<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_18_1150234</id>
	<title>The Hidden Costs of Microsoft's Free Office Online</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1247923260000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://e-piphanies.typepad.com/epiphanies/" rel="nofollow">Michael\_Curator</a> writes <i>"Despite what you've heard, the online version of Office 2010 announced by Microsoft earlier this week won't be free to corporate users. Business customers will either have to <a href="http://industry.bnet.com/technology/10002712/the-hidden-cost-of-microsofts-free-online-office-suite/">pay a subscription fee or purchase corporate access licenses (CALs)</a> for Office in order to be given access to the online application suite (Microsoft already does this with email &mdash; the infamous Outlook Web Access). But wait &mdash; there's more! A Microsoft spokesperson told me that customers will need to buy a SharePoint server, which ranges from $4,400 plus CALs, or $41,000 with all CALs included, if they want to share documents created using the online version of Office 2010."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Michael \ _Curator writes " Despite what you 've heard , the online version of Office 2010 announced by Microsoft earlier this week wo n't be free to corporate users .
Business customers will either have to pay a subscription fee or purchase corporate access licenses ( CALs ) for Office in order to be given access to the online application suite ( Microsoft already does this with email    the infamous Outlook Web Access ) .
But wait    there 's more !
A Microsoft spokesperson told me that customers will need to buy a SharePoint server , which ranges from $ 4,400 plus CALs , or $ 41,000 with all CALs included , if they want to share documents created using the online version of Office 2010 .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Michael\_Curator writes "Despite what you've heard, the online version of Office 2010 announced by Microsoft earlier this week won't be free to corporate users.
Business customers will either have to pay a subscription fee or purchase corporate access licenses (CALs) for Office in order to be given access to the online application suite (Microsoft already does this with email — the infamous Outlook Web Access).
But wait — there's more!
A Microsoft spokesperson told me that customers will need to buy a SharePoint server, which ranges from $4,400 plus CALs, or $41,000 with all CALs included, if they want to share documents created using the online version of Office 2010.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28747657</id>
	<title>Re:well duh</title>
	<author>bschorr</author>
	<datestamp>1248018120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mediawiki lets me create a calendar that integrates with Outlook?</p><p>By the way, you can view SharePoint sites with Firefox.  For those rare features you might need IE for you can just use the IEtab Add-on for Firefox.</p><p>You can also use OpenWriter or WordPerfect to edit Office XML format documents.</p><p>If you really want to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mediawiki lets me create a calendar that integrates with Outlook ? By the way , you can view SharePoint sites with Firefox .
For those rare features you might need IE for you can just use the IEtab Add-on for Firefox.You can also use OpenWriter or WordPerfect to edit Office XML format documents.If you really want to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mediawiki lets me create a calendar that integrates with Outlook?By the way, you can view SharePoint sites with Firefox.
For those rare features you might need IE for you can just use the IEtab Add-on for Firefox.You can also use OpenWriter or WordPerfect to edit Office XML format documents.If you really want to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28748873</id>
	<title>A fool to think otherwise...</title>
	<author>FragInc</author>
	<datestamp>1248030720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Micro$oft + FREE = HAHA!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Micro $ oft + FREE = HAHA !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Micro$oft + FREE = HAHA!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28743599</id>
	<title>Re:Storing your documents OFFLINE</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1247913060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Like you have any financial documents... What do you keep track of your allowance?</i></p><p>I wish the Australian tax office shared your attitude.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like you have any financial documents... What do you keep track of your allowance ? I wish the Australian tax office shared your attitude .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like you have any financial documents... What do you keep track of your allowance?I wish the Australian tax office shared your attitude.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28743331</id>
	<title>Re:of course</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247910720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would seriously question your ability to run a business if making money weren't a major motive. If something is not profitable, why would you spend time or money developing it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would seriously question your ability to run a business if making money were n't a major motive .
If something is not profitable , why would you spend time or money developing it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would seriously question your ability to run a business if making money weren't a major motive.
If something is not profitable, why would you spend time or money developing it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28742709</id>
	<title>Re:well duh</title>
	<author>arkhan\_jg</author>
	<datestamp>1247947980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We've started using <a href="http://www.opengoo.org/" title="opengoo.org">opengoo</a> [opengoo.org] in the 3 man IT department at my school for internal documentation and project management (with calendar, task lists and milestones), assigning a separate workspace for each project. You can upload files (such as photos, office documents) then check them out with versioning, or just write and edit simple documents (in html with an editor straight in it. I've even published one specific workspace to a subcontractor, so they can see where we're at with our end of things with one particular project we have running with them over the summer. It's really pretty impressive, and entirely free if you self host on LAMP/XAMP and open source to boot.</p><p>We do still have a mediawiki which was our previous documentation store, but having to convert everything to wiki syntax for formatting was a bit of a pain (especially tables), so I'm likely going to migrate everything across to opengoo so everything is in one place and easily accessible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've started using opengoo [ opengoo.org ] in the 3 man IT department at my school for internal documentation and project management ( with calendar , task lists and milestones ) , assigning a separate workspace for each project .
You can upload files ( such as photos , office documents ) then check them out with versioning , or just write and edit simple documents ( in html with an editor straight in it .
I 've even published one specific workspace to a subcontractor , so they can see where we 're at with our end of things with one particular project we have running with them over the summer .
It 's really pretty impressive , and entirely free if you self host on LAMP/XAMP and open source to boot.We do still have a mediawiki which was our previous documentation store , but having to convert everything to wiki syntax for formatting was a bit of a pain ( especially tables ) , so I 'm likely going to migrate everything across to opengoo so everything is in one place and easily accessible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We've started using opengoo [opengoo.org] in the 3 man IT department at my school for internal documentation and project management (with calendar, task lists and milestones), assigning a separate workspace for each project.
You can upload files (such as photos, office documents) then check them out with versioning, or just write and edit simple documents (in html with an editor straight in it.
I've even published one specific workspace to a subcontractor, so they can see where we're at with our end of things with one particular project we have running with them over the summer.
It's really pretty impressive, and entirely free if you self host on LAMP/XAMP and open source to boot.We do still have a mediawiki which was our previous documentation store, but having to convert everything to wiki syntax for formatting was a bit of a pain (especially tables), so I'm likely going to migrate everything across to opengoo so everything is in one place and easily accessible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28743045</id>
	<title>Re:well duh</title>
	<author>Scarletdown</author>
	<datestamp>1247908200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What makes you think your data is safe on your computer? Microsoft can access anything on your PC if they so choose.</p></div><p>If Microsoft could do that, I would be sending some emails to debian-user asking the maintainers why they are allowing such a travesty to go unchecked in their repositories.</p><p>And then I would probably post a whistle-blowing story right here on Slashdot.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What makes you think your data is safe on your computer ?
Microsoft can access anything on your PC if they so choose.If Microsoft could do that , I would be sending some emails to debian-user asking the maintainers why they are allowing such a travesty to go unchecked in their repositories.And then I would probably post a whistle-blowing story right here on Slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What makes you think your data is safe on your computer?
Microsoft can access anything on your PC if they so choose.If Microsoft could do that, I would be sending some emails to debian-user asking the maintainers why they are allowing such a travesty to go unchecked in their repositories.And then I would probably post a whistle-blowing story right here on Slashdot.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28741387</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28746597</id>
	<title>Re:well duh</title>
	<author>Mista2</author>
	<datestamp>1248001380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, and you have to be actually be running Windows and IE to access Windows Live services.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , and you have to be actually be running Windows and IE to access Windows Live services .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, and you have to be actually be running Windows and IE to access Windows Live services.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740203</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28743917</id>
	<title>The true cost is worse: you have to use Sharepoint</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1247916000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use Sharepoint at work, and... well, it's like what you'd expect if someone had a third-hand conversation about what a Wiki was like, wrote up a Powerpoint about it, translated into Portuguese using a dictionary written by someone who knew neither Portuguese or English, translated back using Babelfish, and given to a bunch of ex-mainframe programmers to implement.</p><p>It's ugly, cumbersome, even if you use IE (god help you if you're using Firefox or Safari). Using a Sharepoint server is going to knock 30\% off your productivity right off the top. You're better off paying for Office licenses for everyone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use Sharepoint at work , and... well , it 's like what you 'd expect if someone had a third-hand conversation about what a Wiki was like , wrote up a Powerpoint about it , translated into Portuguese using a dictionary written by someone who knew neither Portuguese or English , translated back using Babelfish , and given to a bunch of ex-mainframe programmers to implement.It 's ugly , cumbersome , even if you use IE ( god help you if you 're using Firefox or Safari ) .
Using a Sharepoint server is going to knock 30 \ % off your productivity right off the top .
You 're better off paying for Office licenses for everyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use Sharepoint at work, and... well, it's like what you'd expect if someone had a third-hand conversation about what a Wiki was like, wrote up a Powerpoint about it, translated into Portuguese using a dictionary written by someone who knew neither Portuguese or English, translated back using Babelfish, and given to a bunch of ex-mainframe programmers to implement.It's ugly, cumbersome, even if you use IE (god help you if you're using Firefox or Safari).
Using a Sharepoint server is going to knock 30\% off your productivity right off the top.
You're better off paying for Office licenses for everyone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740893</id>
	<title>Re:A Bad Idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247933280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your unoriginal ideas are boring. Almost every sentence in your post is misleading or wrong. Please think about that before you put post again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your unoriginal ideas are boring .
Almost every sentence in your post is misleading or wrong .
Please think about that before you put post again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your unoriginal ideas are boring.
Almost every sentence in your post is misleading or wrong.
Please think about that before you put post again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28741687</id>
	<title>Re:well duh</title>
	<author>blincoln</author>
	<datestamp>1247939940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I hate the fact that I'm required to use a Microsoft browser to check out a Microsoft proprietary document</i></p><p>SharePoint 2007 works fine with FireFox, assuming you configure FireFox to pass your Windows credentials on and maybe a few other minor configuration changes. I imagine it will work with other modern browsers (in which category I do not include e.g. lynx).</p><p><i>and edit it with a Microsoft proprietary office software package</i></p><p>You can store any type of file you like in SharePoint, as long as the administrators don't have it on the blocked extension list.</p><p><i>Mediawiki would be a better solution for 99\% of these purposes.</i></p><p>Most of the corporate users I work with love Excel and PowerPoint files in addition to their Word documents. How would you replicate that in MediaWiki?</p><p><i>Microsoft's solution is to keep all editing inside the Office suite, which requires checkout and checkin of each individual document. It's a terrible solution, rooted in an outdated "document centric" methodology.</i></p><p>That's how your organization is choosing to use SharePoint. It supports that model because it's supposed to be a replacement for (among other things) file shares and Exchange public folders. It also supports different usage models, including limited wiki-style pages.</p><p>If you think your organization has progressed into the documentless future of tomorrow, maybe you should try convincing other people there to work in that way using the tools they already have, and if it provides significant benefit you can steer them towards a product geared specifically toward that model.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate the fact that I 'm required to use a Microsoft browser to check out a Microsoft proprietary documentSharePoint 2007 works fine with FireFox , assuming you configure FireFox to pass your Windows credentials on and maybe a few other minor configuration changes .
I imagine it will work with other modern browsers ( in which category I do not include e.g .
lynx ) .and edit it with a Microsoft proprietary office software packageYou can store any type of file you like in SharePoint , as long as the administrators do n't have it on the blocked extension list.Mediawiki would be a better solution for 99 \ % of these purposes.Most of the corporate users I work with love Excel and PowerPoint files in addition to their Word documents .
How would you replicate that in MediaWiki ? Microsoft 's solution is to keep all editing inside the Office suite , which requires checkout and checkin of each individual document .
It 's a terrible solution , rooted in an outdated " document centric " methodology.That 's how your organization is choosing to use SharePoint .
It supports that model because it 's supposed to be a replacement for ( among other things ) file shares and Exchange public folders .
It also supports different usage models , including limited wiki-style pages.If you think your organization has progressed into the documentless future of tomorrow , maybe you should try convincing other people there to work in that way using the tools they already have , and if it provides significant benefit you can steer them towards a product geared specifically toward that model .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate the fact that I'm required to use a Microsoft browser to check out a Microsoft proprietary documentSharePoint 2007 works fine with FireFox, assuming you configure FireFox to pass your Windows credentials on and maybe a few other minor configuration changes.
I imagine it will work with other modern browsers (in which category I do not include e.g.
lynx).and edit it with a Microsoft proprietary office software packageYou can store any type of file you like in SharePoint, as long as the administrators don't have it on the blocked extension list.Mediawiki would be a better solution for 99\% of these purposes.Most of the corporate users I work with love Excel and PowerPoint files in addition to their Word documents.
How would you replicate that in MediaWiki?Microsoft's solution is to keep all editing inside the Office suite, which requires checkout and checkin of each individual document.
It's a terrible solution, rooted in an outdated "document centric" methodology.That's how your organization is choosing to use SharePoint.
It supports that model because it's supposed to be a replacement for (among other things) file shares and Exchange public folders.
It also supports different usage models, including limited wiki-style pages.If you think your organization has progressed into the documentless future of tomorrow, maybe you should try convincing other people there to work in that way using the tools they already have, and if it provides significant benefit you can steer them towards a product geared specifically toward that model.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28750009</id>
	<title>Re:well duh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247996640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sorry, but Mediawiki sucks.  We had it and used it for a long time.  We actually had 2-3 servers running different wikis for the sake of having some kind of access control.  We considered moving our (mixed RHEL/Win environment) to Sharepoint, but noticed the aforementioned restrictions.
<br> <br>
We've since moved to <a href="http://www.atlassian.com/software/confluence/" title="atlassian.com" rel="nofollow">Confluence</a> [atlassian.com].  It works well all around, and integrates with the bug tracking product we have from them.  You can edit MS documents with a simple Firefox plugin.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , but Mediawiki sucks .
We had it and used it for a long time .
We actually had 2-3 servers running different wikis for the sake of having some kind of access control .
We considered moving our ( mixed RHEL/Win environment ) to Sharepoint , but noticed the aforementioned restrictions .
We 've since moved to Confluence [ atlassian.com ] .
It works well all around , and integrates with the bug tracking product we have from them .
You can edit MS documents with a simple Firefox plugin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, but Mediawiki sucks.
We had it and used it for a long time.
We actually had 2-3 servers running different wikis for the sake of having some kind of access control.
We considered moving our (mixed RHEL/Win environment) to Sharepoint, but noticed the aforementioned restrictions.
We've since moved to Confluence [atlassian.com].
It works well all around, and integrates with the bug tracking product we have from them.
You can edit MS documents with a simple Firefox plugin.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740403</id>
	<title>But, as any PHB will tell you...</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1247928960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>..."You get what you pay for."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... " You get what you pay for .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..."You get what you pay for.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740577</id>
	<title>Re:Storing your documents OFFLINE</title>
	<author>UnderLoK</author>
	<datestamp>1247930460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Like you have any financial documents... What do you keep track of your allowance?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Like you have any financial documents... What do you keep track of your allowance ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like you have any financial documents... What do you keep track of your allowance?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28743193</id>
	<title>Re:well duh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247909400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Microsoft's answer to Mediawiki"?  REALLY?  Yeah, not so much.  Mediawiki != Business Data Catalog and advanced workflow capabilities with fairly seamless integration.  Sharepoint has many flaws, but lack of functionality is not one of them.  It does everything fairly well, but there's always something that does each component better.  Sharepoint's advantage lies in not needing to buy all of those things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Microsoft 's answer to Mediawiki " ?
REALLY ? Yeah , not so much .
Mediawiki ! = Business Data Catalog and advanced workflow capabilities with fairly seamless integration .
Sharepoint has many flaws , but lack of functionality is not one of them .
It does everything fairly well , but there 's always something that does each component better .
Sharepoint 's advantage lies in not needing to buy all of those things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Microsoft's answer to Mediawiki"?
REALLY?  Yeah, not so much.
Mediawiki != Business Data Catalog and advanced workflow capabilities with fairly seamless integration.
Sharepoint has many flaws, but lack of functionality is not one of them.
It does everything fairly well, but there's always something that does each component better.
Sharepoint's advantage lies in not needing to buy all of those things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28741579</id>
	<title>Re:well duh</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1247939040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ROFLMAO - Has Microsoft engineered a backdoor into all *nix machines, then?  Assuming that all the stories about MS's backdoors really are true, assuming that the stories about the NSA's backdoors are true - that doesn't address breaking into a *nix machine.  Yeah, I'm sure that either MS or NSA could get into my machine, if they really wanted to.  *nix is secure, but I may or may not have configured the thing perfectly.  Maybe they can get in.  They have the resources to hire good crackers, if they want to.  But, it will cost them.</p><p>It would make more sense for them to send a couple of cops out to my house with warrants to confiscate my machines.  If that happened, THEN it would become a game of "who is more clever".  Is my stuff really hidden, or can they get to it?  You can damn sure bet that I'm not going to just GIVE it all to them.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ROFLMAO - Has Microsoft engineered a backdoor into all * nix machines , then ?
Assuming that all the stories about MS 's backdoors really are true , assuming that the stories about the NSA 's backdoors are true - that does n't address breaking into a * nix machine .
Yeah , I 'm sure that either MS or NSA could get into my machine , if they really wanted to .
* nix is secure , but I may or may not have configured the thing perfectly .
Maybe they can get in .
They have the resources to hire good crackers , if they want to .
But , it will cost them.It would make more sense for them to send a couple of cops out to my house with warrants to confiscate my machines .
If that happened , THEN it would become a game of " who is more clever " .
Is my stuff really hidden , or can they get to it ?
You can damn sure bet that I 'm not going to just GIVE it all to them .
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ROFLMAO - Has Microsoft engineered a backdoor into all *nix machines, then?
Assuming that all the stories about MS's backdoors really are true, assuming that the stories about the NSA's backdoors are true - that doesn't address breaking into a *nix machine.
Yeah, I'm sure that either MS or NSA could get into my machine, if they really wanted to.
*nix is secure, but I may or may not have configured the thing perfectly.
Maybe they can get in.
They have the resources to hire good crackers, if they want to.
But, it will cost them.It would make more sense for them to send a couple of cops out to my house with warrants to confiscate my machines.
If that happened, THEN it would become a game of "who is more clever".
Is my stuff really hidden, or can they get to it?
You can damn sure bet that I'm not going to just GIVE it all to them.
;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28741387</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28745041</id>
	<title>Is Microsoft *trying* to go out of business....</title>
	<author>gestalt\_n\_pepper</author>
	<datestamp>1247931300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or just stupid? YOU Decide!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or just stupid ?
YOU Decide !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or just stupid?
YOU Decide!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28748047</id>
	<title>Re: Google charges too, for corporate Docs account</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1248022560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ZOHO is a great alternative to GDocs and it integrates with KnowledgeTree, an open source document management system.<br>http://www.zoho.com and http://www.knowledgetree.com</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ZOHO is a great alternative to GDocs and it integrates with KnowledgeTree , an open source document management system.http : //www.zoho.com and http : //www.knowledgetree.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ZOHO is a great alternative to GDocs and it integrates with KnowledgeTree, an open source document management system.http://www.zoho.com and http://www.knowledgetree.com</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740515</id>
	<title>Run away!</title>
	<author>dweinst</author>
	<datestamp>1247930040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh my gosh - it's made of....</p><p>PEOPLE!!!!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh my gosh - it 's made of....PEOPLE ! ! ! ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh my gosh - it's made of....PEOPLE!!!!!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28747175</id>
	<title>Re:well duh</title>
	<author>jipn4</author>
	<datestamp>1248011760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Assuming that all the stories about MS's backdoors really are true,</i></p><p>What are you talking about?  Microsoft sends Microsoft users regular software updates, and their software sends back information to their servers all the time.  If they wanted to, they could access information on pretty much any machine running Microsoft Windows.  The "backdoors" are there and in plain sight.  But they probably don't because they don't want to.</p><p>And it's the same with on-line office suites.  With both Microsoft and Google, you are depending on the companies to play fair and not invade your privacy.  The fact that one runs on your local PC and the other in the cloud makes little difference.</p><p>And potential worries about theft from Google servers has to be balanced against the high threat of viruses, worms, and trojan horses on your local Windows installation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Assuming that all the stories about MS 's backdoors really are true,What are you talking about ?
Microsoft sends Microsoft users regular software updates , and their software sends back information to their servers all the time .
If they wanted to , they could access information on pretty much any machine running Microsoft Windows .
The " backdoors " are there and in plain sight .
But they probably do n't because they do n't want to.And it 's the same with on-line office suites .
With both Microsoft and Google , you are depending on the companies to play fair and not invade your privacy .
The fact that one runs on your local PC and the other in the cloud makes little difference.And potential worries about theft from Google servers has to be balanced against the high threat of viruses , worms , and trojan horses on your local Windows installation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Assuming that all the stories about MS's backdoors really are true,What are you talking about?
Microsoft sends Microsoft users regular software updates, and their software sends back information to their servers all the time.
If they wanted to, they could access information on pretty much any machine running Microsoft Windows.
The "backdoors" are there and in plain sight.
But they probably don't because they don't want to.And it's the same with on-line office suites.
With both Microsoft and Google, you are depending on the companies to play fair and not invade your privacy.
The fact that one runs on your local PC and the other in the cloud makes little difference.And potential worries about theft from Google servers has to be balanced against the high threat of viruses, worms, and trojan horses on your local Windows installation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28741579</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28747447</id>
	<title>Re:well duh</title>
	<author>AftanGustur</author>
	<datestamp>1248015300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>True, but if you want to share your documents with the world MS has a *special* license for you.
<p>
If you connect Sharepoint to the internet and want to create a public website with your documents, the pricetag will probably knock your plan out cold.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>True , but if you want to share your documents with the world MS has a * special * license for you .
If you connect Sharepoint to the internet and want to create a public website with your documents , the pricetag will probably knock your plan out cold .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True, but if you want to share your documents with the world MS has a *special* license for you.
If you connect Sharepoint to the internet and want to create a public website with your documents, the pricetag will probably knock your plan out cold.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740203</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740541</id>
	<title>Source?</title>
	<author>jamesl</author>
	<datestamp>1247930160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And the source of this important information on pricing of an unreleased product?<br><i>A Microsoft spokesperson told me<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... </i></p><p>Microsoft spokespersons with the knowledge and authority to speak about such things have a name and title.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And the source of this important information on pricing of an unreleased product ? A Microsoft spokesperson told me ... Microsoft spokespersons with the knowledge and authority to speak about such things have a name and title .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the source of this important information on pricing of an unreleased product?A Microsoft spokesperson told me ... Microsoft spokespersons with the knowledge and authority to speak about such things have a name and title.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740243</id>
	<title>A Bad Idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247927340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cloud computing is a bad idea. It gives software companies an unprecedented level of control over our data. If they decided to up the price of their service, or withdraw it entirely, there is little we can do. Microsoft is famous for manipulative behavior. I would not endow them with this level of trust; nor would any other sane person. If you are looking for an alternative, might I suggest <a href="http://www.openoffice.org/" title="openoffice.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.openoffice.org/</a> [openoffice.org] (many people I know also use it for its superior equation editor, in addition to the fact that it is free and open source).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cloud computing is a bad idea .
It gives software companies an unprecedented level of control over our data .
If they decided to up the price of their service , or withdraw it entirely , there is little we can do .
Microsoft is famous for manipulative behavior .
I would not endow them with this level of trust ; nor would any other sane person .
If you are looking for an alternative , might I suggest http : //www.openoffice.org/ [ openoffice.org ] ( many people I know also use it for its superior equation editor , in addition to the fact that it is free and open source ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cloud computing is a bad idea.
It gives software companies an unprecedented level of control over our data.
If they decided to up the price of their service, or withdraw it entirely, there is little we can do.
Microsoft is famous for manipulative behavior.
I would not endow them with this level of trust; nor would any other sane person.
If you are looking for an alternative, might I suggest http://www.openoffice.org/ [openoffice.org] (many people I know also use it for its superior equation editor, in addition to the fact that it is free and open source).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740319</id>
	<title>I for one...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247928120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Welcome our self-foot-shooting overlords.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Welcome our self-foot-shooting overlords .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Welcome our self-foot-shooting overlords.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740991</id>
	<title>Details at Eleven</title>
	<author>thethibs</author>
	<datestamp>1247933940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow! Microsoft is selling its software! Be still my heart!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow !
Microsoft is selling its software !
Be still my heart !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow!
Microsoft is selling its software!
Be still my heart!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28743937</id>
	<title>Re:well duh</title>
	<author>kcitren</author>
	<datestamp>1247916360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A. The IRS themselves hosts an online page for tax filings. The data is sent over SSL and goes to the IRS, and IRS only.</p></div><p>Like this: <a href="http://www.irs.gov/efile/article/0,,id=118986,00.html" title="irs.gov" rel="nofollow">http://www.irs.gov/efile/article/0,,id=118986,00.html</a> [irs.gov]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A. The IRS themselves hosts an online page for tax filings .
The data is sent over SSL and goes to the IRS , and IRS only.Like this : http : //www.irs.gov/efile/article/0,,id = 118986,00.html [ irs.gov ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A. The IRS themselves hosts an online page for tax filings.
The data is sent over SSL and goes to the IRS, and IRS only.Like this: http://www.irs.gov/efile/article/0,,id=118986,00.html [irs.gov]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28742833</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740945</id>
	<title>Re:Software licensing is cheap</title>
	<author>Shados</author>
	<datestamp>1247933640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SharePoint works fine. And you don't exactly need to pay a bundle for it if you just want document sharing and collabortion (since Sharepoint Services is a component of Windows Server. Only the souped up "enhanced" version costs, and has a million pieces to support).</p><p>I run Sharepoint on a one server virtual machine, and probably have an higher than average load on it, and its fine, and I definately don't need to maintain it much at all. And at work we're running one of the largest non-Microsoft sharepoint farm in the world, in a unix based environment (no active directory, lots of *nix clients, box linux box than windows box, etc) and while it sure has the hiccups than any webfarm of the size ends up having, it does work pretty good.</p><p>In any case, as of the latest version, Alfresco is a very respectable open source alternative that will run on Linux boxes and uses mainstream open source components, and is seen as "Sharepoint" from Office 2003/2007's point of view, and it integrates quite seemlessly with it. Give it a shot, its pretty damn good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SharePoint works fine .
And you do n't exactly need to pay a bundle for it if you just want document sharing and collabortion ( since Sharepoint Services is a component of Windows Server .
Only the souped up " enhanced " version costs , and has a million pieces to support ) .I run Sharepoint on a one server virtual machine , and probably have an higher than average load on it , and its fine , and I definately do n't need to maintain it much at all .
And at work we 're running one of the largest non-Microsoft sharepoint farm in the world , in a unix based environment ( no active directory , lots of * nix clients , box linux box than windows box , etc ) and while it sure has the hiccups than any webfarm of the size ends up having , it does work pretty good.In any case , as of the latest version , Alfresco is a very respectable open source alternative that will run on Linux boxes and uses mainstream open source components , and is seen as " Sharepoint " from Office 2003/2007 's point of view , and it integrates quite seemlessly with it .
Give it a shot , its pretty damn good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SharePoint works fine.
And you don't exactly need to pay a bundle for it if you just want document sharing and collabortion (since Sharepoint Services is a component of Windows Server.
Only the souped up "enhanced" version costs, and has a million pieces to support).I run Sharepoint on a one server virtual machine, and probably have an higher than average load on it, and its fine, and I definately don't need to maintain it much at all.
And at work we're running one of the largest non-Microsoft sharepoint farm in the world, in a unix based environment (no active directory, lots of *nix clients, box linux box than windows box, etc) and while it sure has the hiccups than any webfarm of the size ends up having, it does work pretty good.In any case, as of the latest version, Alfresco is a very respectable open source alternative that will run on Linux boxes and uses mainstream open source components, and is seen as "Sharepoint" from Office 2003/2007's point of view, and it integrates quite seemlessly with it.
Give it a shot, its pretty damn good.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740283</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740855</id>
	<title>Re:well duh</title>
	<author>YrWrstNtmr</author>
	<datestamp>1247932920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Microsoft's solution is to keep all editing inside the Office suite, which requires checkout and checkin of each individual document. It's a terrible solution, rooted in an outdated "document centric" methodology.</i> <br> <br>Check out the Wiki or blog functionality in SP. Literally, click Edit, and off you go.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft 's solution is to keep all editing inside the Office suite , which requires checkout and checkin of each individual document .
It 's a terrible solution , rooted in an outdated " document centric " methodology .
Check out the Wiki or blog functionality in SP .
Literally , click Edit , and off you go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft's solution is to keep all editing inside the Office suite, which requires checkout and checkin of each individual document.
It's a terrible solution, rooted in an outdated "document centric" methodology.
Check out the Wiki or blog functionality in SP.
Literally, click Edit, and off you go.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740449</id>
	<title>Ranges from $4,400 plus CALs, or $41,000?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247929380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FUCK THAT!</p><p>Even if i ran a multi-billion dollar company, i still wouldn't pay this.</p><p>What is it with stupidly high prices for such things?  There is no fucking way in hell that any piece of software is worth that much, ever, even if it was coded by the "almighty God" himself.  I'd rather print the sale page and use it as toilet paper.</p><p>Sad thing is some people will actually PAY for bullshit like this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FUCK THAT ! Even if i ran a multi-billion dollar company , i still would n't pay this.What is it with stupidly high prices for such things ?
There is no fucking way in hell that any piece of software is worth that much , ever , even if it was coded by the " almighty God " himself .
I 'd rather print the sale page and use it as toilet paper.Sad thing is some people will actually PAY for bullshit like this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FUCK THAT!Even if i ran a multi-billion dollar company, i still wouldn't pay this.What is it with stupidly high prices for such things?
There is no fucking way in hell that any piece of software is worth that much, ever, even if it was coded by the "almighty God" himself.
I'd rather print the sale page and use it as toilet paper.Sad thing is some people will actually PAY for bullshit like this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740949</id>
	<title>Re:well duh</title>
	<author>bschorr</author>
	<datestamp>1247933640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are so many questions around "Cloud Computing" and SaaS when it's hosted by a web service.</p><p>* Where is your data?<br>* Who has access to your data?<br>* What happens to your data if the SaaS vendor goes out of business?<br>* What happens to your data if the SaaS vendor discontinues the app?<br>* What happens to your data if you have a dispute with the SaaS vendor? If you're late paying your bill or there is a disagreement about the fees charged?<br>* What if your data is stored in a foreign country?  Could you be subject to the laws of that country? What if there is political instability in that country?  What if it's a country that is unfriendly to your country?<br>* How do you perform compliance audits on a distant, disparate, data center?<br>* Does your SaaS vendor respect your document retention and lifecycle policies?<br>* How easy is it to take your data to a different vendor if you don't like the current one any more?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...and about a hundred more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are so many questions around " Cloud Computing " and SaaS when it 's hosted by a web service .
* Where is your data ?
* Who has access to your data ?
* What happens to your data if the SaaS vendor goes out of business ?
* What happens to your data if the SaaS vendor discontinues the app ?
* What happens to your data if you have a dispute with the SaaS vendor ?
If you 're late paying your bill or there is a disagreement about the fees charged ?
* What if your data is stored in a foreign country ?
Could you be subject to the laws of that country ?
What if there is political instability in that country ?
What if it 's a country that is unfriendly to your country ?
* How do you perform compliance audits on a distant , disparate , data center ?
* Does your SaaS vendor respect your document retention and lifecycle policies ?
* How easy is it to take your data to a different vendor if you do n't like the current one any more ?
...and about a hundred more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are so many questions around "Cloud Computing" and SaaS when it's hosted by a web service.
* Where is your data?
* Who has access to your data?
* What happens to your data if the SaaS vendor goes out of business?
* What happens to your data if the SaaS vendor discontinues the app?
* What happens to your data if you have a dispute with the SaaS vendor?
If you're late paying your bill or there is a disagreement about the fees charged?
* What if your data is stored in a foreign country?
Could you be subject to the laws of that country?
What if there is political instability in that country?
What if it's a country that is unfriendly to your country?
* How do you perform compliance audits on a distant, disparate, data center?
* Does your SaaS vendor respect your document retention and lifecycle policies?
* How easy is it to take your data to a different vendor if you don't like the current one any more?
...and about a hundred more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28744977</id>
	<title>Re:well duh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247930040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use 3-rd party hosted Outlook Web Access / Exchange.  I connect via VPN.  I have about as much faith in my hosted company as I would place on an in-house team at an office.</p><p>For personal stuff, I really don't see the big deal if everything is encrypted.  You presumably trust online stores to handle your billing info, some people file e-taxes, people bank online, etc.  Provided the data isn't saved or retained insecurely and you can eliminate it from their system, what's the concern?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use 3-rd party hosted Outlook Web Access / Exchange .
I connect via VPN .
I have about as much faith in my hosted company as I would place on an in-house team at an office.For personal stuff , I really do n't see the big deal if everything is encrypted .
You presumably trust online stores to handle your billing info , some people file e-taxes , people bank online , etc .
Provided the data is n't saved or retained insecurely and you can eliminate it from their system , what 's the concern ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use 3-rd party hosted Outlook Web Access / Exchange.
I connect via VPN.
I have about as much faith in my hosted company as I would place on an in-house team at an office.For personal stuff, I really don't see the big deal if everything is encrypted.
You presumably trust online stores to handle your billing info, some people file e-taxes, people bank online, etc.
Provided the data isn't saved or retained insecurely and you can eliminate it from their system, what's the concern?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740283</id>
	<title>Software licensing is cheap</title>
	<author>hattig</author>
	<datestamp>1247927760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's nothing compared to the cost of hiring a team of people to get sharepoint to do what you want it to do, and plenty of companies are happy to pay for them. It's also cheap on a per-user basis - remember how many tens of thousands you are paying them each year - not that this logic extends to buying them a decent computer.</p><p>Some software just works. Other software unnecessarily requires over the top maintenance and setup costs. I've never read anything good about sharepoint apart from the people who got wooed by the salesman over golf/dinner/piss up to buy it. Sadly these people are who controls decision making.</p><p>What's a good free sharepoint alternative, in a single package?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's nothing compared to the cost of hiring a team of people to get sharepoint to do what you want it to do , and plenty of companies are happy to pay for them .
It 's also cheap on a per-user basis - remember how many tens of thousands you are paying them each year - not that this logic extends to buying them a decent computer.Some software just works .
Other software unnecessarily requires over the top maintenance and setup costs .
I 've never read anything good about sharepoint apart from the people who got wooed by the salesman over golf/dinner/piss up to buy it .
Sadly these people are who controls decision making.What 's a good free sharepoint alternative , in a single package ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's nothing compared to the cost of hiring a team of people to get sharepoint to do what you want it to do, and plenty of companies are happy to pay for them.
It's also cheap on a per-user basis - remember how many tens of thousands you are paying them each year - not that this logic extends to buying them a decent computer.Some software just works.
Other software unnecessarily requires over the top maintenance and setup costs.
I've never read anything good about sharepoint apart from the people who got wooed by the salesman over golf/dinner/piss up to buy it.
Sadly these people are who controls decision making.What's a good free sharepoint alternative, in a single package?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740827</id>
	<title>Re:well duh</title>
	<author>arose</author>
	<datestamp>1247932560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>either you run it on their servers and gove third parties access to your data or you pay to run it on your servers.</p></div></blockquote><p>...and pay a third party to access your own server. Welcome to the wonderful world of CAL.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>either you run it on their servers and gove third parties access to your data or you pay to run it on your servers....and pay a third party to access your own server .
Welcome to the wonderful world of CAL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>either you run it on their servers and gove third parties access to your data or you pay to run it on your servers....and pay a third party to access your own server.
Welcome to the wonderful world of CAL.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740203</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28747345</id>
	<title>$41,000 Unlimited ...</title>
	<author>hackus</author>
	<datestamp>1248013980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LOL</p><p>In a word, retarded.</p><p>Only a retard would spend that kind of dough on a Microsoft solution in this day and age of open source software.</p><p>Especially for Office Software.</p><p>Save your money and take the $41K and give it to your employees to augment Open Office to suit your business or reinvest it in your company.</p><p>-Hack</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LOLIn a word , retarded.Only a retard would spend that kind of dough on a Microsoft solution in this day and age of open source software.Especially for Office Software.Save your money and take the $ 41K and give it to your employees to augment Open Office to suit your business or reinvest it in your company.-Hack</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LOLIn a word, retarded.Only a retard would spend that kind of dough on a Microsoft solution in this day and age of open source software.Especially for Office Software.Save your money and take the $41K and give it to your employees to augment Open Office to suit your business or reinvest it in your company.-Hack</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740511</id>
	<title>Hidden?</title>
	<author>UnderLoK</author>
	<datestamp>1247929980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You need SharePoint to do that now... This guy obviously is out of the loop. Also the last time I checked while a business CAN use Google Docs, that isn't the business solution.

Sounds like a troll report, nothing else.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You need SharePoint to do that now... This guy obviously is out of the loop .
Also the last time I checked while a business CAN use Google Docs , that is n't the business solution .
Sounds like a troll report , nothing else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You need SharePoint to do that now... This guy obviously is out of the loop.
Also the last time I checked while a business CAN use Google Docs, that isn't the business solution.
Sounds like a troll report, nothing else.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740389</id>
	<title>Microsoft Office Online</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247928840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dedicated server in my house + cable internet + VNC + existing copy of microsoft office = Microsoft Office Online.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dedicated server in my house + cable internet + VNC + existing copy of microsoft office = Microsoft Office Online .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dedicated server in my house + cable internet + VNC + existing copy of microsoft office = Microsoft Office Online.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740607</id>
	<title>Re:well duh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247930700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It sounds like a false alternative -- what corporation is going to trust their documents on Microsoft's servers?  So now you have to pay extra when you 'choose' to run these apps in-house.  It's kind of like Vista Home Basic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It sounds like a false alternative -- what corporation is going to trust their documents on Microsoft 's servers ?
So now you have to pay extra when you 'choose ' to run these apps in-house .
It 's kind of like Vista Home Basic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It sounds like a false alternative -- what corporation is going to trust their documents on Microsoft's servers?
So now you have to pay extra when you 'choose' to run these apps in-house.
It's kind of like Vista Home Basic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740203</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740525</id>
	<title>Re:well duh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247930040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>you need the server to run the apps inhouse rather than out of your control.</p></div></blockquote><p>Some things should be mentioned here for those that aren't familiar with Sharepoint.</p><p>I work for a Fortune 15 company and we are required to use Sharepoint, instead of a simple file server, to store all of our Office documents already.  Sharepoint is a terribly, terribly flawed "workplace collaboration" software.  It's basically a glorified WebDAV server that supports versioning, and also allows people to post little "widgets" like calendars that integrate with Outlook.</p><p>Sharepoint is Microsoft's answer to Mediawiki and other real media sharing web services.  In fact, for 99\% of all companies, Mediawiki running on an internal server would be much better than Sharepoint, and provide much more functionality, without requiring a copy of MS Office to be installed on everyone's client PC.  But, corporate america, in their infinite wisdom, only trusts Microsoft products, so we get stuck with Sharepoint.</p><p>I hate the fact that I'm required to use a Microsoft browser to check out a Microsoft proprietary document, and edit it with a Microsoft proprietary office software package, then check it back in to a Microsoft proprietary server.  This solution is the most difficult to use, from a usability standpoint, workflow point of view solution I have ever used before.  Mediawiki would be a better solution for 99\% of these purposes.  I like the ability to just click "Edit" and start editing a page.  Microsoft's solution is to keep all editing inside the Office suite, which requires checkout and checkin of each individual document.  It's a terrible solution, rooted in an outdated "document centric" methodology.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>you need the server to run the apps inhouse rather than out of your control.Some things should be mentioned here for those that are n't familiar with Sharepoint.I work for a Fortune 15 company and we are required to use Sharepoint , instead of a simple file server , to store all of our Office documents already .
Sharepoint is a terribly , terribly flawed " workplace collaboration " software .
It 's basically a glorified WebDAV server that supports versioning , and also allows people to post little " widgets " like calendars that integrate with Outlook.Sharepoint is Microsoft 's answer to Mediawiki and other real media sharing web services .
In fact , for 99 \ % of all companies , Mediawiki running on an internal server would be much better than Sharepoint , and provide much more functionality , without requiring a copy of MS Office to be installed on everyone 's client PC .
But , corporate america , in their infinite wisdom , only trusts Microsoft products , so we get stuck with Sharepoint.I hate the fact that I 'm required to use a Microsoft browser to check out a Microsoft proprietary document , and edit it with a Microsoft proprietary office software package , then check it back in to a Microsoft proprietary server .
This solution is the most difficult to use , from a usability standpoint , workflow point of view solution I have ever used before .
Mediawiki would be a better solution for 99 \ % of these purposes .
I like the ability to just click " Edit " and start editing a page .
Microsoft 's solution is to keep all editing inside the Office suite , which requires checkout and checkin of each individual document .
It 's a terrible solution , rooted in an outdated " document centric " methodology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you need the server to run the apps inhouse rather than out of your control.Some things should be mentioned here for those that aren't familiar with Sharepoint.I work for a Fortune 15 company and we are required to use Sharepoint, instead of a simple file server, to store all of our Office documents already.
Sharepoint is a terribly, terribly flawed "workplace collaboration" software.
It's basically a glorified WebDAV server that supports versioning, and also allows people to post little "widgets" like calendars that integrate with Outlook.Sharepoint is Microsoft's answer to Mediawiki and other real media sharing web services.
In fact, for 99\% of all companies, Mediawiki running on an internal server would be much better than Sharepoint, and provide much more functionality, without requiring a copy of MS Office to be installed on everyone's client PC.
But, corporate america, in their infinite wisdom, only trusts Microsoft products, so we get stuck with Sharepoint.I hate the fact that I'm required to use a Microsoft browser to check out a Microsoft proprietary document, and edit it with a Microsoft proprietary office software package, then check it back in to a Microsoft proprietary server.
This solution is the most difficult to use, from a usability standpoint, workflow point of view solution I have ever used before.
Mediawiki would be a better solution for 99\% of these purposes.
I like the ability to just click "Edit" and start editing a page.
Microsoft's solution is to keep all editing inside the Office suite, which requires checkout and checkin of each individual document.
It's a terrible solution, rooted in an outdated "document centric" methodology.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740203</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28741061</id>
	<title>Well, of course its not free</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1247934600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They have salaries to pay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They have salaries to pay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They have salaries to pay.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28742833</id>
	<title>Re:well duh</title>
	<author>vadim\_t</author>
	<datestamp>1247949120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>But what he/she says is that when you do your tax return online with TurboTax, they have access to your data. That \_is\_ reasonable.</p></div></blockquote><p>No, it isn't. I don't see why something besides the IRS should have to know what's on my tax return.</p><p>That they have to see the data is simply a limitation of the web model.</p><p>The way I see it, things should work in one of two ways:</p><p>A. The IRS themselves hosts an online page for tax filings. The data is sent over SSL and goes to the IRS, and IRS only.<br>B. If for some reason a third party is needed (and I don't see why it is), TurboTax should sell me a desktop application which talks directly to the IRS, and nothing else, over a secure connection.</p><p>Anything else is unacceptable. I do not like random third parties having access to my data.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But what he/she says is that when you do your tax return online with TurboTax , they have access to your data .
That \ _is \ _ reasonable.No , it is n't .
I do n't see why something besides the IRS should have to know what 's on my tax return.That they have to see the data is simply a limitation of the web model.The way I see it , things should work in one of two ways : A. The IRS themselves hosts an online page for tax filings .
The data is sent over SSL and goes to the IRS , and IRS only.B .
If for some reason a third party is needed ( and I do n't see why it is ) , TurboTax should sell me a desktop application which talks directly to the IRS , and nothing else , over a secure connection.Anything else is unacceptable .
I do not like random third parties having access to my data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But what he/she says is that when you do your tax return online with TurboTax, they have access to your data.
That \_is\_ reasonable.No, it isn't.
I don't see why something besides the IRS should have to know what's on my tax return.That they have to see the data is simply a limitation of the web model.The way I see it, things should work in one of two ways:A. The IRS themselves hosts an online page for tax filings.
The data is sent over SSL and goes to the IRS, and IRS only.B.
If for some reason a third party is needed (and I don't see why it is), TurboTax should sell me a desktop application which talks directly to the IRS, and nothing else, over a secure connection.Anything else is unacceptable.
I do not like random third parties having access to my data.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28741387</id>
	<title>Re:well duh</title>
	<author>jipn4</author>
	<datestamp>1247937300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What makes you think your data is safe on your computer?  Microsoft can access anything on your PC if they so choose.  So can police and others.  They don't even need to tell you about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What makes you think your data is safe on your computer ?
Microsoft can access anything on your PC if they so choose .
So can police and others .
They do n't even need to tell you about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What makes you think your data is safe on your computer?
Microsoft can access anything on your PC if they so choose.
So can police and others.
They don't even need to tell you about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28741173</id>
	<title>Glad to be off that treadmill</title>
	<author>HangingChad</author>
	<datestamp>1247935500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>A Microsoft spokesperson told me that customers will need to buy a SharePoint server, which ranges from $4,400 plus CALs, or $41,000 with all CALs included, if they want to share documents created using the online version of Office 2010."</i>

</p><p>I am so happy to be working in an office free of the MS strangle hold.  CALs always struck me as the most insidious of their macabre licensing circus.  First you pay for the software, then you pay again so people can use it.  What a racket.  For the $41,000 you're paying in CALs I can cover an employee salary for 8 months (that would be one of the lower level people).

</p><p>We don't have any problems getting our work done at the office without Microsoft.  We have corporate Gmail and use GoogleDocs, so far with zero problems.  If we have super sekret corporate information we can't trust to Google, we can store them in the truecrypt file container.  We can send out pdf's to clients and customers, everyone can read them and they format just fine.

</p><p>Plus I really like that we don't have to fit either our business processes or development processes to MSFT models.  It's a lot more open and a lot more productive.  You don't realize how much time you spend dancing on Microsoft's string until you get away from them.  And, as an extra bonus, I can blow your ROI and TCO numbers out of the water.  Just about any metric you want to use.  And I never have to make the painful choice between layoffs and new servers.  We can upgrade on our schedule, patch on our schedule, work the way we want to.  If we need more capacity, we just stand it up.  If we don't need it we can turn it off and it's not wasted money sitting there doing nothing.

</p><p>And it's not just a small office. If you set it up right, you could do the same thing with almost any size organization.  The only consistent pain in the rear problem we have regularly are those damn webinar programs.  GoToMeeting and crap like that.  Many of those are Windows only.  That's kind of annoying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A Microsoft spokesperson told me that customers will need to buy a SharePoint server , which ranges from $ 4,400 plus CALs , or $ 41,000 with all CALs included , if they want to share documents created using the online version of Office 2010 .
" I am so happy to be working in an office free of the MS strangle hold .
CALs always struck me as the most insidious of their macabre licensing circus .
First you pay for the software , then you pay again so people can use it .
What a racket .
For the $ 41,000 you 're paying in CALs I can cover an employee salary for 8 months ( that would be one of the lower level people ) .
We do n't have any problems getting our work done at the office without Microsoft .
We have corporate Gmail and use GoogleDocs , so far with zero problems .
If we have super sekret corporate information we ca n't trust to Google , we can store them in the truecrypt file container .
We can send out pdf 's to clients and customers , everyone can read them and they format just fine .
Plus I really like that we do n't have to fit either our business processes or development processes to MSFT models .
It 's a lot more open and a lot more productive .
You do n't realize how much time you spend dancing on Microsoft 's string until you get away from them .
And , as an extra bonus , I can blow your ROI and TCO numbers out of the water .
Just about any metric you want to use .
And I never have to make the painful choice between layoffs and new servers .
We can upgrade on our schedule , patch on our schedule , work the way we want to .
If we need more capacity , we just stand it up .
If we do n't need it we can turn it off and it 's not wasted money sitting there doing nothing .
And it 's not just a small office .
If you set it up right , you could do the same thing with almost any size organization .
The only consistent pain in the rear problem we have regularly are those damn webinar programs .
GoToMeeting and crap like that .
Many of those are Windows only .
That 's kind of annoying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> A Microsoft spokesperson told me that customers will need to buy a SharePoint server, which ranges from $4,400 plus CALs, or $41,000 with all CALs included, if they want to share documents created using the online version of Office 2010.
"

I am so happy to be working in an office free of the MS strangle hold.
CALs always struck me as the most insidious of their macabre licensing circus.
First you pay for the software, then you pay again so people can use it.
What a racket.
For the $41,000 you're paying in CALs I can cover an employee salary for 8 months (that would be one of the lower level people).
We don't have any problems getting our work done at the office without Microsoft.
We have corporate Gmail and use GoogleDocs, so far with zero problems.
If we have super sekret corporate information we can't trust to Google, we can store them in the truecrypt file container.
We can send out pdf's to clients and customers, everyone can read them and they format just fine.
Plus I really like that we don't have to fit either our business processes or development processes to MSFT models.
It's a lot more open and a lot more productive.
You don't realize how much time you spend dancing on Microsoft's string until you get away from them.
And, as an extra bonus, I can blow your ROI and TCO numbers out of the water.
Just about any metric you want to use.
And I never have to make the painful choice between layoffs and new servers.
We can upgrade on our schedule, patch on our schedule, work the way we want to.
If we need more capacity, we just stand it up.
If we don't need it we can turn it off and it's not wasted money sitting there doing nothing.
And it's not just a small office.
If you set it up right, you could do the same thing with almost any size organization.
The only consistent pain in the rear problem we have regularly are those damn webinar programs.
GoToMeeting and crap like that.
Many of those are Windows only.
That's kind of annoying.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28743517</id>
	<title>Re:Storing your documents OFFLINE</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247912340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But even if he doesn't have any financial documents, that still leaves the question: Should a company store its financial documents in a 3rd-party cloud?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But even if he does n't have any financial documents , that still leaves the question : Should a company store its financial documents in a 3rd-party cloud ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But even if he doesn't have any financial documents, that still leaves the question: Should a company store its financial documents in a 3rd-party cloud?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28743867</id>
	<title>Re:Storing your documents OFFLINE</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1247915580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, Microsoft is obviously the first company to think of this concept. Make sure you assign all blame to them and not, for example, to Google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , Microsoft is obviously the first company to think of this concept .
Make sure you assign all blame to them and not , for example , to Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, Microsoft is obviously the first company to think of this concept.
Make sure you assign all blame to them and not, for example, to Google.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28743281</id>
	<title>Re:well duh</title>
	<author>QQ2</author>
	<datestamp>1247910120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree with you that in some\many cases a fileshare or an instance of media wiki might indeed be as efficient as SharePoint.
But stating that SharePoint is Microsofts answer to MediaWiki is not a fair comparison either.
<p>The basic 'free' version of SharePoint; WSS offers a collaboration environment aimed at dynamic, limited access groups like teams or projects.<br>
It's widget approach and semi freedom it offers potentiall makes for a good collaboration environment regardless of the alternatives.<br>
If correctly implemented on a corporate level it's metadata model can even make it a verry potent tool for actual information retrieval but this is a verry difficult thign to achieve (blame politics not the tool)<br>
Ofcourse it has to be said that it's occasionally haphazzerd UI and reliance on IE limit its usefullness in mixed environements.

</p><p>However more important here is the fact that SharePoint as MOSS is being positioned much more widely than this.<br>
With MOSS SharePoitn becomes a CMS, a BI platform and much more.<br>
Now I'm not saying it's best of breed cause it isn't but you have to admire the flexibility.<br>
And if you want to fight MOSS in your enterprise you do wise to propose counters for the whole oss range or the product will simply outflank you
</p><p>
As for the development hoops.<br>
Well I guesse that is mostly a matter of taste.<br>
Yes the API is just plain weird at times and its dependancy on COM+ makes it an easy target for memory leaks.<br>
But it's custom code deployment model is pretty good so in my experience it&#194;s slightly cheaper to maintain than comparible OSS or even proprietary <br>counterparts
</p><p>
Cheers<br>

QQ2</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with you that in some \ many cases a fileshare or an instance of media wiki might indeed be as efficient as SharePoint .
But stating that SharePoint is Microsofts answer to MediaWiki is not a fair comparison either .
The basic 'free ' version of SharePoint ; WSS offers a collaboration environment aimed at dynamic , limited access groups like teams or projects .
It 's widget approach and semi freedom it offers potentiall makes for a good collaboration environment regardless of the alternatives .
If correctly implemented on a corporate level it 's metadata model can even make it a verry potent tool for actual information retrieval but this is a verry difficult thign to achieve ( blame politics not the tool ) Ofcourse it has to be said that it 's occasionally haphazzerd UI and reliance on IE limit its usefullness in mixed environements .
However more important here is the fact that SharePoint as MOSS is being positioned much more widely than this .
With MOSS SharePoitn becomes a CMS , a BI platform and much more .
Now I 'm not saying it 's best of breed cause it is n't but you have to admire the flexibility .
And if you want to fight MOSS in your enterprise you do wise to propose counters for the whole oss range or the product will simply outflank you As for the development hoops .
Well I guesse that is mostly a matter of taste .
Yes the API is just plain weird at times and its dependancy on COM + makes it an easy target for memory leaks .
But it 's custom code deployment model is pretty good so in my experience it   s slightly cheaper to maintain than comparible OSS or even proprietary counterparts Cheers QQ2</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with you that in some\many cases a fileshare or an instance of media wiki might indeed be as efficient as SharePoint.
But stating that SharePoint is Microsofts answer to MediaWiki is not a fair comparison either.
The basic 'free' version of SharePoint; WSS offers a collaboration environment aimed at dynamic, limited access groups like teams or projects.
It's widget approach and semi freedom it offers potentiall makes for a good collaboration environment regardless of the alternatives.
If correctly implemented on a corporate level it's metadata model can even make it a verry potent tool for actual information retrieval but this is a verry difficult thign to achieve (blame politics not the tool)
Ofcourse it has to be said that it's occasionally haphazzerd UI and reliance on IE limit its usefullness in mixed environements.
However more important here is the fact that SharePoint as MOSS is being positioned much more widely than this.
With MOSS SharePoitn becomes a CMS, a BI platform and much more.
Now I'm not saying it's best of breed cause it isn't but you have to admire the flexibility.
And if you want to fight MOSS in your enterprise you do wise to propose counters for the whole oss range or the product will simply outflank you

As for the development hoops.
Well I guesse that is mostly a matter of taste.
Yes the API is just plain weird at times and its dependancy on COM+ makes it an easy target for memory leaks.
But it's custom code deployment model is pretty good so in my experience itÂs slightly cheaper to maintain than comparible OSS or even proprietary counterparts

Cheers

QQ2</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740203</id>
	<title>well duh</title>
	<author>goombah99</author>
	<datestamp>1247927100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you need the server to run the apps inhouse rather than out of your control.  The same is true of things like google docs and other cloud apps.   either you run it on their servers and gove third parties access to your data or you pay to run it on your servers.  this is not a surprise or even unreasonable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you need the server to run the apps inhouse rather than out of your control .
The same is true of things like google docs and other cloud apps .
either you run it on their servers and gove third parties access to your data or you pay to run it on your servers .
this is not a surprise or even unreasonable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you need the server to run the apps inhouse rather than out of your control.
The same is true of things like google docs and other cloud apps.
either you run it on their servers and gove third parties access to your data or you pay to run it on your servers.
this is not a surprise or even unreasonable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740217</id>
	<title>Move along...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247927220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why does the poster sound so surprised by the licensing and prerequisites?  It is not like this is new behavior for Microsoft.</p><p>And you can bet it won't work with any other operating system except MS Windows, and won't work with any browser except IE.</p><p>Nothing new to see here... move along...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does the poster sound so surprised by the licensing and prerequisites ?
It is not like this is new behavior for Microsoft.And you can bet it wo n't work with any other operating system except MS Windows , and wo n't work with any browser except IE.Nothing new to see here... move along.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does the poster sound so surprised by the licensing and prerequisites?
It is not like this is new behavior for Microsoft.And you can bet it won't work with any other operating system except MS Windows, and won't work with any browser except IE.Nothing new to see here... move along...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740989</id>
	<title>Leave it to Microsoft...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247933940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Leave it to Microsoft to make a word processor where sharing your documents is an optional feature.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Leave it to Microsoft to make a word processor where sharing your documents is an optional feature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Leave it to Microsoft to make a word processor where sharing your documents is an optional feature.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740315</id>
	<title>Storing your documents OFFLINE</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247928120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...priceless.</p><p>For everything else, there's Microsoft.</p><p>I can't ever see myself storing my personal documents, especially financial ones, on some remote server or "cloud". Fuck that. Take your orafice online and stick it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...priceless.For everything else , there 's Microsoft.I ca n't ever see myself storing my personal documents , especially financial ones , on some remote server or " cloud " .
Fuck that .
Take your orafice online and stick it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...priceless.For everything else, there's Microsoft.I can't ever see myself storing my personal documents, especially financial ones, on some remote server or "cloud".
Fuck that.
Take your orafice online and stick it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28742597</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft copying Apple?</title>
	<author>macs4all</author>
	<datestamp>1247947020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe Microsoft has decided to become a hardware company like Apple is. I wonder if the servers will be made in the same Chinese factories that make Macs and virtually every other computer.
<br> <br>
There, fixed that for you, Troll.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe Microsoft has decided to become a hardware company like Apple is .
I wonder if the servers will be made in the same Chinese factories that make Macs and virtually every other computer .
There , fixed that for you , Troll .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe Microsoft has decided to become a hardware company like Apple is.
I wonder if the servers will be made in the same Chinese factories that make Macs and virtually every other computer.
There, fixed that for you, Troll.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740239</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28742195</id>
	<title>The moving target</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1247944020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>What's a good free sharepoint alternative, in a single package?</i> </p><p>SharePoint is part of the MS Office system.</p><p>What you buy - or rent - from Microsoft is a sophisticated - scalable - turnkey solution for a business of any size.</p><p>If you want to be competitive, you have to see how well the parts fit together.</p><p>New Features in SharePoint 2010:</p><p>The Ribbon.</p><p> <i>Ribbon icons will now allow users to check in and check out documents as they are viewing document libraries. Companies will be able to customize the ribbon and even remove it in favor of the older user interface found in SharePoint 2007.</i> </p><p>Web edit.</p><p><i>Site owners can edit their sites almost as if they were typical Office documents. Other user-focused upgrades include the ability to use Office themes in SharePoint.</i></p><p><br>Business Connectivity</p><p><i>The Business Data Catalog, introduced in SharePoint 2007, gets a makeover and a new name in SharePoint 2010. Business Connectivity Services now gives users the ability to read and write to business databases. Users can create, read, update, delete, and query that data, even publishing it to Office, so that data published to SharePoint via Business Connectivity Services can do things like show up as a selectable list of data in a form document in Word.</i></p><p><i><br>Other user-focused features include the addition of the ability to read Visio documents in SharePoint, and an upgraded version of Microsoft Groove, now renamed SharePoint Workspace and given improved data synchronization capabilities.</i></p><p><br>IT</p><p> <i><br>Managers get improved administrative capabilities with a dashboard that uses the ribbon interface; a set of tools to monitor server farm health and data performance and fix common problems; and usage reporting and logging. Developers get a new set of tools and capabilities like a developer dashboard for easier debugging and a new programming interface, as well as built-in support for Silverlight.</i></p><p><br>Platforms</p><p><i>SharePoint 2010 will support Internet Explorer, Firefox, and Safari. However, it will not come in a 32-bit version, and will require Windows Server 2008 and SQL Server 2005 or 2008 (64-bit only). It will also no longer support Internet Explorer 6.0.</i> </p><p><a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/windows/operatingsystems/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=218500775&amp;subSection=Enterprise+Applications" title="informationweek.com">Microsoft Begins Detailing SharePoint 2010</a> [informationweek.com] July 15</p><p><i>I know, I know, the prevailing opinion is that SharePoint sucks, but in my experience, companies that grab hold of SharePoint integration with Exchange and MS Office, would rather give up their children than that combo.<br>Where is the competition for that ENTIRE feature set, for a comparative amount of money?<i> <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/07/12/1334246/Outlook-Inertia-the-Main-Factor-Holding-Business-From-Google-Apps" title="slashdot.org">Exchange-Outlook-SharePoint, baby!</a> [slashdot.org] {July 12]</i></i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's a good free sharepoint alternative , in a single package ?
SharePoint is part of the MS Office system.What you buy - or rent - from Microsoft is a sophisticated - scalable - turnkey solution for a business of any size.If you want to be competitive , you have to see how well the parts fit together.New Features in SharePoint 2010 : The Ribbon .
Ribbon icons will now allow users to check in and check out documents as they are viewing document libraries .
Companies will be able to customize the ribbon and even remove it in favor of the older user interface found in SharePoint 2007 .
Web edit.Site owners can edit their sites almost as if they were typical Office documents .
Other user-focused upgrades include the ability to use Office themes in SharePoint.Business ConnectivityThe Business Data Catalog , introduced in SharePoint 2007 , gets a makeover and a new name in SharePoint 2010 .
Business Connectivity Services now gives users the ability to read and write to business databases .
Users can create , read , update , delete , and query that data , even publishing it to Office , so that data published to SharePoint via Business Connectivity Services can do things like show up as a selectable list of data in a form document in Word.Other user-focused features include the addition of the ability to read Visio documents in SharePoint , and an upgraded version of Microsoft Groove , now renamed SharePoint Workspace and given improved data synchronization capabilities.IT Managers get improved administrative capabilities with a dashboard that uses the ribbon interface ; a set of tools to monitor server farm health and data performance and fix common problems ; and usage reporting and logging .
Developers get a new set of tools and capabilities like a developer dashboard for easier debugging and a new programming interface , as well as built-in support for Silverlight.PlatformsSharePoint 2010 will support Internet Explorer , Firefox , and Safari .
However , it will not come in a 32-bit version , and will require Windows Server 2008 and SQL Server 2005 or 2008 ( 64-bit only ) .
It will also no longer support Internet Explorer 6.0 .
Microsoft Begins Detailing SharePoint 2010 [ informationweek.com ] July 15I know , I know , the prevailing opinion is that SharePoint sucks , but in my experience , companies that grab hold of SharePoint integration with Exchange and MS Office , would rather give up their children than that combo.Where is the competition for that ENTIRE feature set , for a comparative amount of money ?
Exchange-Outlook-SharePoint , baby !
[ slashdot.org ] { July 12 ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's a good free sharepoint alternative, in a single package?
SharePoint is part of the MS Office system.What you buy - or rent - from Microsoft is a sophisticated - scalable - turnkey solution for a business of any size.If you want to be competitive, you have to see how well the parts fit together.New Features in SharePoint 2010:The Ribbon.
Ribbon icons will now allow users to check in and check out documents as they are viewing document libraries.
Companies will be able to customize the ribbon and even remove it in favor of the older user interface found in SharePoint 2007.
Web edit.Site owners can edit their sites almost as if they were typical Office documents.
Other user-focused upgrades include the ability to use Office themes in SharePoint.Business ConnectivityThe Business Data Catalog, introduced in SharePoint 2007, gets a makeover and a new name in SharePoint 2010.
Business Connectivity Services now gives users the ability to read and write to business databases.
Users can create, read, update, delete, and query that data, even publishing it to Office, so that data published to SharePoint via Business Connectivity Services can do things like show up as a selectable list of data in a form document in Word.Other user-focused features include the addition of the ability to read Visio documents in SharePoint, and an upgraded version of Microsoft Groove, now renamed SharePoint Workspace and given improved data synchronization capabilities.IT Managers get improved administrative capabilities with a dashboard that uses the ribbon interface; a set of tools to monitor server farm health and data performance and fix common problems; and usage reporting and logging.
Developers get a new set of tools and capabilities like a developer dashboard for easier debugging and a new programming interface, as well as built-in support for Silverlight.PlatformsSharePoint 2010 will support Internet Explorer, Firefox, and Safari.
However, it will not come in a 32-bit version, and will require Windows Server 2008 and SQL Server 2005 or 2008 (64-bit only).
It will also no longer support Internet Explorer 6.0.
Microsoft Begins Detailing SharePoint 2010 [informationweek.com] July 15I know, I know, the prevailing opinion is that SharePoint sucks, but in my experience, companies that grab hold of SharePoint integration with Exchange and MS Office, would rather give up their children than that combo.Where is the competition for that ENTIRE feature set, for a comparative amount of money?
Exchange-Outlook-SharePoint, baby!
[slashdot.org] {July 12]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740283</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740851</id>
	<title>Re:well duh</title>
	<author>mick88</author>
	<datestamp>1247932860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;This is why I am not entirely thrilled about the web.</p><p>Not thrilled about the web, eh? Hmm. I'm not sure this is the web's fault, to be honest.</p><p>If you pay attention to the comment you're replying to, you'll notice the post didn't suggest that all data be accessible by any and all unknown 3rd parties. But what he/she says is that when you do your tax return online with TurboTax, they have access to your data. That \_is\_ reasonable. Just like when you walk into a brick-and-mortar H&amp;R block to do you tax return: H&amp;R Block has access to your data too. There are privacy laws to prevent them from doing bad things with the data. But if you give info to any company, on the web or otherwise, they have access to your data.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; This is why I am not entirely thrilled about the web.Not thrilled about the web , eh ?
Hmm. I 'm not sure this is the web 's fault , to be honest.If you pay attention to the comment you 're replying to , you 'll notice the post did n't suggest that all data be accessible by any and all unknown 3rd parties .
But what he/she says is that when you do your tax return online with TurboTax , they have access to your data .
That \ _is \ _ reasonable .
Just like when you walk into a brick-and-mortar H&amp;R block to do you tax return : H&amp;R Block has access to your data too .
There are privacy laws to prevent them from doing bad things with the data .
But if you give info to any company , on the web or otherwise , they have access to your data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;This is why I am not entirely thrilled about the web.Not thrilled about the web, eh?
Hmm. I'm not sure this is the web's fault, to be honest.If you pay attention to the comment you're replying to, you'll notice the post didn't suggest that all data be accessible by any and all unknown 3rd parties.
But what he/she says is that when you do your tax return online with TurboTax, they have access to your data.
That \_is\_ reasonable.
Just like when you walk into a brick-and-mortar H&amp;R block to do you tax return: H&amp;R Block has access to your data too.
There are privacy laws to prevent them from doing bad things with the data.
But if you give info to any company, on the web or otherwise, they have access to your data.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28743367</id>
	<title>Re:well duh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247911140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's basically a glorified WebDAV server that "supports versioning"</p><p>Fixed that for ya.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's basically a glorified WebDAV server that " supports versioning " Fixed that for ya .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's basically a glorified WebDAV server that "supports versioning"Fixed that for ya.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740407</id>
	<title>The word for Microsoft is infamous.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247929080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"Microsoft is famous for manipulative behavior."</i>

<br> <br>should be:

<br> <br>Microsoft is <b>in</b>famous for manipulative behavior.

<br> <br>Off topic, partly: If you have problems with Microsoft Office refusing to open its own file, open the file in the free, open source Open Office and save it. The file will then open in Microsoft Office.

<br> <br>So, Open Office is a necessary utility when you use Microsoft Office.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Microsoft is famous for manipulative behavior .
" should be : Microsoft is infamous for manipulative behavior .
Off topic , partly : If you have problems with Microsoft Office refusing to open its own file , open the file in the free , open source Open Office and save it .
The file will then open in Microsoft Office .
So , Open Office is a necessary utility when you use Microsoft Office .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Microsoft is famous for manipulative behavior.
"

 should be:

 Microsoft is infamous for manipulative behavior.
Off topic, partly: If you have problems with Microsoft Office refusing to open its own file, open the file in the free, open source Open Office and save it.
The file will then open in Microsoft Office.
So, Open Office is a necessary utility when you use Microsoft Office.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28743889</id>
	<title>Re:well duh</title>
	<author>glitch23</author>
	<datestamp>1247915700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Microsoft's solution is to keep all editing inside the Office suite, which requires checkout and checkin of each individual document.</p></div><p>Actually, nothing requires you to checkout or checkin a document. Only your company procedures would require those actions in order to prevent someone from modifying a document out of turn. I can attempt to edit a document and if it isn't checked out but someone still edited it then I *am* notified that someone is already editing it. Obviously it would be stupid for me to continue and make changes because they will just be overwritten when the person who started editing before me saves their changes. Now, had the person actually performed the checkout action then the webpage would have shown the user's name who is currently editing the document. The name would have been displayed in the "Checked Out To" column of the webpage. I then would know to not try editing the document. What would happen if I did? My changes would be overwritten by whoever took a snapshot of the file before I did.</p><p>We use Sharepoint at work and there are still people who insist on editing docs w/o first checking them out. I then go to edit them, thinking they are not being accessed, then get annoyed when I'm told by Word "this document is currently open for editing by ". So Sharepoint won't force you to checkout/in documents. That is still a procedural thing that organizations using Sharepoint must try to enforce upon their employees. Also, you can save changes to Sharepoint using the Explorer view which accesses the documents using a Windows file share-type access. This bypasses the versioning feature I believe and allows you to interact with the document database a little differently. This feature is only supported in IE though.</p><p>Also, I agree with another person who said that Sharepoint responsive degrades the more docs you have in the database. The one we have at work can be horribly slow sometimes. You can click on a link and it just doesn't load. You can upload a 30 Megabyte file (.doc,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xls,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.ppt,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.vsd<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....yes, some of our files are that big or bigger) and Sharepoint will basically crash (i.e. the database crashes I believe). The server basically has to be restarted when that happens. Suffice it to say that Sharepoint doesn't work well with large files or a lot of files.</p><p>However, Firefox works with Sharepoint so you aren't required to use IE unless you want certain features. But you can checkout/in documents with Firefox I believe. And Sharepoint isn't requiring you to use Microsoft file formats so your perception they are forcing customers into a silo is incorrect. They properly *attempt* to integrate their products just like Adobe tries to integrate the applications that constitute their Creative Suite. It is up to the customers to decide whether they want to use all those components or only a select few. If they choose to do so they will benefit from the integration Microsoft has done to make the workflow smoother for customers (such as being able to checkin a document from within one of the Office apps).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft 's solution is to keep all editing inside the Office suite , which requires checkout and checkin of each individual document.Actually , nothing requires you to checkout or checkin a document .
Only your company procedures would require those actions in order to prevent someone from modifying a document out of turn .
I can attempt to edit a document and if it is n't checked out but someone still edited it then I * am * notified that someone is already editing it .
Obviously it would be stupid for me to continue and make changes because they will just be overwritten when the person who started editing before me saves their changes .
Now , had the person actually performed the checkout action then the webpage would have shown the user 's name who is currently editing the document .
The name would have been displayed in the " Checked Out To " column of the webpage .
I then would know to not try editing the document .
What would happen if I did ?
My changes would be overwritten by whoever took a snapshot of the file before I did.We use Sharepoint at work and there are still people who insist on editing docs w/o first checking them out .
I then go to edit them , thinking they are not being accessed , then get annoyed when I 'm told by Word " this document is currently open for editing by " .
So Sharepoint wo n't force you to checkout/in documents .
That is still a procedural thing that organizations using Sharepoint must try to enforce upon their employees .
Also , you can save changes to Sharepoint using the Explorer view which accesses the documents using a Windows file share-type access .
This bypasses the versioning feature I believe and allows you to interact with the document database a little differently .
This feature is only supported in IE though.Also , I agree with another person who said that Sharepoint responsive degrades the more docs you have in the database .
The one we have at work can be horribly slow sometimes .
You can click on a link and it just does n't load .
You can upload a 30 Megabyte file ( .doc , .xls , .ppt , .vsd ....yes , some of our files are that big or bigger ) and Sharepoint will basically crash ( i.e .
the database crashes I believe ) .
The server basically has to be restarted when that happens .
Suffice it to say that Sharepoint does n't work well with large files or a lot of files.However , Firefox works with Sharepoint so you are n't required to use IE unless you want certain features .
But you can checkout/in documents with Firefox I believe .
And Sharepoint is n't requiring you to use Microsoft file formats so your perception they are forcing customers into a silo is incorrect .
They properly * attempt * to integrate their products just like Adobe tries to integrate the applications that constitute their Creative Suite .
It is up to the customers to decide whether they want to use all those components or only a select few .
If they choose to do so they will benefit from the integration Microsoft has done to make the workflow smoother for customers ( such as being able to checkin a document from within one of the Office apps ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft's solution is to keep all editing inside the Office suite, which requires checkout and checkin of each individual document.Actually, nothing requires you to checkout or checkin a document.
Only your company procedures would require those actions in order to prevent someone from modifying a document out of turn.
I can attempt to edit a document and if it isn't checked out but someone still edited it then I *am* notified that someone is already editing it.
Obviously it would be stupid for me to continue and make changes because they will just be overwritten when the person who started editing before me saves their changes.
Now, had the person actually performed the checkout action then the webpage would have shown the user's name who is currently editing the document.
The name would have been displayed in the "Checked Out To" column of the webpage.
I then would know to not try editing the document.
What would happen if I did?
My changes would be overwritten by whoever took a snapshot of the file before I did.We use Sharepoint at work and there are still people who insist on editing docs w/o first checking them out.
I then go to edit them, thinking they are not being accessed, then get annoyed when I'm told by Word "this document is currently open for editing by ".
So Sharepoint won't force you to checkout/in documents.
That is still a procedural thing that organizations using Sharepoint must try to enforce upon their employees.
Also, you can save changes to Sharepoint using the Explorer view which accesses the documents using a Windows file share-type access.
This bypasses the versioning feature I believe and allows you to interact with the document database a little differently.
This feature is only supported in IE though.Also, I agree with another person who said that Sharepoint responsive degrades the more docs you have in the database.
The one we have at work can be horribly slow sometimes.
You can click on a link and it just doesn't load.
You can upload a 30 Megabyte file (.doc, .xls, .ppt, .vsd ....yes, some of our files are that big or bigger) and Sharepoint will basically crash (i.e.
the database crashes I believe).
The server basically has to be restarted when that happens.
Suffice it to say that Sharepoint doesn't work well with large files or a lot of files.However, Firefox works with Sharepoint so you aren't required to use IE unless you want certain features.
But you can checkout/in documents with Firefox I believe.
And Sharepoint isn't requiring you to use Microsoft file formats so your perception they are forcing customers into a silo is incorrect.
They properly *attempt* to integrate their products just like Adobe tries to integrate the applications that constitute their Creative Suite.
It is up to the customers to decide whether they want to use all those components or only a select few.
If they choose to do so they will benefit from the integration Microsoft has done to make the workflow smoother for customers (such as being able to checkin a document from within one of the Office apps).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28741317</id>
	<title>All facts messed up here by the ignorant poster</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247936700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Outlook Web Access is free actually, provided you've bought Exchange.<br>WSS is a free when you have Windows server and this is all you need to share documents. You can buy MOSS (MS Office SharePoint Server) to get access to a lot more collaboration features, which is optional.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Outlook Web Access is free actually , provided you 've bought Exchange.WSS is a free when you have Windows server and this is all you need to share documents .
You can buy MOSS ( MS Office SharePoint Server ) to get access to a lot more collaboration features , which is optional .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Outlook Web Access is free actually, provided you've bought Exchange.WSS is a free when you have Windows server and this is all you need to share documents.
You can buy MOSS (MS Office SharePoint Server) to get access to a lot more collaboration features, which is optional.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740471</id>
	<title>Re:well duh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247929680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, it is certainly unreasonable if 3rd parties have access to my data.  Suppose that all in one afternoon, I do Grandma's tax return, do a medicare application for Aunt Helga, make a resume for my son, etc, etc, etc, you're saying that ALL of that data should be accessible by unknown 3rd parties?  Every application hosted in the web should supply my data to anyone, and everyone, around the globe?</p><p>Totally unreasonable.</p><p>This is why I am not entirely thrilled about the web.  Notice, I'm not just picking on Microsoft here - the same applies to Google and any other company that might supply applications in the future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , it is certainly unreasonable if 3rd parties have access to my data .
Suppose that all in one afternoon , I do Grandma 's tax return , do a medicare application for Aunt Helga , make a resume for my son , etc , etc , etc , you 're saying that ALL of that data should be accessible by unknown 3rd parties ?
Every application hosted in the web should supply my data to anyone , and everyone , around the globe ? Totally unreasonable.This is why I am not entirely thrilled about the web .
Notice , I 'm not just picking on Microsoft here - the same applies to Google and any other company that might supply applications in the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, it is certainly unreasonable if 3rd parties have access to my data.
Suppose that all in one afternoon, I do Grandma's tax return, do a medicare application for Aunt Helga, make a resume for my son, etc, etc, etc, you're saying that ALL of that data should be accessible by unknown 3rd parties?
Every application hosted in the web should supply my data to anyone, and everyone, around the globe?Totally unreasonable.This is why I am not entirely thrilled about the web.
Notice, I'm not just picking on Microsoft here - the same applies to Google and any other company that might supply applications in the future.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740203</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740775</id>
	<title>Holy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247932200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Great. Direct from the company that brought us security holes. No thanks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Great .
Direct from the company that brought us security holes .
No thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great.
Direct from the company that brought us security holes.
No thanks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740239</id>
	<title>Microsoft copying Apple?</title>
	<author>Vinegar Joe</author>
	<datestamp>1247927340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe Microsoft has decided to become a hardware company like Apple claims it is. I wonder if the servers will be made in the same Chinese factories that make Macs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe Microsoft has decided to become a hardware company like Apple claims it is .
I wonder if the servers will be made in the same Chinese factories that make Macs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe Microsoft has decided to become a hardware company like Apple claims it is.
I wonder if the servers will be made in the same Chinese factories that make Macs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28746911</id>
	<title>Re:well duh</title>
	<author>JediTrainer</author>
	<datestamp>1248007140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Try looking into OneNote 2007 on top of SharePoint<br> <br>

Seriously. It takes all the headaches out. Auto-synchronizes between team members, keeping a local copy on each person's machine. Everything can be dragged/dropped into it. Images, text, files - it doesn't matter. Easy to annotate content by just typing or drawing on top of stuff. Easy to reorganize just by dragging things around.<br> <br>

My team was very hesitant to adopt SharePoint for exactly what you were talking about. We (being an MS-oriented company) were using TWiki before to gather our docs but we found formatting to be tedious and as a result, the documentation was frequently out of date. Our company wanted us to start using SharePoint and we basically found it to be a step backwards... until we discovered OneNote and it basically addressed all of our complaints in one neat app.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Try looking into OneNote 2007 on top of SharePoint Seriously .
It takes all the headaches out .
Auto-synchronizes between team members , keeping a local copy on each person 's machine .
Everything can be dragged/dropped into it .
Images , text , files - it does n't matter .
Easy to annotate content by just typing or drawing on top of stuff .
Easy to reorganize just by dragging things around .
My team was very hesitant to adopt SharePoint for exactly what you were talking about .
We ( being an MS-oriented company ) were using TWiki before to gather our docs but we found formatting to be tedious and as a result , the documentation was frequently out of date .
Our company wanted us to start using SharePoint and we basically found it to be a step backwards... until we discovered OneNote and it basically addressed all of our complaints in one neat app .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try looking into OneNote 2007 on top of SharePoint 

Seriously.
It takes all the headaches out.
Auto-synchronizes between team members, keeping a local copy on each person's machine.
Everything can be dragged/dropped into it.
Images, text, files - it doesn't matter.
Easy to annotate content by just typing or drawing on top of stuff.
Easy to reorganize just by dragging things around.
My team was very hesitant to adopt SharePoint for exactly what you were talking about.
We (being an MS-oriented company) were using TWiki before to gather our docs but we found formatting to be tedious and as a result, the documentation was frequently out of date.
Our company wanted us to start using SharePoint and we basically found it to be a step backwards... until we discovered OneNote and it basically addressed all of our complaints in one neat app.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28741895</id>
	<title>People stress over the dumbest things.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247941440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I create and edit documents in Open Office which I have been doing for quite a long time now and I'm not the least bit worried about what Microsoft is up to.  I have no problem with Microsoft making money, in fact I have not problem buying things but I'm not going to buy a 'reinvented/rehashed wheel' with a stupid price tag on it. I'm also not going to allow my documents to be locked up in someone's silly proprietary lock down simply because they are trying to corner a market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I create and edit documents in Open Office which I have been doing for quite a long time now and I 'm not the least bit worried about what Microsoft is up to .
I have no problem with Microsoft making money , in fact I have not problem buying things but I 'm not going to buy a 'reinvented/rehashed wheel ' with a stupid price tag on it .
I 'm also not going to allow my documents to be locked up in someone 's silly proprietary lock down simply because they are trying to corner a market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I create and edit documents in Open Office which I have been doing for quite a long time now and I'm not the least bit worried about what Microsoft is up to.
I have no problem with Microsoft making money, in fact I have not problem buying things but I'm not going to buy a 'reinvented/rehashed wheel' with a stupid price tag on it.
I'm also not going to allow my documents to be locked up in someone's silly proprietary lock down simply because they are trying to corner a market.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740313</id>
	<title>of course</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247928120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>if microsoft can turn something in to a gold mine you can bet on it, raking in as much money as possible by milking it for all its worth is a big part of their business model</htmltext>
<tokenext>if microsoft can turn something in to a gold mine you can bet on it , raking in as much money as possible by milking it for all its worth is a big part of their business model</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if microsoft can turn something in to a gold mine you can bet on it, raking in as much money as possible by milking it for all its worth is a big part of their business model</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740823</id>
	<title>Re:Move along...</title>
	<author>tonycheese</author>
	<datestamp>1247932560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm confused; when did Microsoft claim the suite was going to be free to corporate users? From the PC Pro article, <p><div class="quote"><p>Microsoft says the online applications will be free to consumers and small businesses, via Windows Live. Larger businesses can choose to host their own versions of the web applications via their SharePoint server or buy them as a hosted service from Microsoft.</p></div><p> I found this article from the previous Slashdot summary about Office 2010.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm confused ; when did Microsoft claim the suite was going to be free to corporate users ?
From the PC Pro article , Microsoft says the online applications will be free to consumers and small businesses , via Windows Live .
Larger businesses can choose to host their own versions of the web applications via their SharePoint server or buy them as a hosted service from Microsoft .
I found this article from the previous Slashdot summary about Office 2010 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm confused; when did Microsoft claim the suite was going to be free to corporate users?
From the PC Pro article, Microsoft says the online applications will be free to consumers and small businesses, via Windows Live.
Larger businesses can choose to host their own versions of the web applications via their SharePoint server or buy them as a hosted service from Microsoft.
I found this article from the previous Slashdot summary about Office 2010.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740555</id>
	<title>Google charges too, for corporate Docs accounts</title>
	<author>themeparkphoto</author>
	<datestamp>1247930280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google has paid services too with similar pricing models. While there is a free "Google for domains" that gives you docs, etc, on your domain, there are additional paid tiers of support.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google has paid services too with similar pricing models .
While there is a free " Google for domains " that gives you docs , etc , on your domain , there are additional paid tiers of support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google has paid services too with similar pricing models.
While there is a free "Google for domains" that gives you docs, etc, on your domain, there are additional paid tiers of support.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740837</id>
	<title>Re:Software licensing is cheap</title>
	<author>YrWrstNtmr</author>
	<datestamp>1247932680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>What's a good free sharepoint alternative, in a single package?</i> <br> <br>That works as 'seamlessly' with MSOffice (the default business suite) as SharePoint? There isn't one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's a good free sharepoint alternative , in a single package ?
That works as 'seamlessly ' with MSOffice ( the default business suite ) as SharePoint ?
There is n't one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's a good free sharepoint alternative, in a single package?
That works as 'seamlessly' with MSOffice (the default business suite) as SharePoint?
There isn't one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740283</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740467</id>
	<title>go open source</title>
	<author>compgeek83</author>
	<datestamp>1247929560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>sadly there are hundreds of thousands of companies in the US and abroad stuck in MSHell paying these high fees to use MS software.</htmltext>
<tokenext>sadly there are hundreds of thousands of companies in the US and abroad stuck in MSHell paying these high fees to use MS software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sadly there are hundreds of thousands of companies in the US and abroad stuck in MSHell paying these high fees to use MS software.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_1150234_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740243
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_1150234_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28744977
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740203
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_1150234_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28743045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28741387
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740203
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_1150234_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28743331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740313
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_1150234_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28747447
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740203
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_1150234_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28746597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740203
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_1150234_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28748047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_1150234_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28743937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28742833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740203
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_1150234_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28741687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740203
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_1150234_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740945
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740283
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_1150234_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28746911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740203
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_1150234_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28743281
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740203
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_1150234_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28743889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740203
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_1150234_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740203
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_1150234_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28743599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740315
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_1150234_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28742597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740239
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_1150234_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28747657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740203
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_1150234_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740283
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_1150234_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28743367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740203
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_1150234_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28743193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740203
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_1150234_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28742195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740283
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_1150234_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740243
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_1150234_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740203
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_1150234_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28747175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28741579
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28741387
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740203
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_1150234_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28742709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740203
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_1150234_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28743517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740315
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_1150234_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740949
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740203
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_1150234_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740203
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_1150234_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28743867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740315
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_1150234_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28750009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740203
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_18_1150234_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740823
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_18_1150234.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28741173
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_18_1150234.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740239
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28742597
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_18_1150234.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740555
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28748047
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_18_1150234.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28745041
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_18_1150234.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740243
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740893
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740407
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_18_1150234.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740217
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740823
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_18_1150234.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740315
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740577
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28743517
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28743599
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28743867
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_18_1150234.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740313
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28743331
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_18_1150234.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740541
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_18_1150234.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740203
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740607
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740525
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28750009
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28746911
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28743367
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28743889
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28741687
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740855
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28743281
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28742709
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28747657
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28743193
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740471
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740949
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740851
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28742833
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28743937
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28744977
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28741387
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28741579
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28747175
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28743045
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28747447
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740827
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28746597
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_18_1150234.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28743917
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_18_1150234.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740467
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_18_1150234.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740449
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_18_1150234.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740283
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28742195
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740837
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_18_1150234.28740945
</commentlist>
</conversation>
