<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_10_1545251</id>
	<title>Microsoft Research Showcases New Browser Prototype, "Gazelle"</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1247251560000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Ars Technica reports that Microsoft has opened up about "Gazelle," a <a href="http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/07/gazelle-microsofts-browser-os-is-not-actually-an-os.ars">new browser prototype</a> of theirs that is modeled after the underlying concepts of operating system design.  <i>"A research team led by Microsoft's Helen Wang recently published a report about an experimental browser prototype called 'Gazelle' that uses processes to isolate page content elements originating from different domains. It builds on the concept of multiprocess browsing but uses more fine-grained isolation to expand on the security advantages that are already delivered by existing multiprocess browsing models. But is it an operating system, Microsoft Research's analogue to Google's Chrome OS? Not quite."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ars Technica reports that Microsoft has opened up about " Gazelle , " a new browser prototype of theirs that is modeled after the underlying concepts of operating system design .
" A research team led by Microsoft 's Helen Wang recently published a report about an experimental browser prototype called 'Gazelle ' that uses processes to isolate page content elements originating from different domains .
It builds on the concept of multiprocess browsing but uses more fine-grained isolation to expand on the security advantages that are already delivered by existing multiprocess browsing models .
But is it an operating system , Microsoft Research 's analogue to Google 's Chrome OS ?
Not quite .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ars Technica reports that Microsoft has opened up about "Gazelle," a new browser prototype of theirs that is modeled after the underlying concepts of operating system design.
"A research team led by Microsoft's Helen Wang recently published a report about an experimental browser prototype called 'Gazelle' that uses processes to isolate page content elements originating from different domains.
It builds on the concept of multiprocess browsing but uses more fine-grained isolation to expand on the security advantages that are already delivered by existing multiprocess browsing models.
But is it an operating system, Microsoft Research's analogue to Google's Chrome OS?
Not quite.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653887</id>
	<title>Virtualize Javascript?</title>
	<author>Randomly</author>
	<datestamp>1247258040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Moving away from the DOM is ultimately going to confound searching engines and the namespaces they index. It would be nice to see Javascript running inside a VM - CLR or JVM, followed by other languages with the same access that Javascript has. Making Javascript a language under<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET in IE, perhaps using the Java VM for Javascript in Firefox etc. This may lend itself more readily to an indexable semantic web in the future.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Moving away from the DOM is ultimately going to confound searching engines and the namespaces they index .
It would be nice to see Javascript running inside a VM - CLR or JVM , followed by other languages with the same access that Javascript has .
Making Javascript a language under .NET in IE , perhaps using the Java VM for Javascript in Firefox etc .
This may lend itself more readily to an indexable semantic web in the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Moving away from the DOM is ultimately going to confound searching engines and the namespaces they index.
It would be nice to see Javascript running inside a VM - CLR or JVM, followed by other languages with the same access that Javascript has.
Making Javascript a language under .NET in IE, perhaps using the Java VM for Javascript in Firefox etc.
This may lend itself more readily to an indexable semantic web in the future.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28654249</id>
	<title>Re:Wait, they did WHAT for HOW MANY COOKIES?</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1247216640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You realize that IPC implies shared memory right?</p><p>You may pipe it through a file, a socket or as in unix a 'pipe'.  But in the end you are effectively sharing bits of memory in one way or another, thats the point of IPC, to share data and commands.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You realize that IPC implies shared memory right ? You may pipe it through a file , a socket or as in unix a 'pipe' .
But in the end you are effectively sharing bits of memory in one way or another , thats the point of IPC , to share data and commands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You realize that IPC implies shared memory right?You may pipe it through a file, a socket or as in unix a 'pipe'.
But in the end you are effectively sharing bits of memory in one way or another, thats the point of IPC, to share data and commands.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653957</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653509</id>
	<title>Trident?</title>
	<author>Dotren</author>
	<datestamp>1247256300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's largely a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET application that uses Internet Explorer's "Trident" rendering engine.</p></div><p>Granted, it has made significant improvements but I still haven't been that impressed by the Trident engine.  Sometimes I wish they'd use someone else's engine so that they'd be kept up-to-date on standards AND you'd have the same browsing experience on multiple browsers.</p><p>I guess I can understand why they don't though... they'd be up a creek without a paddle if they used Webkit and people stopped developing for it or licensed Gecko from Firefox and they went under or yanked Microsoft's license.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's largely a .NET application that uses Internet Explorer 's " Trident " rendering engine.Granted , it has made significant improvements but I still have n't been that impressed by the Trident engine .
Sometimes I wish they 'd use someone else 's engine so that they 'd be kept up-to-date on standards AND you 'd have the same browsing experience on multiple browsers.I guess I can understand why they do n't though... they 'd be up a creek without a paddle if they used Webkit and people stopped developing for it or licensed Gecko from Firefox and they went under or yanked Microsoft 's license .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's largely a .NET application that uses Internet Explorer's "Trident" rendering engine.Granted, it has made significant improvements but I still haven't been that impressed by the Trident engine.
Sometimes I wish they'd use someone else's engine so that they'd be kept up-to-date on standards AND you'd have the same browsing experience on multiple browsers.I guess I can understand why they don't though... they'd be up a creek without a paddle if they used Webkit and people stopped developing for it or licensed Gecko from Firefox and they went under or yanked Microsoft's license.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28659039</id>
	<title>I still think that Stinger is a better name.</title>
	<author>mattcsn</author>
	<datestamp>1247317020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course, <i>I</i> wasn't the one who got $200k in UEO grants for the damned thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , I was n't the one who got $ 200k in UEO grants for the damned thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, I wasn't the one who got $200k in UEO grants for the damned thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28654201</id>
	<title>What year is this?</title>
	<author>FranTaylor</author>
	<datestamp>1247216400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How long have we had browsers?  How obvious is all of this?  This reads like an article from 1997.</p><p>We are still debating the best way to multi-thread a browser!</p><p>One might have thought that we would be a little further along with this kind of stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How long have we had browsers ?
How obvious is all of this ?
This reads like an article from 1997.We are still debating the best way to multi-thread a browser ! One might have thought that we would be a little further along with this kind of stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How long have we had browsers?
How obvious is all of this?
This reads like an article from 1997.We are still debating the best way to multi-thread a browser!One might have thought that we would be a little further along with this kind of stuff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28654165</id>
	<title>Re:New MS browser</title>
	<author>Gerzel</author>
	<datestamp>1247259420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except it isn't a browser.  It is a paper, about a theoretical browser, with not even so much as a screen shot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except it is n't a browser .
It is a paper , about a theoretical browser , with not even so much as a screen shot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except it isn't a browser.
It is a paper, about a theoretical browser, with not even so much as a screen shot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653299</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28654895</id>
	<title>Re:Wait, they did WHAT for HOW MANY COOKIES?</title>
	<author>llmc</author>
	<datestamp>1247220000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are right. Entities can't cooperate without shared communication.  And communication between entities is only as secure as the communication contract between them. Hence, it is entirely plausible for a hacker to compromise one entity and use its communication contract to compromise another entity--IF the contract allows for it.
<br>
<br>
For instance, the contract could still certainly allow an entity to pass arbitrary pieces of code for another entity to run or allow an entity to change an arbitrary memory location in another, but this would either be a design decision (and a poor one at that) or due to a vulnerability in the implementation of the communication contract. Address space isolation removes from the communication contract the ability to twiddle any/all of another entity's bits modulo the explicit implementation of this capability or vulnerabilities in the communication contract. The latter is certainly a concern, but now our trusted base is reduced to the design and implementation of the communication contract as opposed to the sum of functionality in both entities.
<br>
<br>
Address-space isolation for reliability and security is at least as old as Mach (25 years?) and it only claims to be more secure and not a panacea.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are right .
Entities ca n't cooperate without shared communication .
And communication between entities is only as secure as the communication contract between them .
Hence , it is entirely plausible for a hacker to compromise one entity and use its communication contract to compromise another entity--IF the contract allows for it .
For instance , the contract could still certainly allow an entity to pass arbitrary pieces of code for another entity to run or allow an entity to change an arbitrary memory location in another , but this would either be a design decision ( and a poor one at that ) or due to a vulnerability in the implementation of the communication contract .
Address space isolation removes from the communication contract the ability to twiddle any/all of another entity 's bits modulo the explicit implementation of this capability or vulnerabilities in the communication contract .
The latter is certainly a concern , but now our trusted base is reduced to the design and implementation of the communication contract as opposed to the sum of functionality in both entities .
Address-space isolation for reliability and security is at least as old as Mach ( 25 years ?
) and it only claims to be more secure and not a panacea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are right.
Entities can't cooperate without shared communication.
And communication between entities is only as secure as the communication contract between them.
Hence, it is entirely plausible for a hacker to compromise one entity and use its communication contract to compromise another entity--IF the contract allows for it.
For instance, the contract could still certainly allow an entity to pass arbitrary pieces of code for another entity to run or allow an entity to change an arbitrary memory location in another, but this would either be a design decision (and a poor one at that) or due to a vulnerability in the implementation of the communication contract.
Address space isolation removes from the communication contract the ability to twiddle any/all of another entity's bits modulo the explicit implementation of this capability or vulnerabilities in the communication contract.
The latter is certainly a concern, but now our trusted base is reduced to the design and implementation of the communication contract as opposed to the sum of functionality in both entities.
Address-space isolation for reliability and security is at least as old as Mach (25 years?
) and it only claims to be more secure and not a panacea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28654249</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28658985</id>
	<title>Poor name choice</title>
	<author>Phoghat</author>
	<datestamp>1247316000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>if they wanted to be competitive they'd call it<p>
<b>The Hound</b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if they wanted to be competitive they 'd call it The Hound</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if they wanted to be competitive they'd call it
The Hound</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28654131</id>
	<title>Re:New MS browser</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1247259240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah.  I read the FA.  I see ActiveX.  Wonderful.  We all know that ActiveX is the most secure protocol on the face of the earth.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/sarcasm</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah .
I read the FA .
I see ActiveX .
Wonderful. We all know that ActiveX is the most secure protocol on the face of the earth .
/sarcasm</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah.
I read the FA.
I see ActiveX.
Wonderful.  We all know that ActiveX is the most secure protocol on the face of the earth.
/sarcasm</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653299</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653957</id>
	<title>Re:Wait, they did WHAT for HOW MANY COOKIES?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247258400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is true that our current abstractions for concurrency suck. However, the benefit of a multi-process (not multi-thread) abstraction is address space isolation. Namely, when your browser tab or plugin goes off scribbling in memory, every other browser tab keeps on chugging along without getting corrupted. As you pointed out, we still need good designs for exchanging data between processes. But now we can design much smaller interfaces around narrow, inter-process communication channels instead of the massive communication channel that we like to call shared memory.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is true that our current abstractions for concurrency suck .
However , the benefit of a multi-process ( not multi-thread ) abstraction is address space isolation .
Namely , when your browser tab or plugin goes off scribbling in memory , every other browser tab keeps on chugging along without getting corrupted .
As you pointed out , we still need good designs for exchanging data between processes .
But now we can design much smaller interfaces around narrow , inter-process communication channels instead of the massive communication channel that we like to call shared memory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is true that our current abstractions for concurrency suck.
However, the benefit of a multi-process (not multi-thread) abstraction is address space isolation.
Namely, when your browser tab or plugin goes off scribbling in memory, every other browser tab keeps on chugging along without getting corrupted.
As you pointed out, we still need good designs for exchanging data between processes.
But now we can design much smaller interfaces around narrow, inter-process communication channels instead of the massive communication channel that we like to call shared memory.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653727</id>
	<title>Re:Gazelle? How about Tree Sloth?</title>
	<author>NonUniqueNickname</author>
	<datestamp>1247257140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Still faster than Firefox 3.5 - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cWzWil\_h8s" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cWzWil\_h8s</a> [youtube.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Still faster than Firefox 3.5 - http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = 6cWzWil \ _h8s [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Still faster than Firefox 3.5 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cWzWil\_h8s [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28659523</id>
	<title>Re:Gazelle? How about Tree Sloth?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1247323620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I *had* to think of the "safari" in Jurassic Park, when you mentioned this.</p><p>Didn't go so well, when that Mozilla arrived. ^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I * had * to think of the " safari " in Jurassic Park , when you mentioned this.Did n't go so well , when that Mozilla arrived .
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I *had* to think of the "safari" in Jurassic Park, when you mentioned this.Didn't go so well, when that Mozilla arrived.
^^</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28654337</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28654233</id>
	<title>Re:Trident?</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1247216580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>they'd be up a creek without a paddle if they used Webkit and people stopped developing for it or licensed Gecko from Firefox and they went under or yanked Microsoft's license.</p></div><p>Well for one thing, if it adheres to standards, there shouldn't have to be that much concerns about whether people "stop developing for" a particular rendering engine.  Also, can Mozilla yank someone's license for Gecko?  Isn't it open source?  Why should people stop using Webkit?
</p><p>There are a few real reasons that Microsoft isn't using one of the existing open source rendering engines:
</p><ol> <li> it would be acknowledging the validity and value of open source software</li>
<li> having a dominant but incompatible browser has provided them with the advantage of increased vendor lock-in</li>
<li> They have a lot of customers with old web apps that want/need to maintain backwards compatibility (which is the flip-side of the vendor lock-in)</li>
</ol></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>they 'd be up a creek without a paddle if they used Webkit and people stopped developing for it or licensed Gecko from Firefox and they went under or yanked Microsoft 's license.Well for one thing , if it adheres to standards , there should n't have to be that much concerns about whether people " stop developing for " a particular rendering engine .
Also , can Mozilla yank someone 's license for Gecko ?
Is n't it open source ?
Why should people stop using Webkit ?
There are a few real reasons that Microsoft is n't using one of the existing open source rendering engines : it would be acknowledging the validity and value of open source software having a dominant but incompatible browser has provided them with the advantage of increased vendor lock-in They have a lot of customers with old web apps that want/need to maintain backwards compatibility ( which is the flip-side of the vendor lock-in )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they'd be up a creek without a paddle if they used Webkit and people stopped developing for it or licensed Gecko from Firefox and they went under or yanked Microsoft's license.Well for one thing, if it adheres to standards, there shouldn't have to be that much concerns about whether people "stop developing for" a particular rendering engine.
Also, can Mozilla yank someone's license for Gecko?
Isn't it open source?
Why should people stop using Webkit?
There are a few real reasons that Microsoft isn't using one of the existing open source rendering engines:
  it would be acknowledging the validity and value of open source software
 having a dominant but incompatible browser has provided them with the advantage of increased vendor lock-in
 They have a lot of customers with old web apps that want/need to maintain backwards compatibility (which is the flip-side of the vendor lock-in)

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653259</id>
	<title>FURST POAST</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247255280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>n/m</htmltext>
<tokenext>n/m</tokentext>
<sentencetext>n/m</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653587</id>
	<title>Re:Wait, they did WHAT for HOW MANY COOKIES?</title>
	<author>Cyberax</author>
	<datestamp>1247256600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes. There ARE inherent advantages.</p><p>You can make RPC protocols with time-outs, so a supervisor process can kill offending child tab. Of course, you'll need to design your protocol to support timeouts, but I assume that Google and Microsoft developers are not stupid.</p><p>Next, you can easily isolate a process. Operating systems are GOOD at that, especially Linux with SELinux, seccomp and other \_kernel-level\_ sandboxing solutions.</p><p>Empirically, Google Chrome which also uses multi-process approach works \_faster\_ than IE and FireFox.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .
There ARE inherent advantages.You can make RPC protocols with time-outs , so a supervisor process can kill offending child tab .
Of course , you 'll need to design your protocol to support timeouts , but I assume that Google and Microsoft developers are not stupid.Next , you can easily isolate a process .
Operating systems are GOOD at that , especially Linux with SELinux , seccomp and other \ _kernel-level \ _ sandboxing solutions.Empirically , Google Chrome which also uses multi-process approach works \ _faster \ _ than IE and FireFox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.
There ARE inherent advantages.You can make RPC protocols with time-outs, so a supervisor process can kill offending child tab.
Of course, you'll need to design your protocol to support timeouts, but I assume that Google and Microsoft developers are not stupid.Next, you can easily isolate a process.
Operating systems are GOOD at that, especially Linux with SELinux, seccomp and other \_kernel-level\_ sandboxing solutions.Empirically, Google Chrome which also uses multi-process approach works \_faster\_ than IE and FireFox.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653353</id>
	<title>Color me less excited :/</title>
	<author>Jugalator</author>
	<datestamp>1247255700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After reading that article, I'm much less excited than I was. I had assumed it was something similar to Google Chrome OS, but it's not even something that seems like it turned out very well for Microsoft, or something that can have yet undiscovered major issues on the horizon. The idea seems to have turned out overly complex to work around the limitations with the approach, and all that in a resource hungry<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET application. It says they're hopeful to get the per-tab RAM usage down from 16 MB, but I have to wonder by how much? This approach doesn't seem much better than running a process-separated browser written in Java. Ugh.</p><p>I have a hard time understanding the decision to use<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET, but perhaps it was a security decision? Anyway, it doesn't sound like the optimal choice, when the project all revolves around low-level features like isolating the tabs even further.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After reading that article , I 'm much less excited than I was .
I had assumed it was something similar to Google Chrome OS , but it 's not even something that seems like it turned out very well for Microsoft , or something that can have yet undiscovered major issues on the horizon .
The idea seems to have turned out overly complex to work around the limitations with the approach , and all that in a resource hungry .NET application .
It says they 're hopeful to get the per-tab RAM usage down from 16 MB , but I have to wonder by how much ?
This approach does n't seem much better than running a process-separated browser written in Java .
Ugh.I have a hard time understanding the decision to use .NET , but perhaps it was a security decision ?
Anyway , it does n't sound like the optimal choice , when the project all revolves around low-level features like isolating the tabs even further .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After reading that article, I'm much less excited than I was.
I had assumed it was something similar to Google Chrome OS, but it's not even something that seems like it turned out very well for Microsoft, or something that can have yet undiscovered major issues on the horizon.
The idea seems to have turned out overly complex to work around the limitations with the approach, and all that in a resource hungry .NET application.
It says they're hopeful to get the per-tab RAM usage down from 16 MB, but I have to wonder by how much?
This approach doesn't seem much better than running a process-separated browser written in Java.
Ugh.I have a hard time understanding the decision to use .NET, but perhaps it was a security decision?
Anyway, it doesn't sound like the optimal choice, when the project all revolves around low-level features like isolating the tabs even further.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28654723</id>
	<title>Re:New Focus</title>
	<author>tonyr60</author>
	<datestamp>1247218920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Microsoft focusing on developing a browser-based OS is directly opposed to their current business model, which involves forcing users to purchase an operating system.</p> </div><p>But not opposed to their business model of disrupting competition by any means possible.  Significant competitor comes up with browser/OS combination, so lets tell the market that we are doing just that.  Should keep the builders of those pesky netbook thingies from drifting away again.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft focusing on developing a browser-based OS is directly opposed to their current business model , which involves forcing users to purchase an operating system .
But not opposed to their business model of disrupting competition by any means possible .
Significant competitor comes up with browser/OS combination , so lets tell the market that we are doing just that .
Should keep the builders of those pesky netbook thingies from drifting away again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft focusing on developing a browser-based OS is directly opposed to their current business model, which involves forcing users to purchase an operating system.
But not opposed to their business model of disrupting competition by any means possible.
Significant competitor comes up with browser/OS combination, so lets tell the market that we are doing just that.
Should keep the builders of those pesky netbook thingies from drifting away again.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653301</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28659703</id>
	<title>Lemme guess</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247325180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It'll be called Internet Operator.  It'll tap into the full potential of the internet quite like how Windows 95 tapped into the full 32-bit performance of your 486, only better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 'll be called Internet Operator .
It 'll tap into the full potential of the internet quite like how Windows 95 tapped into the full 32-bit performance of your 486 , only better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It'll be called Internet Operator.
It'll tap into the full potential of the internet quite like how Windows 95 tapped into the full 32-bit performance of your 486, only better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653299</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28654265</id>
	<title>Re:Color me less excited :/</title>
	<author>b4dc0d3r</author>
	<datestamp>1247216760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How would you think it was related to Chrome OS?</p><p>I came here expecting to ask why they added this line <i>But is it an operating system, Microsoft Research's analogue to Google's Chrome OS? Not quite.</i> but you had already made this comment.  Why would a browser prototype be like an operating system?</p><p>And.. using<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET more has always been their plan, to convince people you can write useful apps in it.  I thought Vista was supposed to have large portions written in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET - right along with the database-like filesystem of course.  That aside, tt's a great choice for prototyping, since you can get something out the door quickly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How would you think it was related to Chrome OS ? I came here expecting to ask why they added this line But is it an operating system , Microsoft Research 's analogue to Google 's Chrome OS ?
Not quite .
but you had already made this comment .
Why would a browser prototype be like an operating system ? And.. using .NET more has always been their plan , to convince people you can write useful apps in it .
I thought Vista was supposed to have large portions written in .NET - right along with the database-like filesystem of course .
That aside , tt 's a great choice for prototyping , since you can get something out the door quickly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How would you think it was related to Chrome OS?I came here expecting to ask why they added this line But is it an operating system, Microsoft Research's analogue to Google's Chrome OS?
Not quite.
but you had already made this comment.
Why would a browser prototype be like an operating system?And.. using .NET more has always been their plan, to convince people you can write useful apps in it.
I thought Vista was supposed to have large portions written in .NET - right along with the database-like filesystem of course.
That aside, tt's a great choice for prototyping, since you can get something out the door quickly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653353</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653969</id>
	<title>Re:Not an improvement</title>
	<author>girlintraining</author>
	<datestamp>1247258460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>it's that they have access to the same page and the DOM elements in it and the data structures of the browser itself.</p> </div><p>Well, if that isn't convincing enough, threads usually inherit the permissions of the process creating it. So multi-threading only manages to increase complexity, without improving security. Any exploit made in the child process/thread can use those permissions to access the parent. It's not even a privilege escalation attack, because no permissions are changed to do it. Sad. Very sad.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's that they have access to the same page and the DOM elements in it and the data structures of the browser itself .
Well , if that is n't convincing enough , threads usually inherit the permissions of the process creating it .
So multi-threading only manages to increase complexity , without improving security .
Any exploit made in the child process/thread can use those permissions to access the parent .
It 's not even a privilege escalation attack , because no permissions are changed to do it .
Sad. Very sad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's that they have access to the same page and the DOM elements in it and the data structures of the browser itself.
Well, if that isn't convincing enough, threads usually inherit the permissions of the process creating it.
So multi-threading only manages to increase complexity, without improving security.
Any exploit made in the child process/thread can use those permissions to access the parent.
It's not even a privilege escalation attack, because no permissions are changed to do it.
Sad. Very sad.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653349</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28658897</id>
	<title>There already is a Gazelle out there.</title>
	<author>zoom-ping</author>
	<datestamp>1247313540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What about Project Gazelle? Now that's something truly revolutionary. <a href="http://www.projectgazelle.org/" title="projectgazelle.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.projectgazelle.org/</a> [projectgazelle.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>What about Project Gazelle ?
Now that 's something truly revolutionary .
http : //www.projectgazelle.org/ [ projectgazelle.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about Project Gazelle?
Now that's something truly revolutionary.
http://www.projectgazelle.org/ [projectgazelle.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28654303</id>
	<title>Wow - multi process using IPC!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247216940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess thats an advanced concept for application programing in the world of Windows where fork() is still an alien concept.</p><p>Excuse me while I remain unimpressed. I'll wait a while longer while MS familiarise themselves with common programming techniques developed in the 1970s.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess thats an advanced concept for application programing in the world of Windows where fork ( ) is still an alien concept.Excuse me while I remain unimpressed .
I 'll wait a while longer while MS familiarise themselves with common programming techniques developed in the 1970s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess thats an advanced concept for application programing in the world of Windows where fork() is still an alien concept.Excuse me while I remain unimpressed.
I'll wait a while longer while MS familiarise themselves with common programming techniques developed in the 1970s.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28657097</id>
	<title>modeled after ....</title>
	<author>mevets</author>
	<datestamp>1247238540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the underlying concepts of operating system design...</p><p>What does that mean?  Is the default home page is a blue screen?</p><p>I'm happy to slag microsofts sloppy lazy monopolistic crapware with the best of them; but microsoft research have produced some remarkable works.  What is this crap?  Research = repackaging with provocative, if meaningless, buzzwords?   Was this from microsoft market research?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the underlying concepts of operating system design...What does that mean ?
Is the default home page is a blue screen ? I 'm happy to slag microsofts sloppy lazy monopolistic crapware with the best of them ; but microsoft research have produced some remarkable works .
What is this crap ?
Research = repackaging with provocative , if meaningless , buzzwords ?
Was this from microsoft market research ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the underlying concepts of operating system design...What does that mean?
Is the default home page is a blue screen?I'm happy to slag microsofts sloppy lazy monopolistic crapware with the best of them; but microsoft research have produced some remarkable works.
What is this crap?
Research = repackaging with provocative, if meaningless, buzzwords?
Was this from microsoft market research?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653407</id>
	<title>Standards</title>
	<author>doishmere</author>
	<datestamp>1247255940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>IE doesn't support web standards, but people still use it because it has Microsoft's name. Maybe this will get people to switch to a (hopefully) standards-compliant browser.</htmltext>
<tokenext>IE does n't support web standards , but people still use it because it has Microsoft 's name .
Maybe this will get people to switch to a ( hopefully ) standards-compliant browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IE doesn't support web standards, but people still use it because it has Microsoft's name.
Maybe this will get people to switch to a (hopefully) standards-compliant browser.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28655167</id>
	<title>Any chance of it complying with the standards?</title>
	<author>jcr</author>
	<datestamp>1247221860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If MS ever ships a browser  that passes ACID 3, let me know.  Until and unless that happens, MS's offerings in this area are a waste of space.</p><p>-jcr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If MS ever ships a browser that passes ACID 3 , let me know .
Until and unless that happens , MS 's offerings in this area are a waste of space.-jcr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If MS ever ships a browser  that passes ACID 3, let me know.
Until and unless that happens, MS's offerings in this area are a waste of space.-jcr</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28654067</id>
	<title>Re:Color me less excited :/</title>
	<author>Colonel Korn</author>
	<datestamp>1247258940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>After reading that article, I'm much less excited than I was. I had assumed it was something similar to Google Chrome OS, but it's not even something that seems like it turned out very well for Microsoft, or something that can have yet undiscovered major issues on the horizon. The idea seems to have turned out overly complex to work around the limitations with the approach, and all that in a resource hungry<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET application. It says they're hopeful to get the per-tab RAM usage down from 16 MB, but I have to wonder by how much? This approach doesn't seem much better than running a process-separated browser written in Java. Ugh.</p><p>I have a hard time understanding the decision to use<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET, but perhaps it was a security decision? Anyway, it doesn't sound like the optimal choice, when the project all revolves around low-level features like isolating the tabs even further.</p></div><p>Read the article a bit more and you'll discover that the purpose of this project was to find the limitations of taking the separate process model to an extreme, with every element on a single page living in its own process.  This was low level research, not an attempt to spark a new product.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>After reading that article , I 'm much less excited than I was .
I had assumed it was something similar to Google Chrome OS , but it 's not even something that seems like it turned out very well for Microsoft , or something that can have yet undiscovered major issues on the horizon .
The idea seems to have turned out overly complex to work around the limitations with the approach , and all that in a resource hungry .NET application .
It says they 're hopeful to get the per-tab RAM usage down from 16 MB , but I have to wonder by how much ?
This approach does n't seem much better than running a process-separated browser written in Java .
Ugh.I have a hard time understanding the decision to use .NET , but perhaps it was a security decision ?
Anyway , it does n't sound like the optimal choice , when the project all revolves around low-level features like isolating the tabs even further.Read the article a bit more and you 'll discover that the purpose of this project was to find the limitations of taking the separate process model to an extreme , with every element on a single page living in its own process .
This was low level research , not an attempt to spark a new product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After reading that article, I'm much less excited than I was.
I had assumed it was something similar to Google Chrome OS, but it's not even something that seems like it turned out very well for Microsoft, or something that can have yet undiscovered major issues on the horizon.
The idea seems to have turned out overly complex to work around the limitations with the approach, and all that in a resource hungry .NET application.
It says they're hopeful to get the per-tab RAM usage down from 16 MB, but I have to wonder by how much?
This approach doesn't seem much better than running a process-separated browser written in Java.
Ugh.I have a hard time understanding the decision to use .NET, but perhaps it was a security decision?
Anyway, it doesn't sound like the optimal choice, when the project all revolves around low-level features like isolating the tabs even further.Read the article a bit more and you'll discover that the purpose of this project was to find the limitations of taking the separate process model to an extreme, with every element on a single page living in its own process.
This was low level research, not an attempt to spark a new product.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653353</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28655195</id>
	<title>right on cue</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247222040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>m$ develop chrome rip off - they must be worried.... (they should be!)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>m $ develop chrome rip off - they must be worried.... ( they should be !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>m$ develop chrome rip off - they must be worried.... (they should be!
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28654393</id>
	<title>Re:Trident?</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1247217300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, WTF do you think open source is for?  You've managed to imply that the two most important advantages to open source don't exist for two very large open source projects.</p><p>Gecko is open source.  They can't yank the license out from under you any more than they can from Webkit because the OSS license implies that you can continue to use it forever.</p><p>Second, Webkit, like Gecko can stop development right this instant and they won't be any worse off  than using Trident.  They'll just have to do the webkit or gecko development themselves, which they already do with trident (okay, another MS group does, but thats not the point).</p><p>The advantages to OSS is that they can't take away your license to what you're already using.  Nor can the death of an OSS project leave you out in the cold with no where to go.</p><p>When selecting a rendering engine to replace Trident when I took over the current project I'm working on it was always Gecko or Webkit from the very start because on of the FIRST things I got smacked in the face with when taking over the project is that MS was discontinuing the parts of trident we needed.</p><p>So, we switched to Gecko.  Try to take those parts away now, go for it.  I can continue to use the code I have and bug fix it as needed.  I have no dependency on Mozilla if I don't want it.  Sure, for the moment I just use what they have and commit bugfixes back to the Mozilla effort because it saves me a whole shitload of effort trying to maintain patches or a fork.  Its in everyones best interest for my version of gecko to not diverge from the main code base, and it saves EVERYONE involved time and money by sharing the effort.  It doesn't matter that the company I work for doesn't own the copyright to Gecko because the Mozilla guys aren't exerting it to hurt anyone, they just use it to cover their own asses, and have released it under a license which effectively allows me to cover my ass at the same time.</p><p>I'm amazed at how someone on slashdot so effectively entirely missed what I consider the greatest benefits of Gecko and Webkit being OSS.  Yea yea, finding security issues is great and all, and feature enhancements for free are nice too, but I don't mind paying for those things.  Whats far more important to the survival of my company is that I don't have to worry about Mozilla or Webkit doing something that utterly fucks me over.  They can't.  They have given me a way to protect myself.</p><p>That is not something you can get out of Opera or Microsoft, and that is why our company happily contributes all of our changes back to Gecko, which, for reference is in no way a requirement according to MPL, but its most certainly the right thing to do, and as I said, means I don't have to merge our code bases to stay in sync with mozdev.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , WTF do you think open source is for ?
You 've managed to imply that the two most important advantages to open source do n't exist for two very large open source projects.Gecko is open source .
They ca n't yank the license out from under you any more than they can from Webkit because the OSS license implies that you can continue to use it forever.Second , Webkit , like Gecko can stop development right this instant and they wo n't be any worse off than using Trident .
They 'll just have to do the webkit or gecko development themselves , which they already do with trident ( okay , another MS group does , but thats not the point ) .The advantages to OSS is that they ca n't take away your license to what you 're already using .
Nor can the death of an OSS project leave you out in the cold with no where to go.When selecting a rendering engine to replace Trident when I took over the current project I 'm working on it was always Gecko or Webkit from the very start because on of the FIRST things I got smacked in the face with when taking over the project is that MS was discontinuing the parts of trident we needed.So , we switched to Gecko .
Try to take those parts away now , go for it .
I can continue to use the code I have and bug fix it as needed .
I have no dependency on Mozilla if I do n't want it .
Sure , for the moment I just use what they have and commit bugfixes back to the Mozilla effort because it saves me a whole shitload of effort trying to maintain patches or a fork .
Its in everyones best interest for my version of gecko to not diverge from the main code base , and it saves EVERYONE involved time and money by sharing the effort .
It does n't matter that the company I work for does n't own the copyright to Gecko because the Mozilla guys are n't exerting it to hurt anyone , they just use it to cover their own asses , and have released it under a license which effectively allows me to cover my ass at the same time.I 'm amazed at how someone on slashdot so effectively entirely missed what I consider the greatest benefits of Gecko and Webkit being OSS .
Yea yea , finding security issues is great and all , and feature enhancements for free are nice too , but I do n't mind paying for those things .
Whats far more important to the survival of my company is that I do n't have to worry about Mozilla or Webkit doing something that utterly fucks me over .
They ca n't .
They have given me a way to protect myself.That is not something you can get out of Opera or Microsoft , and that is why our company happily contributes all of our changes back to Gecko , which , for reference is in no way a requirement according to MPL , but its most certainly the right thing to do , and as I said , means I do n't have to merge our code bases to stay in sync with mozdev .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, WTF do you think open source is for?
You've managed to imply that the two most important advantages to open source don't exist for two very large open source projects.Gecko is open source.
They can't yank the license out from under you any more than they can from Webkit because the OSS license implies that you can continue to use it forever.Second, Webkit, like Gecko can stop development right this instant and they won't be any worse off  than using Trident.
They'll just have to do the webkit or gecko development themselves, which they already do with trident (okay, another MS group does, but thats not the point).The advantages to OSS is that they can't take away your license to what you're already using.
Nor can the death of an OSS project leave you out in the cold with no where to go.When selecting a rendering engine to replace Trident when I took over the current project I'm working on it was always Gecko or Webkit from the very start because on of the FIRST things I got smacked in the face with when taking over the project is that MS was discontinuing the parts of trident we needed.So, we switched to Gecko.
Try to take those parts away now, go for it.
I can continue to use the code I have and bug fix it as needed.
I have no dependency on Mozilla if I don't want it.
Sure, for the moment I just use what they have and commit bugfixes back to the Mozilla effort because it saves me a whole shitload of effort trying to maintain patches or a fork.
Its in everyones best interest for my version of gecko to not diverge from the main code base, and it saves EVERYONE involved time and money by sharing the effort.
It doesn't matter that the company I work for doesn't own the copyright to Gecko because the Mozilla guys aren't exerting it to hurt anyone, they just use it to cover their own asses, and have released it under a license which effectively allows me to cover my ass at the same time.I'm amazed at how someone on slashdot so effectively entirely missed what I consider the greatest benefits of Gecko and Webkit being OSS.
Yea yea, finding security issues is great and all, and feature enhancements for free are nice too, but I don't mind paying for those things.
Whats far more important to the survival of my company is that I don't have to worry about Mozilla or Webkit doing something that utterly fucks me over.
They can't.
They have given me a way to protect myself.That is not something you can get out of Opera or Microsoft, and that is why our company happily contributes all of our changes back to Gecko, which, for reference is in no way a requirement according to MPL, but its most certainly the right thing to do, and as I said, means I don't have to merge our code bases to stay in sync with mozdev.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28654823</id>
	<title>Here's the truth</title>
	<author>CherniyVolk</author>
	<datestamp>1247219580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A research team led by Microsoft's Helen Wang discovered how to rebrand and skin a theme for the widely used Firefox.  "Since most people already think we stole Firefox code to render webpages correctly with IE 8, we got to thinking..." Helen Wang stated in a call yesterday.  "Our next IE release will be simply to rebrand and change the default skin of the latest Firefox web browser!  So we can then say, finally, that Internet Explorer correctly renders web pages according to W3C published standards."  This move seems to secure Firefox as the dominate web browser with a huge influx of new users.  "Most people use Firefox because they have realized Internet Explorer was never able to render HTML correctly.  This is in part because we have habitually hired software engineers that have never heard of www.w3c.org."  This last fact is found to be true, on a job application for the Internet Explorer Development Team, which looks a bit like a Mc Donalds application, the first question is . "1. Do you know of www.w3c.org?"  followed immediately by "2. Do you know what the word 'standards' mean?"   Helen Wang affirmed that answering any of these two questions with 'yes' will disqualify you for any prospective position on the Internet Explorer Development Team.</p><p>We can only suspect that Microsoft will soon shift back to their own broken browser after people stop switching over to a Firefox branded Firefox.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A research team led by Microsoft 's Helen Wang discovered how to rebrand and skin a theme for the widely used Firefox .
" Since most people already think we stole Firefox code to render webpages correctly with IE 8 , we got to thinking... " Helen Wang stated in a call yesterday .
" Our next IE release will be simply to rebrand and change the default skin of the latest Firefox web browser !
So we can then say , finally , that Internet Explorer correctly renders web pages according to W3C published standards .
" This move seems to secure Firefox as the dominate web browser with a huge influx of new users .
" Most people use Firefox because they have realized Internet Explorer was never able to render HTML correctly .
This is in part because we have habitually hired software engineers that have never heard of www.w3c.org .
" This last fact is found to be true , on a job application for the Internet Explorer Development Team , which looks a bit like a Mc Donalds application , the first question is .
" 1. Do you know of www.w3c.org ?
" followed immediately by " 2 .
Do you know what the word 'standards ' mean ?
" Helen Wang affirmed that answering any of these two questions with 'yes ' will disqualify you for any prospective position on the Internet Explorer Development Team.We can only suspect that Microsoft will soon shift back to their own broken browser after people stop switching over to a Firefox branded Firefox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A research team led by Microsoft's Helen Wang discovered how to rebrand and skin a theme for the widely used Firefox.
"Since most people already think we stole Firefox code to render webpages correctly with IE 8, we got to thinking..." Helen Wang stated in a call yesterday.
"Our next IE release will be simply to rebrand and change the default skin of the latest Firefox web browser!
So we can then say, finally, that Internet Explorer correctly renders web pages according to W3C published standards.
"  This move seems to secure Firefox as the dominate web browser with a huge influx of new users.
"Most people use Firefox because they have realized Internet Explorer was never able to render HTML correctly.
This is in part because we have habitually hired software engineers that have never heard of www.w3c.org.
"  This last fact is found to be true, on a job application for the Internet Explorer Development Team, which looks a bit like a Mc Donalds application, the first question is .
"1. Do you know of www.w3c.org?
"  followed immediately by "2.
Do you know what the word 'standards' mean?
"   Helen Wang affirmed that answering any of these two questions with 'yes' will disqualify you for any prospective position on the Internet Explorer Development Team.We can only suspect that Microsoft will soon shift back to their own broken browser after people stop switching over to a Firefox branded Firefox.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653279</id>
	<title>Why doesn't MS just rename itself "Bing" already</title>
	<author>fridaynightsmoke</author>
	<datestamp>1247255400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Then they can say "Look! We're not copying Google- "Bing Is Not Google", it's in our name!!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then they can say " Look !
We 're not copying Google- " Bing Is Not Google " , it 's in our name ! !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then they can say "Look!
We're not copying Google- "Bing Is Not Google", it's in our name!!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28655981</id>
	<title>New MS browser</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247227740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nice, Wang.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice , Wang .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice, Wang.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28655199</id>
	<title>The war is on!</title>
	<author>qqe0312</author>
	<datestamp>1247222040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now Google came out with their free OS with browser MS is striking back. They will now retaliate with their own free OS and browser system.
MS is so competitive, they can not loose, they will dominate the free market, if necessary by bribing their way in.

You may have vacuum on your head, but we have more vacuum in our heads.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now Google came out with their free OS with browser MS is striking back .
They will now retaliate with their own free OS and browser system .
MS is so competitive , they can not loose , they will dominate the free market , if necessary by bribing their way in .
You may have vacuum on your head , but we have more vacuum in our heads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now Google came out with their free OS with browser MS is striking back.
They will now retaliate with their own free OS and browser system.
MS is so competitive, they can not loose, they will dominate the free market, if necessary by bribing their way in.
You may have vacuum on your head, but we have more vacuum in our heads.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28654337</id>
	<title>Re:Gazelle? How about Tree Sloth?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247217060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Ummm... Isn't a Gazelle kind of a fast animal?</p></div> </blockquote><p>
Clearly they named it Gazelle because ultimately they expect it to be killed off by safari.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ummm... Is n't a Gazelle kind of a fast animal ?
Clearly they named it Gazelle because ultimately they expect it to be killed off by safari .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ummm... Isn't a Gazelle kind of a fast animal?
Clearly they named it Gazelle because ultimately they expect it to be killed off by safari.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28654973</id>
	<title>Re:New MS browser</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1247220480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't be so negative... they said "that is modeled after the underlying concepts of operating system design.". So it probably will be as secure as Microsoft Windows. At last Internet will be safe.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't be so negative... they said " that is modeled after the underlying concepts of operating system design. " .
So it probably will be as secure as Microsoft Windows .
At last Internet will be safe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't be so negative... they said "that is modeled after the underlying concepts of operating system design.".
So it probably will be as secure as Microsoft Windows.
At last Internet will be safe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653299</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28654919</id>
	<title>COPYRIGHT VIOLATION</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247220060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>there is already software named GAZELLE<br>an opensource front end for bit torrent trackers<br>I am gonna go and let the lads know about this one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>there is already software named GAZELLEan opensource front end for bit torrent trackersI am gon na go and let the lads know about this one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there is already software named GAZELLEan opensource front end for bit torrent trackersI am gonna go and let the lads know about this one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653299</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653755</id>
	<title>Cool! I am totally there!</title>
	<author>zmollusc</author>
	<datestamp>1247257380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds neat. I shall get it immediately.<br>Well, right after I get Windows 7, which will be after I get Vista, which will be after i get XP which will be after I decide microsoft have done anything worthwhile after Windows 2000.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds neat .
I shall get it immediately.Well , right after I get Windows 7 , which will be after I get Vista , which will be after i get XP which will be after I decide microsoft have done anything worthwhile after Windows 2000 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds neat.
I shall get it immediately.Well, right after I get Windows 7, which will be after I get Vista, which will be after i get XP which will be after I decide microsoft have done anything worthwhile after Windows 2000.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28654313</id>
	<title>Next Must-Have Browser Feature</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247216940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I want in a new browser is one that, if I tell it to go to http://www.domain\_1.com/ then that's where it goes, and it makes no attempts to download anything from any other domains.  No cookies sent to doubleclick.net, nothing to googleanalytics.com, etc etc.  Does the new MS browser do that?  If so, great.  If not, then I have no incentive to look at it because firefox is adequate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I want in a new browser is one that , if I tell it to go to http : //www.domain \ _1.com/ then that 's where it goes , and it makes no attempts to download anything from any other domains .
No cookies sent to doubleclick.net , nothing to googleanalytics.com , etc etc .
Does the new MS browser do that ?
If so , great .
If not , then I have no incentive to look at it because firefox is adequate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I want in a new browser is one that, if I tell it to go to http://www.domain\_1.com/ then that's where it goes, and it makes no attempts to download anything from any other domains.
No cookies sent to doubleclick.net, nothing to googleanalytics.com, etc etc.
Does the new MS browser do that?
If so, great.
If not, then I have no incentive to look at it because firefox is adequate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653545</id>
	<title>Gazelle?  How about Tree Sloth?</title>
	<author>MCSEBear</author>
	<datestamp>1247256420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ummm... Isn't a Gazelle kind of a fast animal? <br> <br>

Since this browser runs at half the speed of the not exactly quick IE 7, shouldn't it be given a code name more in keeping with it's actual speed?  I've always thought Ubuntu had a cute naming scheme going.  I hereby dub this software Turgid Tortoise</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ummm... Is n't a Gazelle kind of a fast animal ?
Since this browser runs at half the speed of the not exactly quick IE 7 , should n't it be given a code name more in keeping with it 's actual speed ?
I 've always thought Ubuntu had a cute naming scheme going .
I hereby dub this software Turgid Tortoise</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ummm... Isn't a Gazelle kind of a fast animal?
Since this browser runs at half the speed of the not exactly quick IE 7, shouldn't it be given a code name more in keeping with it's actual speed?
I've always thought Ubuntu had a cute naming scheme going.
I hereby dub this software Turgid Tortoise</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28655255</id>
	<title>More Processes are NOT Always Better</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1247222460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It has been a while since I took the operating systems course in my undergraduate CS curriculum, but I seem to recall that there is a balance to be struck between too many and too few processes with regard to other related attributes such as security and stability. In some cases, notably in Sun Solaris, an attempt was made to capture more of the benefits of process isolation without the attendant overhead of full processes by introducing so called "lightweight processes" which provide more isolation benefits than threads but are not as resource heavy as full processes. I would venture a guess that this Microsoft Research project will reach the same or similar conclusions of early web server developers (CGI, for example); namely that more is not always better when it comes to separate threads and processes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It has been a while since I took the operating systems course in my undergraduate CS curriculum , but I seem to recall that there is a balance to be struck between too many and too few processes with regard to other related attributes such as security and stability .
In some cases , notably in Sun Solaris , an attempt was made to capture more of the benefits of process isolation without the attendant overhead of full processes by introducing so called " lightweight processes " which provide more isolation benefits than threads but are not as resource heavy as full processes .
I would venture a guess that this Microsoft Research project will reach the same or similar conclusions of early web server developers ( CGI , for example ) ; namely that more is not always better when it comes to separate threads and processes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has been a while since I took the operating systems course in my undergraduate CS curriculum, but I seem to recall that there is a balance to be struck between too many and too few processes with regard to other related attributes such as security and stability.
In some cases, notably in Sun Solaris, an attempt was made to capture more of the benefits of process isolation without the attendant overhead of full processes by introducing so called "lightweight processes" which provide more isolation benefits than threads but are not as resource heavy as full processes.
I would venture a guess that this Microsoft Research project will reach the same or similar conclusions of early web server developers (CGI, for example); namely that more is not always better when it comes to separate threads and processes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653429</id>
	<title>Wait, they did WHAT for HOW MANY COOKIES?</title>
	<author>girlintraining</author>
	<datestamp>1247255940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It builds on the concept of multiprocess browsing but uses more fine-grained isolation to expand on the security advantages that are already delivered by existing multiprocess browsing models.</p> </div><p>That's a new definition of security of which I was previously <i>unaware</i>. Just about anyone who's spent five minutes trying to do multi-process, multi-thread,  unsyncronized accesses, cloud, spin-locks, etc., will tell you that no, there are no inherent security advantages. It'll be less secure unless you make a dedicated effort from project start <i>just to keep it on par with single-threaded</i>. The only "advantage" it has is that when it fails it'll crash more slowly, with a wider variety of obscure error messages, hammering the operating system as it tanks with the extra overhead as it does so. Yes, it might be slightly harder to develop an exploit because it's not using a generic flaw, but some complicated and obscure flaw -- but that's not more secure; Only badly designed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It builds on the concept of multiprocess browsing but uses more fine-grained isolation to expand on the security advantages that are already delivered by existing multiprocess browsing models .
That 's a new definition of security of which I was previously unaware .
Just about anyone who 's spent five minutes trying to do multi-process , multi-thread , unsyncronized accesses , cloud , spin-locks , etc. , will tell you that no , there are no inherent security advantages .
It 'll be less secure unless you make a dedicated effort from project start just to keep it on par with single-threaded .
The only " advantage " it has is that when it fails it 'll crash more slowly , with a wider variety of obscure error messages , hammering the operating system as it tanks with the extra overhead as it does so .
Yes , it might be slightly harder to develop an exploit because it 's not using a generic flaw , but some complicated and obscure flaw -- but that 's not more secure ; Only badly designed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It builds on the concept of multiprocess browsing but uses more fine-grained isolation to expand on the security advantages that are already delivered by existing multiprocess browsing models.
That's a new definition of security of which I was previously unaware.
Just about anyone who's spent five minutes trying to do multi-process, multi-thread,  unsyncronized accesses, cloud, spin-locks, etc., will tell you that no, there are no inherent security advantages.
It'll be less secure unless you make a dedicated effort from project start just to keep it on par with single-threaded.
The only "advantage" it has is that when it fails it'll crash more slowly, with a wider variety of obscure error messages, hammering the operating system as it tanks with the extra overhead as it does so.
Yes, it might be slightly harder to develop an exploit because it's not using a generic flaw, but some complicated and obscure flaw -- but that's not more secure; Only badly designed.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653929</id>
	<title>URL to the document to save going through ArseTech</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247258220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/helenw/papers/gazelleSecurity09.pdf" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">MS Research</a> [microsoft.com]</p><p>All in all, i think it is a great idea for them to be researching things like this.<br>But the fact they are still with Trident hurts me and the web greatly.<br>Please Microsoft, switch to Webkit or anything else.<br>Or even scrap it and make a new one and don't force it to replace IE-whatever if you update, just move away from Trident!<br>Trident was a horrible idea and always will be.  The quicker it is killed off, the better for them and us.  (especially since Microsoft have now realized it is a futile attempt to build their sites around IE since the numbers of users are dwindling)</p><p>Also, i lol'd at the URL<br>http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/<b>um/people</b>/helenw/papers/gazelleSecurity09.pdf<br>"um" indeed, Microsoft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MS Research [ microsoft.com ] All in all , i think it is a great idea for them to be researching things like this.But the fact they are still with Trident hurts me and the web greatly.Please Microsoft , switch to Webkit or anything else.Or even scrap it and make a new one and do n't force it to replace IE-whatever if you update , just move away from Trident ! Trident was a horrible idea and always will be .
The quicker it is killed off , the better for them and us .
( especially since Microsoft have now realized it is a futile attempt to build their sites around IE since the numbers of users are dwindling ) Also , i lol 'd at the URLhttp : //research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/helenw/papers/gazelleSecurity09.pdf " um " indeed , Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MS Research [microsoft.com]All in all, i think it is a great idea for them to be researching things like this.But the fact they are still with Trident hurts me and the web greatly.Please Microsoft, switch to Webkit or anything else.Or even scrap it and make a new one and don't force it to replace IE-whatever if you update, just move away from Trident!Trident was a horrible idea and always will be.
The quicker it is killed off, the better for them and us.
(especially since Microsoft have now realized it is a futile attempt to build their sites around IE since the numbers of users are dwindling)Also, i lol'd at the URLhttp://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/helenw/papers/gazelleSecurity09.pdf"um" indeed, Microsoft.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28654251</id>
	<title>back to the 1970's</title>
	<author>jipn4</author>
	<datestamp>1247216640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The UNIX designers were adamant about process-based isolation, to the degree that UNIX for a long time did not have kernel threads (early versions of Java had to emulate threads even in the mid-90's).  Macintosh and Windows were much quicker to adopt threads.</p><p>It's kind of ironic that Microsoft now is pushing for process-based isolation.  Their window system, of course, has also moved to a client/server architecture and asynchronous calls now, like X11 already did 20 years ago.  Why don't they just go all the way and adopt UNIX or Linux? And if they really want to be cutting edge, they might switch to Plan 9.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The UNIX designers were adamant about process-based isolation , to the degree that UNIX for a long time did not have kernel threads ( early versions of Java had to emulate threads even in the mid-90 's ) .
Macintosh and Windows were much quicker to adopt threads.It 's kind of ironic that Microsoft now is pushing for process-based isolation .
Their window system , of course , has also moved to a client/server architecture and asynchronous calls now , like X11 already did 20 years ago .
Why do n't they just go all the way and adopt UNIX or Linux ?
And if they really want to be cutting edge , they might switch to Plan 9. : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The UNIX designers were adamant about process-based isolation, to the degree that UNIX for a long time did not have kernel threads (early versions of Java had to emulate threads even in the mid-90's).
Macintosh and Windows were much quicker to adopt threads.It's kind of ironic that Microsoft now is pushing for process-based isolation.
Their window system, of course, has also moved to a client/server architecture and asynchronous calls now, like X11 already did 20 years ago.
Why don't they just go all the way and adopt UNIX or Linux?
And if they really want to be cutting edge, they might switch to Plan 9. :-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28654065</id>
	<title>Boy, don't we miss x86 segments!</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1247258940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, we were so eager to get rid of segments that by the time 80386 more or less perfected them, we dumped them for flat mode.  Now they are gone in x86-64, likely never to return.  What a terrible mistake!  If we had different segments, we could have a lightweight browser process with user space threads assigning segments to different domains on the page.  Instead of trying to get protection by wrapping software sandboxes around everything like Java, C# or something else does, we could have the CPU actually doing it.  If only I could go back in time and say to myself, as I fumed over the likes of ES:CX... and say, no no, this will actually turn about to be a good thing in the future!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , we were so eager to get rid of segments that by the time 80386 more or less perfected them , we dumped them for flat mode .
Now they are gone in x86-64 , likely never to return .
What a terrible mistake !
If we had different segments , we could have a lightweight browser process with user space threads assigning segments to different domains on the page .
Instead of trying to get protection by wrapping software sandboxes around everything like Java , C # or something else does , we could have the CPU actually doing it .
If only I could go back in time and say to myself , as I fumed over the likes of ES : CX... and say , no no , this will actually turn about to be a good thing in the future !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, we were so eager to get rid of segments that by the time 80386 more or less perfected them, we dumped them for flat mode.
Now they are gone in x86-64, likely never to return.
What a terrible mistake!
If we had different segments, we could have a lightweight browser process with user space threads assigning segments to different domains on the page.
Instead of trying to get protection by wrapping software sandboxes around everything like Java, C# or something else does, we could have the CPU actually doing it.
If only I could go back in time and say to myself, as I fumed over the likes of ES:CX... and say, no no, this will actually turn about to be a good thing in the future!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28656679</id>
	<title>Meet Dr. Wang - Interview on Channel 9</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247233800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's an interesting interview on Microsoft's Channel 9 with Dr. Wang and the grad student who wrote some of the prototype code here: http://channel9.msdn.com/shows/Going+Deep/Expert-to-Expert-Gazelle-Operating-System-Architecture-and-Web-Browser-Security/</p><p>Language designer Erik Meijer conducts the interview along with C9's usual suspect behind the camera...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's an interesting interview on Microsoft 's Channel 9 with Dr. Wang and the grad student who wrote some of the prototype code here : http : //channel9.msdn.com/shows/Going + Deep/Expert-to-Expert-Gazelle-Operating-System-Architecture-and-Web-Browser-Security/Language designer Erik Meijer conducts the interview along with C9 's usual suspect behind the camera.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's an interesting interview on Microsoft's Channel 9 with Dr. Wang and the grad student who wrote some of the prototype code here: http://channel9.msdn.com/shows/Going+Deep/Expert-to-Expert-Gazelle-Operating-System-Architecture-and-Web-Browser-Security/Language designer Erik Meijer conducts the interview along with C9's usual suspect behind the camera...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28658021</id>
	<title>Re:New Focus</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247253360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fine, just as long as they don't use unfair practices to bundle an OS with this browser thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fine , just as long as they do n't use unfair practices to bundle an OS with this browser thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fine, just as long as they don't use unfair practices to bundle an OS with this browser thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653301</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28654005</id>
	<title>Re:Standards</title>
	<author>leuk\_he</author>
	<datestamp>1247258640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This was cerntain;y true for explorere 5 , 6 and somewhat explorer 7. But for explorer 8 they were brave enough to break not compliant sites.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This was cerntain ; y true for explorere 5 , 6 and somewhat explorer 7 .
But for explorer 8 they were brave enough to break not compliant sites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This was cerntain;y true for explorere 5 , 6 and somewhat explorer 7.
But for explorer 8 they were brave enough to break not compliant sites.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653555</id>
	<title>Not new</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1247256480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless if by new you mean:<br>From february at least, seems older to me: <a href="http://research.microsoft.com/apps/pubs/default.aspx?id=79655" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">http://research.microsoft.com/apps/pubs/default.aspx?id=79655</a> [microsoft.com]</p><p>Has already appeared on slashdot and a hundred other tech sites.</p><p><a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/22/1724244" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/22/1724244</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>Its hard to google before you run to try and get a story submitted isn't it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless if by new you mean : From february at least , seems older to me : http : //research.microsoft.com/apps/pubs/default.aspx ? id = 79655 [ microsoft.com ] Has already appeared on slashdot and a hundred other tech sites.http : //tech.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 09/02/22/1724244 [ slashdot.org ] Its hard to google before you run to try and get a story submitted is n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless if by new you mean:From february at least, seems older to me: http://research.microsoft.com/apps/pubs/default.aspx?id=79655 [microsoft.com]Has already appeared on slashdot and a hundred other tech sites.http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/22/1724244 [slashdot.org]Its hard to google before you run to try and get a story submitted isn't it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653359</id>
	<title>Will this keep the browser from "stalling"?</title>
	<author>wisebabo</author>
	<datestamp>1247255760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am far from an expert on browsers so I am genuinely curious to know if this will keep the browser from occasionally "stalling".  Will it allow the browser to keep downloading/processing the parts of the web page that it can even when certain elements are unavailable?  If so, sounds like a good advance!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am far from an expert on browsers so I am genuinely curious to know if this will keep the browser from occasionally " stalling " .
Will it allow the browser to keep downloading/processing the parts of the web page that it can even when certain elements are unavailable ?
If so , sounds like a good advance !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am far from an expert on browsers so I am genuinely curious to know if this will keep the browser from occasionally "stalling".
Will it allow the browser to keep downloading/processing the parts of the web page that it can even when certain elements are unavailable?
If so, sounds like a good advance!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28685033</id>
	<title>Re:Wait, they did WHAT for HOW MANY COOKIES?</title>
	<author>phreakhead</author>
	<datestamp>1247493480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even Google Chrome fails to capitalize on the most useful feature they could have with a separate process per tab: the ability to SLEEP any tab you want until you view it!</p><p>I keep all my frequent pages open in Firefox tabs (Facebook, Myspace, Digg, etc...), and they all hog my processing time, even when I'm not viewing them! I want to be able to COMPLETELY STOP all Javascript and Flash processes in that tab if I'm not looking at it, so it doesn't waste my CPU fetching updates when I don't care. When I click on the tab, THEN and ONLY THEN will the JS and Flash be able to run! How could they overlook this feature? It seems like that's the whole point of having separate processes!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even Google Chrome fails to capitalize on the most useful feature they could have with a separate process per tab : the ability to SLEEP any tab you want until you view it ! I keep all my frequent pages open in Firefox tabs ( Facebook , Myspace , Digg , etc... ) , and they all hog my processing time , even when I 'm not viewing them !
I want to be able to COMPLETELY STOP all Javascript and Flash processes in that tab if I 'm not looking at it , so it does n't waste my CPU fetching updates when I do n't care .
When I click on the tab , THEN and ONLY THEN will the JS and Flash be able to run !
How could they overlook this feature ?
It seems like that 's the whole point of having separate processes !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even Google Chrome fails to capitalize on the most useful feature they could have with a separate process per tab: the ability to SLEEP any tab you want until you view it!I keep all my frequent pages open in Firefox tabs (Facebook, Myspace, Digg, etc...), and they all hog my processing time, even when I'm not viewing them!
I want to be able to COMPLETELY STOP all Javascript and Flash processes in that tab if I'm not looking at it, so it doesn't waste my CPU fetching updates when I don't care.
When I click on the tab, THEN and ONLY THEN will the JS and Flash be able to run!
How could they overlook this feature?
It seems like that's the whole point of having separate processes!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653349</id>
	<title>Not an improvement</title>
	<author>Todd Knarr</author>
	<datestamp>1247255700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MS's idea is nice, but it's not going to help a lot of things very much. It'll help when plug-ins and helper apps go runaway, being in a separate process they won't be able to block the browser itself. But from a security standpoint the problem isn't that those embedded objects are in the same process, it's that they have access to the same page and the DOM elements in it and the data structures of the browser itself. And <i>that</i> won't be solved just by putting them in their own process, not without isolating them from the rest of the page and browser to a degree that'll break a lot of Microsoft's technologies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MS 's idea is nice , but it 's not going to help a lot of things very much .
It 'll help when plug-ins and helper apps go runaway , being in a separate process they wo n't be able to block the browser itself .
But from a security standpoint the problem is n't that those embedded objects are in the same process , it 's that they have access to the same page and the DOM elements in it and the data structures of the browser itself .
And that wo n't be solved just by putting them in their own process , not without isolating them from the rest of the page and browser to a degree that 'll break a lot of Microsoft 's technologies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MS's idea is nice, but it's not going to help a lot of things very much.
It'll help when plug-ins and helper apps go runaway, being in a separate process they won't be able to block the browser itself.
But from a security standpoint the problem isn't that those embedded objects are in the same process, it's that they have access to the same page and the DOM elements in it and the data structures of the browser itself.
And that won't be solved just by putting them in their own process, not without isolating them from the rest of the page and browser to a degree that'll break a lot of Microsoft's technologies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28654425</id>
	<title>Re:New Focus</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1247217360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are wildly mischaracterizing what Microsoft Research does. This isn't a new direction or focus for the company, it is a paper about some ideas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are wildly mischaracterizing what Microsoft Research does .
This is n't a new direction or focus for the company , it is a paper about some ideas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are wildly mischaracterizing what Microsoft Research does.
This isn't a new direction or focus for the company, it is a paper about some ideas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653301</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28655203</id>
	<title>Sorry, Mr. Ballmer but the horse has already left.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247222100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This sounds like the nice folks at Microsoft finally read the Google Chrome specs and decided to claim that they invented it - or to be more charitable, they're doing the same thing.<br>
<br>
This is business at usual for the Microsoft people - but the real world has changed while they weren't looking. That "internet" thing that Bill mis-predicted has allowed news and information to be disseminated at lightning speed. Those who deal in lies and deception no longer have the cloak of secrecy to hide behind.<p>
If Microsoft wants to actually invent something new, we'll be right here to cheer them on. But they need to realize that the days where "innovation" meant stealing from others or stupid (Microsoft Bob) useless (talking paperclip) junk were marketable are over.</p><p>
I'm not expecting much from them, though. That "I'm God" feeling that comes with great success will be their downfall - they are yet to realize that they're not anything special in the real world and their attempts to force new standards will no longer be a "fait accompli".</p><p>
They lost sight of who their customers really were and created Vista - and it was a sales flop. If they didn't have those restrictive contracts with hardware vendors to force it onto new machines their sales figures could be counted on their fingers and toes.</p><p>
But now they're coming out with Windows 7 and there's a huge marketing push going on - and the nice folks at Microsoft are being very careful not to reveal that Windows 7 is really just Vista with some (but not all) serious bugs fixed and just enough changes to the user interface to make it appear to be something different. Even the IT savvy people here on Slashdot are hailing Windows 7 as being something special.</p><p>
Hey, guys - the DRM is still baked in and everything that was bad about Vista is bad about Windows 7 too. And for those who believe otherwise, here's a challenge: name one single thing in Windows 7 that provides more value to the customer than XP. Just because they can hang more bells and whistles on the same old pig doesn't make it a better pig.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This sounds like the nice folks at Microsoft finally read the Google Chrome specs and decided to claim that they invented it - or to be more charitable , they 're doing the same thing .
This is business at usual for the Microsoft people - but the real world has changed while they were n't looking .
That " internet " thing that Bill mis-predicted has allowed news and information to be disseminated at lightning speed .
Those who deal in lies and deception no longer have the cloak of secrecy to hide behind .
If Microsoft wants to actually invent something new , we 'll be right here to cheer them on .
But they need to realize that the days where " innovation " meant stealing from others or stupid ( Microsoft Bob ) useless ( talking paperclip ) junk were marketable are over .
I 'm not expecting much from them , though .
That " I 'm God " feeling that comes with great success will be their downfall - they are yet to realize that they 're not anything special in the real world and their attempts to force new standards will no longer be a " fait accompli " .
They lost sight of who their customers really were and created Vista - and it was a sales flop .
If they did n't have those restrictive contracts with hardware vendors to force it onto new machines their sales figures could be counted on their fingers and toes .
But now they 're coming out with Windows 7 and there 's a huge marketing push going on - and the nice folks at Microsoft are being very careful not to reveal that Windows 7 is really just Vista with some ( but not all ) serious bugs fixed and just enough changes to the user interface to make it appear to be something different .
Even the IT savvy people here on Slashdot are hailing Windows 7 as being something special .
Hey , guys - the DRM is still baked in and everything that was bad about Vista is bad about Windows 7 too .
And for those who believe otherwise , here 's a challenge : name one single thing in Windows 7 that provides more value to the customer than XP .
Just because they can hang more bells and whistles on the same old pig does n't make it a better pig .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sounds like the nice folks at Microsoft finally read the Google Chrome specs and decided to claim that they invented it - or to be more charitable, they're doing the same thing.
This is business at usual for the Microsoft people - but the real world has changed while they weren't looking.
That "internet" thing that Bill mis-predicted has allowed news and information to be disseminated at lightning speed.
Those who deal in lies and deception no longer have the cloak of secrecy to hide behind.
If Microsoft wants to actually invent something new, we'll be right here to cheer them on.
But they need to realize that the days where "innovation" meant stealing from others or stupid (Microsoft Bob) useless (talking paperclip) junk were marketable are over.
I'm not expecting much from them, though.
That "I'm God" feeling that comes with great success will be their downfall - they are yet to realize that they're not anything special in the real world and their attempts to force new standards will no longer be a "fait accompli".
They lost sight of who their customers really were and created Vista - and it was a sales flop.
If they didn't have those restrictive contracts with hardware vendors to force it onto new machines their sales figures could be counted on their fingers and toes.
But now they're coming out with Windows 7 and there's a huge marketing push going on - and the nice folks at Microsoft are being very careful not to reveal that Windows 7 is really just Vista with some (but not all) serious bugs fixed and just enough changes to the user interface to make it appear to be something different.
Even the IT savvy people here on Slashdot are hailing Windows 7 as being something special.
Hey, guys - the DRM is still baked in and everything that was bad about Vista is bad about Windows 7 too.
And for those who believe otherwise, here's a challenge: name one single thing in Windows 7 that provides more value to the customer than XP.
Just because they can hang more bells and whistles on the same old pig doesn't make it a better pig.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653301</id>
	<title>New Focus</title>
	<author>Haffner</author>
	<datestamp>1247255460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft focusing on developing a browser-based OS is directly opposed to their current business model, which involves forcing users to purchase an operating system. Microsoft's focus has always been on for-pay, offline applications. Taking a precautionary foray into Google's future business model seems to show that they are at the very least wary of Google's future plans.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft focusing on developing a browser-based OS is directly opposed to their current business model , which involves forcing users to purchase an operating system .
Microsoft 's focus has always been on for-pay , offline applications .
Taking a precautionary foray into Google 's future business model seems to show that they are at the very least wary of Google 's future plans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft focusing on developing a browser-based OS is directly opposed to their current business model, which involves forcing users to purchase an operating system.
Microsoft's focus has always been on for-pay, offline applications.
Taking a precautionary foray into Google's future business model seems to show that they are at the very least wary of Google's future plans.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653833</id>
	<title>Re:Gazelle? How about Tree Sloth?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247257800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>hey it is not slow but is DIFFERENTLY ABLED.</p><p>Have some respect please.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>hey it is not slow but is DIFFERENTLY ABLED.Have some respect please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hey it is not slow but is DIFFERENTLY ABLED.Have some respect please.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28654083</id>
	<title>10111</title>
	<author>proslack</author>
	<datestamp>1247259000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They might have better luck reducing the "resource overhead" if they programmed the kernel in something other than C#.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They might have better luck reducing the " resource overhead " if they programmed the kernel in something other than C # .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They might have better luck reducing the "resource overhead" if they programmed the kernel in something other than C#.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653669</id>
	<title>Tags</title>
	<author>222</author>
	<datestamp>1247256900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><br>
    * morelikegayzelle<br>
          o x<br>
          o !<br>
<br>
<br> <br>
This tag delivers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>* morelikegayzelle o x o !
This tag delivers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
    * morelikegayzelle
          o x
          o !
This tag delivers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28654095</id>
	<title>Re:Gazelle? How about Tree Sloth?</title>
	<author>$RANDOMLUSER</author>
	<datestamp>1247259060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Ummm... Isn't a Gazelle kind of a fast animal?</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Well, "Fronkensteen" (stitched together from discarded rotting corpses) was already in use, and "Staggering Fat Man" was voted down by the focus groups.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ummm... Is n't a Gazelle kind of a fast animal ?
Well , " Fronkensteen " ( stitched together from discarded rotting corpses ) was already in use , and " Staggering Fat Man " was voted down by the focus groups .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ummm... Isn't a Gazelle kind of a fast animal?
Well, "Fronkensteen" (stitched together from discarded rotting corpses) was already in use, and "Staggering Fat Man" was voted down by the focus groups.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28670867</id>
	<title>Re:Gazelle? How about Tree Sloth?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247402640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>unless you're talking about Safari on OSX, and not on Windows, then I have to laugh heartily at that comment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>unless you 're talking about Safari on OSX , and not on Windows , then I have to laugh heartily at that comment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>unless you're talking about Safari on OSX, and not on Windows, then I have to laugh heartily at that comment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28654337</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653299</id>
	<title>New MS browser</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247255460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh boy!  A more secure browser from the pros at secure browsing, Microsoft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh boy !
A more secure browser from the pros at secure browsing , Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh boy!
A more secure browser from the pros at secure browsing, Microsoft.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28658987</id>
	<title>where is this prototype browser?</title>
	<author>viralMeme</author>
	<datestamp>1247316060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><strong>Microsoft Research Showcases New Browser Prototype, "Gazelle"</strong> <br> <br>

Like how, they 'published a report', without actually producing anything like a prototype, in a Ars Technica article, the day after Google announces Chrome OS. If I didn't know any better I would suspect the whole excercise was designed to steal Google thunder.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft Research Showcases New Browser Prototype , " Gazelle " Like how , they 'published a report ' , without actually producing anything like a prototype , in a Ars Technica article , the day after Google announces Chrome OS .
If I did n't know any better I would suspect the whole excercise was designed to steal Google thunder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft Research Showcases New Browser Prototype, "Gazelle"  

Like how, they 'published a report', without actually producing anything like a prototype, in a Ars Technica article, the day after Google announces Chrome OS.
If I didn't know any better I would suspect the whole excercise was designed to steal Google thunder.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28662677</id>
	<title>Microserf with mod points, eh?</title>
	<author>jcr</author>
	<datestamp>1247345880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Modding me down won't make your products worth using.</p><p>-jcr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Modding me down wo n't make your products worth using.-jcr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Modding me down won't make your products worth using.-jcr</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28655167</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653717</id>
	<title>Re:Color me less excited :/</title>
	<author>PsychicX</author>
	<datestamp>1247257080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>But it's not supposed to be a product! MS --&gt; Research --. It's an architectural experiment, and sure, a lot of projects graduate from Research to an actual product group. The goal is NOT to make something you can take to the open market though. It's a proper research lab, and so of course its stuff is frequently lacking. If it were to be converted to a product, it'd be staffed up with a full team who would spend a year or two -- or seven in the case of some unfortunate victims -- making it viable for public consumption.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But it 's not supposed to be a product !
MS -- &gt; Research -- .
It 's an architectural experiment , and sure , a lot of projects graduate from Research to an actual product group .
The goal is NOT to make something you can take to the open market though .
It 's a proper research lab , and so of course its stuff is frequently lacking .
If it were to be converted to a product , it 'd be staffed up with a full team who would spend a year or two -- or seven in the case of some unfortunate victims -- making it viable for public consumption .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But it's not supposed to be a product!
MS --&gt; Research --.
It's an architectural experiment, and sure, a lot of projects graduate from Research to an actual product group.
The goal is NOT to make something you can take to the open market though.
It's a proper research lab, and so of course its stuff is frequently lacking.
If it were to be converted to a product, it'd be staffed up with a full team who would spend a year or two -- or seven in the case of some unfortunate victims -- making it viable for public consumption.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653353</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28657781</id>
	<title>Confusing use of the word "security"</title>
	<author>shervinemami</author>
	<datestamp>1247248380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>By "increased security", they seem to mean that its less likely the whole browser with all your tabs and data is going to suddenly crash. Which can be useful, for example you might be in the middle of filling out an intense job application form on one tab and suddenly the youtube video you were loading in the background takes down your whole session.<br><br>But I think calling it "security" just makes everyone assume they mean it will be harder for people to hack their system.<br><br>Surely if it takes 16MB of RAM just to load up the Google website (one of the simplest websites there is!) it's going to bring lots of new ways to crash or hack the system!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>By " increased security " , they seem to mean that its less likely the whole browser with all your tabs and data is going to suddenly crash .
Which can be useful , for example you might be in the middle of filling out an intense job application form on one tab and suddenly the youtube video you were loading in the background takes down your whole session.But I think calling it " security " just makes everyone assume they mean it will be harder for people to hack their system.Surely if it takes 16MB of RAM just to load up the Google website ( one of the simplest websites there is !
) it 's going to bring lots of new ways to crash or hack the system !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By "increased security", they seem to mean that its less likely the whole browser with all your tabs and data is going to suddenly crash.
Which can be useful, for example you might be in the middle of filling out an intense job application form on one tab and suddenly the youtube video you were loading in the background takes down your whole session.But I think calling it "security" just makes everyone assume they mean it will be harder for people to hack their system.Surely if it takes 16MB of RAM just to load up the Google website (one of the simplest websites there is!
) it's going to bring lots of new ways to crash or hack the system!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653429</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1545251_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28658021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653301
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1545251_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28662677
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28655167
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1545251_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28670867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28654337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653545
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1545251_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653545
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1545251_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28654165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1545251_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28654131
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1545251_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28654919
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1545251_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28654723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653301
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1545251_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28654233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653509
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1545251_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28654425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653301
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1545251_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28685033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1545251_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28654005
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1545251_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28654095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653545
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1545251_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28659523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28654337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653545
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1545251_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28654265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653353
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1545251_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653545
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1545251_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28659703
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1545251_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28657781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1545251_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28654067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653353
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1545251_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28654393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653509
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1545251_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28654895
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28654249
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653957
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1545251_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653587
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1545251_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653969
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653349
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1545251_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653353
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1545251_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28654973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1545251_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28659039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653545
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_1545251.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653301
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28654425
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28654723
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28658021
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_1545251.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653299
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28654973
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28654165
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28654919
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28659703
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28654131
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_1545251.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653407
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28654005
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_1545251.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653887
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_1545251.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28654251
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_1545251.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653509
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28654393
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28654233
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_1545251.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28654313
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_1545251.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653429
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28657781
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653587
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28685033
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653957
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28654249
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28654895
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_1545251.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653279
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_1545251.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28655203
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_1545251.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28654065
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_1545251.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653349
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653969
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_1545251.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28654303
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_1545251.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653545
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653833
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28654337
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28670867
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28659523
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28659039
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28654095
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653727
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_1545251.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28655167
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28662677
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_1545251.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653353
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653717
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28654067
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28654265
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_1545251.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1545251.28653555
</commentlist>
</conversation>
