 .
* The source is a computer animation .
It has much less fluctuation and noise than a filmed movie .
Animations are not representative of online video , much less of Youtube user content .
* He resized the lossless source from 640x360 to 480x270 and then again from 480x270 to 400x226 .
WTF ? Why not from the original ?
* Neither 270 nor 226 are divisible by 16 .
WTF ? Theora 's last chance is to produce a really " equally good " codec before end 2010 .
Wishful thinking wo n't help .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm an avid supporter of open source, but spreading such bullshit about Theora vs H.264 isn't helping the cause.
Reminds me of Gimp fanbois.The test is flawed in several aspects:* Youtube's encoder is piss poor.
Maybe that's because Google favors fast/less CPU-heavy encoding over good.
He should have used an equally advanced alpha version of an H.264 encoder and compared encoding time and CPU load as well.
* H.263 is really old and Youtube only keeps supporting it for old Flash player versions.
Nobody would consider switching to H.263 now.
Comparing 2009 Theora to Youtube's crippled version of H.263 is like comparing OpenOffice Writer 3.1 to MS Word 5.5.
* The source is a computer animation.
It has much less fluctuation and noise than a filmed movie.
Animations are not representative of online video, much less of Youtube user content.
* He resized the lossless source from 640x360 to 480x270 and then again from 480x270 to 400x226.
WTF? Why not from the original?
* Neither 270 nor 226 are divisible by 16.
WTF?Theora's last chance is to produce a really "equally good" codec before end 2010.
Wishful thinking won't help.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28340171</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid stupid stupid...</title>
	<author>Sinbios</author>
	<datestamp>1245058200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I guess if you're on Windows it sucks to be you, but I cant' say I care<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div><p>Wait, what?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess if you 're on Windows it sucks to be you , but I cant ' say I care : ) Wait , what ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess if you're on Windows it sucks to be you, but I cant' say I care :)Wait, what?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28335663</id>
	<title>Ogg "relegated to the sidelines"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous Freak</author>
	<datestamp>1245083100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>... meaning the largest video provider on the Net will make H.264 the primary codec and relegate the equally good open format Ogg/Theora firmly to the sidelines.</p></div></blockquote><p>Uh, "relegate to the sidelines"?  That would imply that Ogg/Theora is already at least on the sidelines.  Sorry to burst your bubble, but Ogg/Theora isn't even in the stadium yet.</p><p>I'm all for open standards, and I would love it if the Ogg codecs were to become primary; but don't try to tell me it is a serious contender now.  No default media player on Windows or Mac OS X can play them, no 'commonly distributed by OEMs' media player (read: QuickTime for Windows and Real,) can play them.</p><p>The Ogg community needs to push to either get Ogg support added to Windows Media Player, QuickTime, and Real *BY DEFAULT* (not by plugin,) or else they need to push to have major OEMs (Dell, HP, etc,) include open-source media software, like VLC or Mplayer included by the OEM.  (Which won't happen, because VLC and Mplayer aren't big corporations that will pay the OEMs money to include their software.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... meaning the largest video provider on the Net will make H.264 the primary codec and relegate the equally good open format Ogg/Theora firmly to the sidelines.Uh , " relegate to the sidelines " ?
That would imply that Ogg/Theora is already at least on the sidelines .
Sorry to burst your bubble , but Ogg/Theora is n't even in the stadium yet.I 'm all for open standards , and I would love it if the Ogg codecs were to become primary ; but do n't try to tell me it is a serious contender now .
No default media player on Windows or Mac OS X can play them , no 'commonly distributed by OEMs ' media player ( read : QuickTime for Windows and Real , ) can play them.The Ogg community needs to push to either get Ogg support added to Windows Media Player , QuickTime , and Real * BY DEFAULT * ( not by plugin , ) or else they need to push to have major OEMs ( Dell , HP , etc , ) include open-source media software , like VLC or Mplayer included by the OEM .
( Which wo n't happen , because VLC and Mplayer are n't big corporations that will pay the OEMs money to include their software .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... meaning the largest video provider on the Net will make H.264 the primary codec and relegate the equally good open format Ogg/Theora firmly to the sidelines.Uh, "relegate to the sidelines"?
That would imply that Ogg/Theora is already at least on the sidelines.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but Ogg/Theora isn't even in the stadium yet.I'm all for open standards, and I would love it if the Ogg codecs were to become primary; but don't try to tell me it is a serious contender now.
No default media player on Windows or Mac OS X can play them, no 'commonly distributed by OEMs' media player (read: QuickTime for Windows and Real,) can play them.The Ogg community needs to push to either get Ogg support added to Windows Media Player, QuickTime, and Real *BY DEFAULT* (not by plugin,) or else they need to push to have major OEMs (Dell, HP, etc,) include open-source media software, like VLC or Mplayer included by the OEM.
(Which won't happen, because VLC and Mplayer aren't big corporations that will pay the OEMs money to include their software.
)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329181</id>
	<title>Spotify.</title>
	<author>mjrauhal</author>
	<datestamp>1244973540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While not being a fan (or a user) of Spotify for their DRM stuff (I'm sure it's all mandated by the media lobby, but regardless) and the opaque pricing which the boss of a large (by Finnish standards) local media company Poptori suspected doesn't really get distributed all that well to artists.</p><p>However, fact is that it's gotten pretty popular in pretty short time at least in some circles, and guess what: Vorbis. Presumably for royalty and quality per bandwidth reasons (over MP3, in any case).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While not being a fan ( or a user ) of Spotify for their DRM stuff ( I 'm sure it 's all mandated by the media lobby , but regardless ) and the opaque pricing which the boss of a large ( by Finnish standards ) local media company Poptori suspected does n't really get distributed all that well to artists.However , fact is that it 's gotten pretty popular in pretty short time at least in some circles , and guess what : Vorbis .
Presumably for royalty and quality per bandwidth reasons ( over MP3 , in any case ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While not being a fan (or a user) of Spotify for their DRM stuff (I'm sure it's all mandated by the media lobby, but regardless) and the opaque pricing which the boss of a large (by Finnish standards) local media company Poptori suspected doesn't really get distributed all that well to artists.However, fact is that it's gotten pretty popular in pretty short time at least in some circles, and guess what: Vorbis.
Presumably for royalty and quality per bandwidth reasons (over MP3, in any case).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328781</id>
	<title>Re:repeat of ogg?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244970960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now, 5 years later I have a large collection of ogg files that are essentially useless.</p></div><p>How are they useless?  You can still play ogg files on all major desktop OS's, and if you're careful you can still get digital music players which support it.  You're saving some disk space and CPU utilization over MP3's.</p><p>I can see being unable to easily share your music with friends as disadvantageous, but it doesn't make the ogg files *useless*.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , 5 years later I have a large collection of ogg files that are essentially useless.How are they useless ?
You can still play ogg files on all major desktop OS 's , and if you 're careful you can still get digital music players which support it .
You 're saving some disk space and CPU utilization over MP3 's.I can see being unable to easily share your music with friends as disadvantageous , but it does n't make the ogg files * useless * .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, 5 years later I have a large collection of ogg files that are essentially useless.How are they useless?
You can still play ogg files on all major desktop OS's, and if you're careful you can still get digital music players which support it.
You're saving some disk space and CPU utilization over MP3's.I can see being unable to easily share your music with friends as disadvantageous, but it doesn't make the ogg files *useless*.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328529</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328973</id>
	<title>h.264 will be in hardware</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244972220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>h.264 decoding will increasingly be in hardware, and the patent royalties will be paid by the hardware manufacturer. h.264 is an open standard, albeit you have to pay money for it, but if it is in hardware, one does not have to worry about acquiring a software decoder.</p><p>In making html 5, the ISPs were opposed to ogg vorbis, as it would require more bandwidth (money) than h.264.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>h.264 decoding will increasingly be in hardware , and the patent royalties will be paid by the hardware manufacturer .
h.264 is an open standard , albeit you have to pay money for it , but if it is in hardware , one does not have to worry about acquiring a software decoder.In making html 5 , the ISPs were opposed to ogg vorbis , as it would require more bandwidth ( money ) than h.264 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>h.264 decoding will increasingly be in hardware, and the patent royalties will be paid by the hardware manufacturer.
h.264 is an open standard, albeit you have to pay money for it, but if it is in hardware, one does not have to worry about acquiring a software decoder.In making html 5, the ISPs were opposed to ogg vorbis, as it would require more bandwidth (money) than h.264.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28330251</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid stupid stupid...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244984100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I keep hearing that, but I don't know why that would be so. MPEG-LA requires a fee for distribution of products. But Mozilla could pay the decoder cap fee (maxes out a $5M/year next year) and allow as many people to download a H.264-enabled Firefox as they want, no?</p></div><p>So, Mozilla is the only one who can legally distribute the sources and binaries of Firefox*, under your system.</p><p>How is that free, again?</p><p>*(or to make the branding issue not, replace FF with iceweasel)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I keep hearing that , but I do n't know why that would be so .
MPEG-LA requires a fee for distribution of products .
But Mozilla could pay the decoder cap fee ( maxes out a $ 5M/year next year ) and allow as many people to download a H.264-enabled Firefox as they want , no ? So , Mozilla is the only one who can legally distribute the sources and binaries of Firefox * , under your system.How is that free , again ?
* ( or to make the branding issue not , replace FF with iceweasel )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I keep hearing that, but I don't know why that would be so.
MPEG-LA requires a fee for distribution of products.
But Mozilla could pay the decoder cap fee (maxes out a $5M/year next year) and allow as many people to download a H.264-enabled Firefox as they want, no?So, Mozilla is the only one who can legally distribute the sources and binaries of Firefox*, under your system.How is that free, again?
*(or to make the branding issue not, replace FF with iceweasel)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329721</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28332131</id>
	<title>Who supports the VIDEO tag with Ogg Theora anyway?</title>
	<author>ivoras</author>
	<datestamp>1245004140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is Firefox 3.5 the only browser currently supporting the VIDEO tag with the Ogg Theora codec? Here's what I can see on recently installed browsers:
<ul>
<li>FF 3.5 beta: OK</li><li>Google Chrome 2: NO</li><li>Opera 10 beta: NO</li></ul><p>

Here's a very simple test page: <a href="http://lachy.id.au/dev/markup/tests/html5/video/003.html" title="lachy.id.au">http://lachy.id.au/dev/markup/tests/html5/video/003.html</a> [lachy.id.au] .</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is Firefox 3.5 the only browser currently supporting the VIDEO tag with the Ogg Theora codec ?
Here 's what I can see on recently installed browsers : FF 3.5 beta : OKGoogle Chrome 2 : NOOpera 10 beta : NO Here 's a very simple test page : http : //lachy.id.au/dev/markup/tests/html5/video/003.html [ lachy.id.au ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is Firefox 3.5 the only browser currently supporting the VIDEO tag with the Ogg Theora codec?
Here's what I can see on recently installed browsers:

FF 3.5 beta: OKGoogle Chrome 2: NOOpera 10 beta: NO

Here's a very simple test page: http://lachy.id.au/dev/markup/tests/html5/video/003.html [lachy.id.au] .</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28333409</id>
	<title>Also</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1245066540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Objective tests are worthless on a perceptual codec. The whole point of lossy compression in video and audio is that data WILL be lost, however it will be done in such a way that it is minimally noticeable to humans. That means that the only way to test it is, well, to have humans look at the results and rate them. Doesn't matter if a given codec has a higher SNR, or whatever. If it ends up producing something that looks worse to viewers, it is a worse period since that's the idea here.</p><p>So what you need a some proper double blind tests where users rank codecs. Probably do some that are ABX type where you show an uncompressed video, X, and ask which of A or B looks closer to it. Also probably do some other AB types where just two videos are shown and the user is asked to pick the one they like the best.</p><p>Do that, compile some results, and you'll have useful data as to which codec actually is the best where best means "Gives the best subjective experience to the end user at a given bit rate." Doesn't matter what objective tests show, since we are concerned about human perception.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Objective tests are worthless on a perceptual codec .
The whole point of lossy compression in video and audio is that data WILL be lost , however it will be done in such a way that it is minimally noticeable to humans .
That means that the only way to test it is , well , to have humans look at the results and rate them .
Does n't matter if a given codec has a higher SNR , or whatever .
If it ends up producing something that looks worse to viewers , it is a worse period since that 's the idea here.So what you need a some proper double blind tests where users rank codecs .
Probably do some that are ABX type where you show an uncompressed video , X , and ask which of A or B looks closer to it .
Also probably do some other AB types where just two videos are shown and the user is asked to pick the one they like the best.Do that , compile some results , and you 'll have useful data as to which codec actually is the best where best means " Gives the best subjective experience to the end user at a given bit rate .
" Does n't matter what objective tests show , since we are concerned about human perception .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Objective tests are worthless on a perceptual codec.
The whole point of lossy compression in video and audio is that data WILL be lost, however it will be done in such a way that it is minimally noticeable to humans.
That means that the only way to test it is, well, to have humans look at the results and rate them.
Doesn't matter if a given codec has a higher SNR, or whatever.
If it ends up producing something that looks worse to viewers, it is a worse period since that's the idea here.So what you need a some proper double blind tests where users rank codecs.
Probably do some that are ABX type where you show an uncompressed video, X, and ask which of A or B looks closer to it.
Also probably do some other AB types where just two videos are shown and the user is asked to pick the one they like the best.Do that, compile some results, and you'll have useful data as to which codec actually is the best where best means "Gives the best subjective experience to the end user at a given bit rate.
" Doesn't matter what objective tests show, since we are concerned about human perception.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329409</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328771</id>
	<title>Stupid stupid stupid...</title>
	<author>93 Escort Wagon</author>
	<datestamp>1244970840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is really one of those classic "only on Slashdot" stories. Whatever problems people have regarding h.264 licensing - thinking that somehow Theora support should be tantamount while h.264 support is "nice as an extra"? What color, exactly, is the sky on that world where you're living? Because if you were on this world ("Earth" we call it), you'd realize that stupidity piled on top of zealotry like that is the best, fastest way to render the &lt;video&gt; element irrelevant.</p><p>&lt;sarcasm&gt;Yeah, that'd be a great way to drive support for a web where all browsers get to compete on a level playing field.&lt;/sarcasm&gt;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is really one of those classic " only on Slashdot " stories .
Whatever problems people have regarding h.264 licensing - thinking that somehow Theora support should be tantamount while h.264 support is " nice as an extra " ?
What color , exactly , is the sky on that world where you 're living ?
Because if you were on this world ( " Earth " we call it ) , you 'd realize that stupidity piled on top of zealotry like that is the best , fastest way to render the element irrelevant.Yeah , that 'd be a great way to drive support for a web where all browsers get to compete on a level playing field .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is really one of those classic "only on Slashdot" stories.
Whatever problems people have regarding h.264 licensing - thinking that somehow Theora support should be tantamount while h.264 support is "nice as an extra"?
What color, exactly, is the sky on that world where you're living?
Because if you were on this world ("Earth" we call it), you'd realize that stupidity piled on top of zealotry like that is the best, fastest way to render the  element irrelevant.Yeah, that'd be a great way to drive support for a web where all browsers get to compete on a level playing field.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28331627</id>
	<title>Street Performer Protocol Anyone?</title>
	<author>Inflatable Nerd</author>
	<datestamp>1244998020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>After years of ripping DVDs and occasionly trying out Theora, my conclusion is that Theora is crap. Definitely better than H263, but not even close to H264.
<br> <br>
So with that in mind, I make the following points:
<br> <br>
1. Greg Maxwell's comparison <em>does</em> invalidate You Tube's claim that quality would suffer. Theora is quite close to YouTube's encode, and H264's default deblocking actually makes me prefer Theora in some instances.
<br> <br>
2. This does not at all show that Theora is better. It's not. YouTube's encoder has to be fast enough to encode all the video submitted to YouTube, something like an hour every minute. Comparing <a href="http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=147293" title="doom9.org" rel="nofollow"> carefully encoded x264 </a> [doom9.org] with carefully encoded Theora would be a fair comparison.
<br> <br>
And final, a suggestion.
<br> <br>
3. H264 should the same thing Blender did and makes the codec copyright and patent free using the street performer protocol. I would certainly donate at least $100 to free H264.
<br> <br>
Of course, the suggestion is probably bad business wise. I'd like to know how much money is being made of patent licensing each year.</htmltext>
<tokenext>After years of ripping DVDs and occasionly trying out Theora , my conclusion is that Theora is crap .
Definitely better than H263 , but not even close to H264 .
So with that in mind , I make the following points : 1 .
Greg Maxwell 's comparison does invalidate You Tube 's claim that quality would suffer .
Theora is quite close to YouTube 's encode , and H264 's default deblocking actually makes me prefer Theora in some instances .
2. This does not at all show that Theora is better .
It 's not .
YouTube 's encoder has to be fast enough to encode all the video submitted to YouTube , something like an hour every minute .
Comparing carefully encoded x264 [ doom9.org ] with carefully encoded Theora would be a fair comparison .
And final , a suggestion .
3. H264 should the same thing Blender did and makes the codec copyright and patent free using the street performer protocol .
I would certainly donate at least $ 100 to free H264 .
Of course , the suggestion is probably bad business wise .
I 'd like to know how much money is being made of patent licensing each year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After years of ripping DVDs and occasionly trying out Theora, my conclusion is that Theora is crap.
Definitely better than H263, but not even close to H264.
So with that in mind, I make the following points:
 
1.
Greg Maxwell's comparison does invalidate You Tube's claim that quality would suffer.
Theora is quite close to YouTube's encode, and H264's default deblocking actually makes me prefer Theora in some instances.
2. This does not at all show that Theora is better.
It's not.
YouTube's encoder has to be fast enough to encode all the video submitted to YouTube, something like an hour every minute.
Comparing  carefully encoded x264  [doom9.org] with carefully encoded Theora would be a fair comparison.
And final, a suggestion.
3. H264 should the same thing Blender did and makes the codec copyright and patent free using the street performer protocol.
I would certainly donate at least $100 to free H264.
Of course, the suggestion is probably bad business wise.
I'd like to know how much money is being made of patent licensing each year.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28330317</id>
	<title>Tells us basically nothing.</title>
	<author>jcr</author>
	<datestamp>1244984760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are a lot of H.264-compliant encoders out there, and their quality is all over the map.   With the volume that YouTube is doing, they're probably using a single-pass software encoder.</p><p>-jcr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are a lot of H.264-compliant encoders out there , and their quality is all over the map .
With the volume that YouTube is doing , they 're probably using a single-pass software encoder.-jcr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are a lot of H.264-compliant encoders out there, and their quality is all over the map.
With the volume that YouTube is doing, they're probably using a single-pass software encoder.-jcr</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28332475</id>
	<title>One word.</title>
	<author>cadu</author>
	<datestamp>1245008760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rockbox.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rockbox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rockbox.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328529</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28333701</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid stupid stupid...</title>
	<author>loufoque</author>
	<datestamp>1245070500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I keep hearing that, but I don't know why that would be so. MPEG-LA requires a fee for distribution of products. But Mozilla could pay the decoder cap fee (maxes out a $5M/year next year) and allow as many people to download a H.264-enabled Firefox as they want, no?</p></div></blockquote><p>Except people wouldn't be allowed to redistribute it, which would be in direct contradiction of the Firefox license, or any free software license for that matter.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I keep hearing that , but I do n't know why that would be so .
MPEG-LA requires a fee for distribution of products .
But Mozilla could pay the decoder cap fee ( maxes out a $ 5M/year next year ) and allow as many people to download a H.264-enabled Firefox as they want , no ? Except people would n't be allowed to redistribute it , which would be in direct contradiction of the Firefox license , or any free software license for that matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I keep hearing that, but I don't know why that would be so.
MPEG-LA requires a fee for distribution of products.
But Mozilla could pay the decoder cap fee (maxes out a $5M/year next year) and allow as many people to download a H.264-enabled Firefox as they want, no?Except people wouldn't be allowed to redistribute it, which would be in direct contradiction of the Firefox license, or any free software license for that matter.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329721</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329881</id>
	<title>Re:repeat of ogg?</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1244980200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Slightly more, but not much.  Xiph released an integer-only CODEC for Vorbis, which performs very well on cheap ARM chips with no FPU.  When you compared MP3 and Vorbis decoding on something like an ARM4 core, there is not much difference.  Early portable media players used exactly this kind of hardware.  The later generations, however, use something like a TI OMAP which comes with an ARM core drawing around 50mW and a DSP core drawing 15mW.  MP3 and AAC can be decoded on the DSP core, while no one has written a Vorbis decoder for it and so you need to use the ARM core instead.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Slightly more , but not much .
Xiph released an integer-only CODEC for Vorbis , which performs very well on cheap ARM chips with no FPU .
When you compared MP3 and Vorbis decoding on something like an ARM4 core , there is not much difference .
Early portable media players used exactly this kind of hardware .
The later generations , however , use something like a TI OMAP which comes with an ARM core drawing around 50mW and a DSP core drawing 15mW .
MP3 and AAC can be decoded on the DSP core , while no one has written a Vorbis decoder for it and so you need to use the ARM core instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slightly more, but not much.
Xiph released an integer-only CODEC for Vorbis, which performs very well on cheap ARM chips with no FPU.
When you compared MP3 and Vorbis decoding on something like an ARM4 core, there is not much difference.
Early portable media players used exactly this kind of hardware.
The later generations, however, use something like a TI OMAP which comes with an ARM core drawing around 50mW and a DSP core drawing 15mW.
MP3 and AAC can be decoded on the DSP core, while no one has written a Vorbis decoder for it and so you need to use the ARM core instead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328851</id>
	<title>Re:repeat of ogg?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244971320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except in this case, it's not superior. It's just cheaper and "free". You can rail on about freedom and unencumbered all you like, but for end users <b>it doesn't matter one whit</b>. This isn't like DRM where they ultimately run into problems (can't copy files, licensing servers go poof, can't rip DVD's). No, all they see is that H.264 looks better, is compatible with all of their gear (used on computers, portable devices, Blu Ray, now YouTube), and plays a lot better due to hardware acceleration. Users can do whatever they please with it.</p><p>Theora lost a LONG time ago. This is just another nail in the coffin.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except in this case , it 's not superior .
It 's just cheaper and " free " .
You can rail on about freedom and unencumbered all you like , but for end users it does n't matter one whit .
This is n't like DRM where they ultimately run into problems ( ca n't copy files , licensing servers go poof , ca n't rip DVD 's ) .
No , all they see is that H.264 looks better , is compatible with all of their gear ( used on computers , portable devices , Blu Ray , now YouTube ) , and plays a lot better due to hardware acceleration .
Users can do whatever they please with it.Theora lost a LONG time ago .
This is just another nail in the coffin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except in this case, it's not superior.
It's just cheaper and "free".
You can rail on about freedom and unencumbered all you like, but for end users it doesn't matter one whit.
This isn't like DRM where they ultimately run into problems (can't copy files, licensing servers go poof, can't rip DVD's).
No, all they see is that H.264 looks better, is compatible with all of their gear (used on computers, portable devices, Blu Ray, now YouTube), and plays a lot better due to hardware acceleration.
Users can do whatever they please with it.Theora lost a LONG time ago.
This is just another nail in the coffin.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328529</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329209</id>
	<title>Re:Google has a huge problem on its hands...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244973780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is precisely a way to do this. Getting video to work in pure HTML breaks one of Flash's main pillars, the primacy on online video. What Google gains from this? Google's recommendation algorithms cannot parse Flash content, but they are top at HTML.</p><p>In other words: Knocking Flash and Silverlight down a rung makes Google's targeted advertisement business much safer. Because financially, Google is NOT a search company, it's an advertising service.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is precisely a way to do this .
Getting video to work in pure HTML breaks one of Flash 's main pillars , the primacy on online video .
What Google gains from this ?
Google 's recommendation algorithms can not parse Flash content , but they are top at HTML.In other words : Knocking Flash and Silverlight down a rung makes Google 's targeted advertisement business much safer .
Because financially , Google is NOT a search company , it 's an advertising service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is precisely a way to do this.
Getting video to work in pure HTML breaks one of Flash's main pillars, the primacy on online video.
What Google gains from this?
Google's recommendation algorithms cannot parse Flash content, but they are top at HTML.In other words: Knocking Flash and Silverlight down a rung makes Google's targeted advertisement business much safer.
Because financially, Google is NOT a search company, it's an advertising service.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328839</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28343221</id>
	<title>Re:repeat of ogg?</title>
	<author>againjj</author>
	<datestamp>1245076620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Not to defend ogg vorbis too much, but it has actually achieved success in a few realms - it's the audio format of choice on Wikipedia, which is one of the web's most popular sites</p></div><p>Which makes WP sound inaccessible for almost everyone, as the proper codec is not installed on most machines.  I know, I know, it's easy to install the right software, but most people will not get past the help page that is rather long.  ogg will become widely usable in (not joking) the Year of Linux on the Desktop, because only then will there be a large enough installed base for the network effect to kick in.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to defend ogg vorbis too much , but it has actually achieved success in a few realms - it 's the audio format of choice on Wikipedia , which is one of the web 's most popular sitesWhich makes WP sound inaccessible for almost everyone , as the proper codec is not installed on most machines .
I know , I know , it 's easy to install the right software , but most people will not get past the help page that is rather long .
ogg will become widely usable in ( not joking ) the Year of Linux on the Desktop , because only then will there be a large enough installed base for the network effect to kick in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to defend ogg vorbis too much, but it has actually achieved success in a few realms - it's the audio format of choice on Wikipedia, which is one of the web's most popular sitesWhich makes WP sound inaccessible for almost everyone, as the proper codec is not installed on most machines.
I know, I know, it's easy to install the right software, but most people will not get past the help page that is rather long.
ogg will become widely usable in (not joking) the Year of Linux on the Desktop, because only then will there be a large enough installed base for the network effect to kick in.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329565</id>
	<title>Re:Theora FAIL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244977200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Youtube must double it file server capacity to support mp4 AND theora.</p><p>AFAIK Theora is not supported by Adobe flash player. Youtube can't replace all the mp4 with Theora.<br>Youtube flash player also support Closed captioning, Tag editor etc.<br>I am not sure if this can be replace by a HTML 5 browser + JavaScript</p><p>Begin 2008 youtube introduce mp4 h.264 'HQ' and late 2008 h.264'HD'.<br>They have spend time and money to introduce h.264 for replacement over the 'old' h.263.<br>Why start over again?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Youtube must double it file server capacity to support mp4 AND theora.AFAIK Theora is not supported by Adobe flash player .
Youtube ca n't replace all the mp4 with Theora.Youtube flash player also support Closed captioning , Tag editor etc.I am not sure if this can be replace by a HTML 5 browser + JavaScriptBegin 2008 youtube introduce mp4 h.264 'HQ ' and late 2008 h.264'HD'.They have spend time and money to introduce h.264 for replacement over the 'old ' h.263.Why start over again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Youtube must double it file server capacity to support mp4 AND theora.AFAIK Theora is not supported by Adobe flash player.
Youtube can't replace all the mp4 with Theora.Youtube flash player also support Closed captioning, Tag editor etc.I am not sure if this can be replace by a HTML 5 browser + JavaScriptBegin 2008 youtube introduce mp4 h.264 'HQ' and late 2008 h.264'HD'.They have spend time and money to introduce h.264 for replacement over the 'old' h.263.Why start over again?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328463</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328905</id>
	<title>Google and Firefox</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244971800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would google care about firefox and other Free/Open Source browsers? After all, google has its <a href="http://www.google.com/chrome/index.html?hl=en-GB&amp;brand=CHMB&amp;utm\_campaign=en\_gb&amp;utm\_source=en\_gb-ha-emea-uk-sk&amp;utm\_medium=ha" title="google.com">own browser</a> [google.com] now to take on the likes of IE.
</p><p>Google is the biggest influence on the Internet these days, and is positioning itself to take over completely. Google is the new Microsoft.
</p><p>"Do no evil" my foot! Look out, here comes a new monopoly.
</p><p>Google cares as much about Firefox, Opera, Konqueror, Seamonkey, Amaya, lynx, links, and so on only as long as it still has a competitor. As TFAs all say, Google owns virtually all internet video so it has no competitor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would google care about firefox and other Free/Open Source browsers ?
After all , google has its own browser [ google.com ] now to take on the likes of IE .
Google is the biggest influence on the Internet these days , and is positioning itself to take over completely .
Google is the new Microsoft .
" Do no evil " my foot !
Look out , here comes a new monopoly .
Google cares as much about Firefox , Opera , Konqueror , Seamonkey , Amaya , lynx , links , and so on only as long as it still has a competitor .
As TFAs all say , Google owns virtually all internet video so it has no competitor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would google care about firefox and other Free/Open Source browsers?
After all, google has its own browser [google.com] now to take on the likes of IE.
Google is the biggest influence on the Internet these days, and is positioning itself to take over completely.
Google is the new Microsoft.
"Do no evil" my foot!
Look out, here comes a new monopoly.
Google cares as much about Firefox, Opera, Konqueror, Seamonkey, Amaya, lynx, links, and so on only as long as it still has a competitor.
As TFAs all say, Google owns virtually all internet video so it has no competitor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1649237_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28339159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329639
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1649237_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28332153
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329721
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1649237_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28331309
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328695
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1649237_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28330427
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328693
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1649237_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1649237_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28332973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1649237_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28330235
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329721
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1649237_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329565
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328463
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1649237_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329281
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328463
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1649237_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28331693
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1649237_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329209
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328839
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1649237_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328463
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1649237_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28331753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329721
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1649237_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328463
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1649237_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328745
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1649237_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28333737
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1649237_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28330789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329639
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1649237_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28332475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1649237_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1649237_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328643
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1649237_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28331531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1649237_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1649237_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28345249
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329721
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1649237_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28333857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1649237_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1649237_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1649237_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1649237_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329793
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328693
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1649237_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329881
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328695
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1649237_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28330251
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329721
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1649237_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1649237_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28343221
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1649237_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1649237_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329119
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1649237_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328777
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328463
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1649237_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28333377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328777
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328463
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1649237_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1649237_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1649237_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329463
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328463
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1649237_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1649237_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28330191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328693
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1649237_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28340171
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1649237_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28333409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328695
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1649237_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28331155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328695
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1649237_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28335149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1649237_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328721
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328463
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1649237_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28336621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329639
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1649237_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28334557
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328695
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1649237_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1649237_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28330363
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1649237_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328895
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1649237_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28333701
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329721
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1649237_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1649237_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28360181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1649237_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1649237_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28330055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329721
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_1649237_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329835
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328693
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_1649237.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328839
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329209
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_1649237.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328529
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328695
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329581
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329881
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28331309
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28334557
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329409
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28331155
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28333409
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328781
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328893
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329817
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28333737
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28335149
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28331693
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329389
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28360181
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328773
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329119
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329039
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28343221
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329181
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328851
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328979
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328817
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328733
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329243
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329093
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329851
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328693
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329793
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28330191
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329835
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28330427
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328895
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28332475
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328643
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329331
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28331531
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328745
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28333857
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_1649237.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28335663
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_1649237.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28333679
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_1649237.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28332131
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_1649237.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328771
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329959
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329057
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329105
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329721
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28330251
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28332153
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28345249
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28330235
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28333701
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28330055
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28331753
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329635
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28340171
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28330363
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28332973
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_1649237.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328463
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329463
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329129
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328721
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329281
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329565
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328777
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329903
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28333377
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328899
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_1649237.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28332297
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_1649237.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329777
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_1649237.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329231
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_1649237.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328905
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_1649237.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28328973
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_1649237.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28329639
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28339159
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28330789
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_1649237.28336621
</commentlist>
</conversation>
