<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_05_2110259</id>
	<title>Apple Not Disabling OS X Atom Support After All</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1257413520000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>bonch writes <i>"Contrary to <a href="http://apple.slashdot.org/story/09/11/03/003243/OSX-1062-Will-Block-Atom-Processors">previous reports</a>, Atom chip support is <a href="http://stellarola.tumblr.com/post/225234492/10-6-2-kills-atom-and-other-news-updated">working fine</a> in the latest 10C535 build of OS X 10.6.2. Apple's EULA still states that OS X is licensed to run only on Apple hardware, but it looks like <a href="http://www.osx86project.org/">OSX86</a> hackers can breathe easy ... for now."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>bonch writes " Contrary to previous reports , Atom chip support is working fine in the latest 10C535 build of OS X 10.6.2 .
Apple 's EULA still states that OS X is licensed to run only on Apple hardware , but it looks like OSX86 hackers can breathe easy ... for now .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bonch writes "Contrary to previous reports, Atom chip support is working fine in the latest 10C535 build of OS X 10.6.2.
Apple's EULA still states that OS X is licensed to run only on Apple hardware, but it looks like OSX86 hackers can breathe easy ... for now.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30001668</id>
	<title>Re:Atom</title>
	<author>bonch</author>
	<datestamp>1257425580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OS X is based on NeXTStep insofar as it inherited some of the object-oriented APIs and the Mach kernel, but most of it is new.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OS X is based on NeXTStep insofar as it inherited some of the object-oriented APIs and the Mach kernel , but most of it is new .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OS X is based on NeXTStep insofar as it inherited some of the object-oriented APIs and the Mach kernel, but most of it is new.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30001630</id>
	<title>Re:Just a reminder from Apple</title>
	<author>bonch</author>
	<datestamp>1257425280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just as soon as people post retractions for mocking the iPod in 2001 or criticizing the iPod mini in 2004 for being an overly expensive 4GB hard drive that nobody would buy.</p><p>If it involves Apple, always expect knees to jerk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just as soon as people post retractions for mocking the iPod in 2001 or criticizing the iPod mini in 2004 for being an overly expensive 4GB hard drive that nobody would buy.If it involves Apple , always expect knees to jerk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just as soon as people post retractions for mocking the iPod in 2001 or criticizing the iPod mini in 2004 for being an overly expensive 4GB hard drive that nobody would buy.If it involves Apple, always expect knees to jerk.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30005814</id>
	<title>Re:Don't count on Atom support...</title>
	<author>timbloom</author>
	<datestamp>1257524040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It has both a 32 bit and 64 bit kernel included IIRC.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It has both a 32 bit and 64 bit kernel included IIRC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has both a 32 bit and 64 bit kernel included IIRC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30002362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000522</id>
	<title>b-b-b-but....</title>
	<author>weston</author>
	<datestamp>1257419160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple still <em>is</em> a Wolf, right?</p><p>I mean, sure, even if they apparently haven't done this, they still <em>could</em>, right?</p><p>Why take a chance? Don't buy Apple's locked-down hard--- wait, that's the iPhone rant. Don't buy Apple's potentially locked-down software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple still is a Wolf , right ? I mean , sure , even if they apparently have n't done this , they still could , right ? Why take a chance ?
Do n't buy Apple 's locked-down hard--- wait , that 's the iPhone rant .
Do n't buy Apple 's potentially locked-down software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple still is a Wolf, right?I mean, sure, even if they apparently haven't done this, they still could, right?Why take a chance?
Don't buy Apple's locked-down hard--- wait, that's the iPhone rant.
Don't buy Apple's potentially locked-down software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30001274</id>
	<title>So nerds screeched for nothing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257422760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Tired of seeing nerds freak out over nothing. Wow, embarrassment.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Tired of seeing nerds freak out over nothing .
Wow , embarrassment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tired of seeing nerds freak out over nothing.
Wow, embarrassment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30002322</id>
	<title>Re:Just a reminder from Apple</title>
	<author>smash</author>
	<datestamp>1257432060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The mini is under $1000.  The 13" macbook, if not there already, likely will be soon...</htmltext>
<tokenext>The mini is under $ 1000 .
The 13 " macbook , if not there already , likely will be soon.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The mini is under $1000.
The 13" macbook, if not there already, likely will be soon...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30002716</id>
	<title>Re:And cheapen the brand?! Gucci in Walmart.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257436680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know, I sure like my 2-ghz dual core dvd burning sub-1000$ apple laptop that I'm typing this up on right now....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know , I sure like my 2-ghz dual core dvd burning sub-1000 $ apple laptop that I 'm typing this up on right now... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know, I sure like my 2-ghz dual core dvd burning sub-1000$ apple laptop that I'm typing this up on right now....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30001502</id>
	<title>Re:OS "Hacking"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257424260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know an open source game developer who builds and tests new Mac OS X releases of his cross-platform game on a Hackintosh. Since it's a rather demanding 3D game, a Mac Mini wouldn't be up for the task. Getting a Mac Pro just to compile &amp; test your hobby open source game just seems like a waste of money.</p><p>He's got beta testers with real Macs though. It seems to work out pretty well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know an open source game developer who builds and tests new Mac OS X releases of his cross-platform game on a Hackintosh .
Since it 's a rather demanding 3D game , a Mac Mini would n't be up for the task .
Getting a Mac Pro just to compile &amp; test your hobby open source game just seems like a waste of money.He 's got beta testers with real Macs though .
It seems to work out pretty well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know an open source game developer who builds and tests new Mac OS X releases of his cross-platform game on a Hackintosh.
Since it's a rather demanding 3D game, a Mac Mini wouldn't be up for the task.
Getting a Mac Pro just to compile &amp; test your hobby open source game just seems like a waste of money.He's got beta testers with real Macs though.
It seems to work out pretty well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000152</id>
	<title>Just a reminder from Apple</title>
	<author>bhsx</author>
	<datestamp>1257417420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>A reminder to all you Hackintoshers out there...  Apple CAN pull the plug on you anytime they want to.
This was just Steve letting you know that he knows what you're doing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A reminder to all you Hackintoshers out there... Apple CAN pull the plug on you anytime they want to .
This was just Steve letting you know that he knows what you 're doing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A reminder to all you Hackintoshers out there...  Apple CAN pull the plug on you anytime they want to.
This was just Steve letting you know that he knows what you're doing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30001306</id>
	<title>Re:Just a reminder from Apple</title>
	<author>UnknowingFool</author>
	<datestamp>1257423000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In order for any anti-trust to be remotely there has to be something regarding a monopoly.  In this case, a development build didn't work on a platform that Apple doesn't support.  So what?  What violations are there?  To use an analogy, suppose hackers got Windows 7 dev builds to work on a IBM PowerPC.  RC2.1 breaks compatibility.  Would people start complaining about anti-trust?  I don't like MS as much as the next guy, but MS never supported that processor.  Whether they deliberately or unintentionally disabled it, it doesn't matter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In order for any anti-trust to be remotely there has to be something regarding a monopoly .
In this case , a development build did n't work on a platform that Apple does n't support .
So what ?
What violations are there ?
To use an analogy , suppose hackers got Windows 7 dev builds to work on a IBM PowerPC .
RC2.1 breaks compatibility .
Would people start complaining about anti-trust ?
I do n't like MS as much as the next guy , but MS never supported that processor .
Whether they deliberately or unintentionally disabled it , it does n't matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In order for any anti-trust to be remotely there has to be something regarding a monopoly.
In this case, a development build didn't work on a platform that Apple doesn't support.
So what?
What violations are there?
To use an analogy, suppose hackers got Windows 7 dev builds to work on a IBM PowerPC.
RC2.1 breaks compatibility.
Would people start complaining about anti-trust?
I don't like MS as much as the next guy, but MS never supported that processor.
Whether they deliberately or unintentionally disabled it, it doesn't matter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30001190</id>
	<title>Re:Veiled Threat</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1257422340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>One specific development build of OSX didn't work properly on a completely unsupported platform, affecting perhaps tens of people nationwide. Subsequent builds did not exhibit this problem. News at 11.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>Never mind that; Snow Leopard won't run on my PowerPC-based Mac, and it's not even 6 years old! Oh, right, Apple has stated that they don't support it anymore. (just agreeing with you, showing the absurdity of expecting it to work on any x86 machine you throw at it)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One specific development build of OSX did n't work properly on a completely unsupported platform , affecting perhaps tens of people nationwide .
Subsequent builds did not exhibit this problem .
News at 11 .
Never mind that ; Snow Leopard wo n't run on my PowerPC-based Mac , and it 's not even 6 years old !
Oh , right , Apple has stated that they do n't support it anymore .
( just agreeing with you , showing the absurdity of expecting it to work on any x86 machine you throw at it )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One specific development build of OSX didn't work properly on a completely unsupported platform, affecting perhaps tens of people nationwide.
Subsequent builds did not exhibit this problem.
News at 11.
Never mind that; Snow Leopard won't run on my PowerPC-based Mac, and it's not even 6 years old!
Oh, right, Apple has stated that they don't support it anymore.
(just agreeing with you, showing the absurdity of expecting it to work on any x86 machine you throw at it)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30001702</id>
	<title>Hi, I'm the submitter</title>
	<author>bonch</author>
	<datestamp>1257425940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Way to put words in my mouth for an easy +5.  I didn't say Apple would "probably" do anything.  The remark was nothing more than a tongue-in-cheek reminder that you can't expect OS X to always support non-Apple hardware.  It's just common sense.</p><p>If you think that's editorializing, sensationalism, or a "veiled threat," you take things a little too seriously.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Way to put words in my mouth for an easy + 5 .
I did n't say Apple would " probably " do anything .
The remark was nothing more than a tongue-in-cheek reminder that you ca n't expect OS X to always support non-Apple hardware .
It 's just common sense.If you think that 's editorializing , sensationalism , or a " veiled threat , " you take things a little too seriously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Way to put words in my mouth for an easy +5.
I didn't say Apple would "probably" do anything.
The remark was nothing more than a tongue-in-cheek reminder that you can't expect OS X to always support non-Apple hardware.
It's just common sense.If you think that's editorializing, sensationalism, or a "veiled threat," you take things a little too seriously.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000186</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30006024</id>
	<title>If Apple was smart</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1257525660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and don't get me wrong I am sure a lot of people at Apple are very smart people, they should try to capitalize to maximum advantage. Take a page out of the MS and Google book. Its not all about securing profits, but making sure your the big guy on top. I have heard that Google will never make back the money they spend on youtube, however by acquiring it they prevent anybody else from doing so and there by securing a foothold in the online market. Also due to the razor thin margins on netbooks, Microsoft isn't going to be making much money by supplying an OS for them, but it stopped the trend of offering Linux as an alternative and prevents them from getting a foot hold in the market.</p><p>Generally people use whatever they are most comfortable using. So if they start learning on Windows, that is what they know, and it is much easier for them to keep using it. Why do you think these companies offer "Student Versions" and huge discounts (even free) to large universities and colleges? Out of the goodness of their hearts? No, because when these kids grow up this is what they know, and when the go to work, if everyone knows how to use a technology it is cheaper and easier for a business to use that same technology, etc... It is a cycle that lasts years, even decades. So only looking at short term profit and protectionism is actually counter productive in the long term. However as smart as some people like to think Apple is, that is something they constantly do, and are by far the worst offenders.</p><p>If they were smart, they would realize that the Windows 7 that Microsoft has made available to netbooks (Starter Version), is a broken crippled thing, designed only to prevent Linux from being used, but yet at the same time not interfering with their core Windows 7 sales. Now if their was say another consumer alternative, perhaps one that might be even installed easily aftermarket (which means you don't need bigbox, or manufacture buy in) into the netbook market that might be considered a very good thing. Now granted it is unlikely that Apple will make any or much money off these sales, but if they EVER want a chance to garner more than 10\% of the market and enter the show with the bog boys, it is something they are going to have to look at. How many collage kids will be buying netbooks? How many do you think it would think it cool to be running the Apple OS on it? In 5 to 10 years they might see their market share increase dramatically! What would it cost them? Nothing really, try to break even or even take a chance a sell it at a loss and see what happens, they likely have the cash to do it.</p><p>However having watched Apple over a long period of time, I do not seem them doing anything about this in any meaning way. They are always too concerned about control, and protectionism, everything else is secondary. Which is why they will always be a niche market of frappe-chino drinking elite, secure in their superiority of the world, even as it passes them by.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and do n't get me wrong I am sure a lot of people at Apple are very smart people , they should try to capitalize to maximum advantage .
Take a page out of the MS and Google book .
Its not all about securing profits , but making sure your the big guy on top .
I have heard that Google will never make back the money they spend on youtube , however by acquiring it they prevent anybody else from doing so and there by securing a foothold in the online market .
Also due to the razor thin margins on netbooks , Microsoft is n't going to be making much money by supplying an OS for them , but it stopped the trend of offering Linux as an alternative and prevents them from getting a foot hold in the market.Generally people use whatever they are most comfortable using .
So if they start learning on Windows , that is what they know , and it is much easier for them to keep using it .
Why do you think these companies offer " Student Versions " and huge discounts ( even free ) to large universities and colleges ?
Out of the goodness of their hearts ?
No , because when these kids grow up this is what they know , and when the go to work , if everyone knows how to use a technology it is cheaper and easier for a business to use that same technology , etc... It is a cycle that lasts years , even decades .
So only looking at short term profit and protectionism is actually counter productive in the long term .
However as smart as some people like to think Apple is , that is something they constantly do , and are by far the worst offenders.If they were smart , they would realize that the Windows 7 that Microsoft has made available to netbooks ( Starter Version ) , is a broken crippled thing , designed only to prevent Linux from being used , but yet at the same time not interfering with their core Windows 7 sales .
Now if their was say another consumer alternative , perhaps one that might be even installed easily aftermarket ( which means you do n't need bigbox , or manufacture buy in ) into the netbook market that might be considered a very good thing .
Now granted it is unlikely that Apple will make any or much money off these sales , but if they EVER want a chance to garner more than 10 \ % of the market and enter the show with the bog boys , it is something they are going to have to look at .
How many collage kids will be buying netbooks ?
How many do you think it would think it cool to be running the Apple OS on it ?
In 5 to 10 years they might see their market share increase dramatically !
What would it cost them ?
Nothing really , try to break even or even take a chance a sell it at a loss and see what happens , they likely have the cash to do it.However having watched Apple over a long period of time , I do not seem them doing anything about this in any meaning way .
They are always too concerned about control , and protectionism , everything else is secondary .
Which is why they will always be a niche market of frappe-chino drinking elite , secure in their superiority of the world , even as it passes them by .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and don't get me wrong I am sure a lot of people at Apple are very smart people, they should try to capitalize to maximum advantage.
Take a page out of the MS and Google book.
Its not all about securing profits, but making sure your the big guy on top.
I have heard that Google will never make back the money they spend on youtube, however by acquiring it they prevent anybody else from doing so and there by securing a foothold in the online market.
Also due to the razor thin margins on netbooks, Microsoft isn't going to be making much money by supplying an OS for them, but it stopped the trend of offering Linux as an alternative and prevents them from getting a foot hold in the market.Generally people use whatever they are most comfortable using.
So if they start learning on Windows, that is what they know, and it is much easier for them to keep using it.
Why do you think these companies offer "Student Versions" and huge discounts (even free) to large universities and colleges?
Out of the goodness of their hearts?
No, because when these kids grow up this is what they know, and when the go to work, if everyone knows how to use a technology it is cheaper and easier for a business to use that same technology, etc... It is a cycle that lasts years, even decades.
So only looking at short term profit and protectionism is actually counter productive in the long term.
However as smart as some people like to think Apple is, that is something they constantly do, and are by far the worst offenders.If they were smart, they would realize that the Windows 7 that Microsoft has made available to netbooks (Starter Version), is a broken crippled thing, designed only to prevent Linux from being used, but yet at the same time not interfering with their core Windows 7 sales.
Now if their was say another consumer alternative, perhaps one that might be even installed easily aftermarket (which means you don't need bigbox, or manufacture buy in) into the netbook market that might be considered a very good thing.
Now granted it is unlikely that Apple will make any or much money off these sales, but if they EVER want a chance to garner more than 10\% of the market and enter the show with the bog boys, it is something they are going to have to look at.
How many collage kids will be buying netbooks?
How many do you think it would think it cool to be running the Apple OS on it?
In 5 to 10 years they might see their market share increase dramatically!
What would it cost them?
Nothing really, try to break even or even take a chance a sell it at a loss and see what happens, they likely have the cash to do it.However having watched Apple over a long period of time, I do not seem them doing anything about this in any meaning way.
They are always too concerned about control, and protectionism, everything else is secondary.
Which is why they will always be a niche market of frappe-chino drinking elite, secure in their superiority of the world, even as it passes them by.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30001666</id>
	<title>Conspiracy Theory: Atom will power new tablet</title>
	<author>rsborg</author>
	<datestamp>1257425580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>One specific development build of OSX didn't work properly on a completely unsupported platform, affecting perhaps tens of people nationwide. Subsequent builds did not exhibit this problem. News at 11.</p></div> </blockquote><p> I know MainStream Media pablum when I hear it... you guys are missing the <b>real</b> story: Apple broke Atom support to make it less likely that people would suspect their new Tablet will be running... an Atom!  These guys are geniuses, that's for sure!!! (or I'm off my medication again).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One specific development build of OSX did n't work properly on a completely unsupported platform , affecting perhaps tens of people nationwide .
Subsequent builds did not exhibit this problem .
News at 11 .
I know MainStream Media pablum when I hear it... you guys are missing the real story : Apple broke Atom support to make it less likely that people would suspect their new Tablet will be running... an Atom !
These guys are geniuses , that 's for sure ! ! !
( or I 'm off my medication again ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One specific development build of OSX didn't work properly on a completely unsupported platform, affecting perhaps tens of people nationwide.
Subsequent builds did not exhibit this problem.
News at 11.
I know MainStream Media pablum when I hear it... you guys are missing the real story: Apple broke Atom support to make it less likely that people would suspect their new Tablet will be running... an Atom!
These guys are geniuses, that's for sure!!!
(or I'm off my medication again).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000706</id>
	<title>Re:Just a reminder from Apple</title>
	<author>Duradin</author>
	<datestamp>1257420000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I could see how hackintoshers demonstrate the existence of demand for those things but saying they are proof of a market Apple would be interested in would be *really* stretching it.</p><p>Apple doesn't need to join in with everyone else in the race to the bottom.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I could see how hackintoshers demonstrate the existence of demand for those things but saying they are proof of a market Apple would be interested in would be * really * stretching it.Apple does n't need to join in with everyone else in the race to the bottom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I could see how hackintoshers demonstrate the existence of demand for those things but saying they are proof of a market Apple would be interested in would be *really* stretching it.Apple doesn't need to join in with everyone else in the race to the bottom.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30002680</id>
	<title>Re:The dogcow says Moof not wolf</title>
	<author>commodoresloat</author>
	<datestamp>1257436200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sosumi.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sosumi .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sosumi.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000224</id>
	<title>Re:Veiled Threat</title>
	<author>N3Roaster</author>
	<datestamp>1257417720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed, you must be new here. The correct response is to go to the previous story, copy and paste some +5 comments, and rake in the karma.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed , you must be new here .
The correct response is to go to the previous story , copy and paste some + 5 comments , and rake in the karma .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed, you must be new here.
The correct response is to go to the previous story, copy and paste some +5 comments, and rake in the karma.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000186</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000624</id>
	<title>Re:Just a reminder from Apple</title>
	<author>Penguinisto</author>
	<datestamp>1257419580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...that assumes a whole lot of factors to which (apparently) you are not privy to.</p><p>(...now if apple pulled the plug on the Darwin project, then changed their TPM chip... well, the latter they couldn't really do w/o angering a lot of existing Macintosh users who suddenly could no longer upgrade, and the former would still have code floating around out there).</p><p>Well, nevermind - I'm guessing ol' Steve couldn't quite so easily pull the plug after all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...that assumes a whole lot of factors to which ( apparently ) you are not privy to .
( ...now if apple pulled the plug on the Darwin project , then changed their TPM chip... well , the latter they could n't really do w/o angering a lot of existing Macintosh users who suddenly could no longer upgrade , and the former would still have code floating around out there ) .Well , nevermind - I 'm guessing ol ' Steve could n't quite so easily pull the plug after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...that assumes a whole lot of factors to which (apparently) you are not privy to.
(...now if apple pulled the plug on the Darwin project, then changed their TPM chip... well, the latter they couldn't really do w/o angering a lot of existing Macintosh users who suddenly could no longer upgrade, and the former would still have code floating around out there).Well, nevermind - I'm guessing ol' Steve couldn't quite so easily pull the plug after all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30002272</id>
	<title>Re:Veiled Threat</title>
	<author>not-my-real-name</author>
	<datestamp>1257431580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed, you must be new here. The correct response is to go to the previous story, copy and paste some +5 comments, and rake in the karma.</p><p>Oh, you meant the previous story.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed , you must be new here .
The correct response is to go to the previous story , copy and paste some + 5 comments , and rake in the karma.Oh , you meant the previous story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed, you must be new here.
The correct response is to go to the previous story, copy and paste some +5 comments, and rake in the karma.Oh, you meant the previous story.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000438</id>
	<title>Nice idea...</title>
	<author>DMiax</author>
	<datestamp>1257418800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1428374&amp;cid=29960044" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">Good idea</a> [slashdot.org]:<p><div class="quote"><p>They <b>blocked</b> hardware - in this case, the Atom processor. That's not the same as "stop the support" of the hardware. They went out of their way to make sure it didn't work. That's different from dropping drivers or support.</p></div><p>Mods: this was +5 insightful, I expect no less.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good idea [ slashdot.org ] : They blocked hardware - in this case , the Atom processor .
That 's not the same as " stop the support " of the hardware .
They went out of their way to make sure it did n't work .
That 's different from dropping drivers or support.Mods : this was + 5 insightful , I expect no less .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good idea [slashdot.org]:They blocked hardware - in this case, the Atom processor.
That's not the same as "stop the support" of the hardware.
They went out of their way to make sure it didn't work.
That's different from dropping drivers or support.Mods: this was +5 insightful, I expect no less.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30004556</id>
	<title>You left out a word.</title>
	<author>garote</author>
	<datestamp>1257513480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"... allowing other people (most of who purchased your product legitimately) to use your product <b>illegitimately.</b> "</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ... allowing other people ( most of who purchased your product legitimately ) to use your product illegitimately .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"... allowing other people (most of who purchased your product legitimately) to use your product illegitimately.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000296</id>
	<title>Re:Atom</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257418080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple is working on an Atom-powered tablet, so I would have to say "no".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple is working on an Atom-powered tablet , so I would have to say " no " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple is working on an Atom-powered tablet, so I would have to say "no".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30003562</id>
	<title>Re:And cheapen the brand?! Gucci in Walmart.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257538380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, but you can go to (Ross/Marshals/TJMax) and get Gucci for half price or less.  Sure, its not Wal-mart, but it may as well be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , but you can go to ( Ross/Marshals/TJMax ) and get Gucci for half price or less .
Sure , its not Wal-mart , but it may as well be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, but you can go to (Ross/Marshals/TJMax) and get Gucci for half price or less.
Sure, its not Wal-mart, but it may as well be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000924</id>
	<title>Re:Veiled Threat</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257421020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>First day:</i></p><p>I, incredible blogger-which-is-better-than-journalism, have come across a drastically urgent matter of urgent drasticness.  <b>Google's Street View teams will rape you and your children tomorrow as they do their next drive throughs!</b>  And if you don't have children yet, <i>they'll wait</i>.  Don't believe me?  Look at the evidence: The Street View teams have <b>men</b> in them.  Why would they put men on any public team if not for the purposes of raping you and your children repeatedly?  BEWARE!  EVILZ!</p><p><i>Second day, when none of this bullshit happens:</i></p><p>Well, it looks like, thanks to <i> <b>my</b> </i> crack bloggering, which, as I feel I must remind everyone, is far superior to and most importantly faster than journalism, Google's Street View teams were <i>obviously</i> shamed out of their evil plans which I swear I did not just make up for sensationalistic purposes.  So the world is safe... <b> <i>THIS TIME!!!!!!!1!</i> </b></p><p>so plz leave comments kthx</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First day : I , incredible blogger-which-is-better-than-journalism , have come across a drastically urgent matter of urgent drasticness .
Google 's Street View teams will rape you and your children tomorrow as they do their next drive throughs !
And if you do n't have children yet , they 'll wait .
Do n't believe me ?
Look at the evidence : The Street View teams have men in them .
Why would they put men on any public team if not for the purposes of raping you and your children repeatedly ?
BEWARE ! EVILZ ! Second day , when none of this bullshit happens : Well , it looks like , thanks to my crack bloggering , which , as I feel I must remind everyone , is far superior to and most importantly faster than journalism , Google 's Street View teams were obviously shamed out of their evil plans which I swear I did not just make up for sensationalistic purposes .
So the world is safe... THIS TIME ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 !
so plz leave comments kthx</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First day:I, incredible blogger-which-is-better-than-journalism, have come across a drastically urgent matter of urgent drasticness.
Google's Street View teams will rape you and your children tomorrow as they do their next drive throughs!
And if you don't have children yet, they'll wait.
Don't believe me?
Look at the evidence: The Street View teams have men in them.
Why would they put men on any public team if not for the purposes of raping you and your children repeatedly?
BEWARE!  EVILZ!Second day, when none of this bullshit happens:Well, it looks like, thanks to  my  crack bloggering, which, as I feel I must remind everyone, is far superior to and most importantly faster than journalism, Google's Street View teams were obviously shamed out of their evil plans which I swear I did not just make up for sensationalistic purposes.
So the world is safe...  THIS TIME!!!!!!!1!
so plz leave comments kthx</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000186</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000432</id>
	<title>Re:Just a reminder from Apple</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1257418740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>This was just Steve letting you know that he knows what you're doing.</i></p><p>that and the price concessions they've been wanting for that Atom-based device just came through.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This was just Steve letting you know that he knows what you 're doing.that and the price concessions they 've been wanting for that Atom-based device just came through .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This was just Steve letting you know that he knows what you're doing.that and the price concessions they've been wanting for that Atom-based device just came through.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000358</id>
	<title>Re:Veiled Threat</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257418440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>which reminds me of when RMS announced there was a backdoor in Apple software, then it was found to be false and he was spreading FUD. His retraction was like "yes I was wrong and sensationalist, but I was not really that wrong because there may be some undiscovered backdoor".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>which reminds me of when RMS announced there was a backdoor in Apple software , then it was found to be false and he was spreading FUD .
His retraction was like " yes I was wrong and sensationalist , but I was not really that wrong because there may be some undiscovered backdoor " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>which reminds me of when RMS announced there was a backdoor in Apple software, then it was found to be false and he was spreading FUD.
His retraction was like "yes I was wrong and sensationalist, but I was not really that wrong because there may be some undiscovered backdoor".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000186</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000858</id>
	<title>Re:Atom</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257420780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's like saying that Ubuntu is based directly on Unix, and I have seen Linux run on 12Mhz Mini Computers!</p><p>I promise, there is no way in HELL that your getting Ubuntu running on a 12Mhz Mini Computer.  In fact, I'd wager that there isn't a Linux kernel that will work on an old 70's era Mini Computer (though I may be wrong).</p><p>Windows 7 is based on Windows NT, though I doubt you will be seeing Windows 7 running on a 386 with 12 MB of RAM like NT 3.5 did.</p><p>The Atom chip can't really compete with the first x86 CPU's that shipped in Mac PC's.  It's close to the Core Solo found in the first Mac Mini, but the lack of out of order execution in the Atom gives the Solo a slight edge.</p><p>I would imaging for Netbook like tasks, OSX would be quite nice on Atom.  Just don't try and use photoshop or possibly even iPhoto.  But this has NOTHING to do with what NextStep could do on a 486, OSX will NEVER run remotely usably on a 25MHz 486 (if at all).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's like saying that Ubuntu is based directly on Unix , and I have seen Linux run on 12Mhz Mini Computers ! I promise , there is no way in HELL that your getting Ubuntu running on a 12Mhz Mini Computer .
In fact , I 'd wager that there is n't a Linux kernel that will work on an old 70 's era Mini Computer ( though I may be wrong ) .Windows 7 is based on Windows NT , though I doubt you will be seeing Windows 7 running on a 386 with 12 MB of RAM like NT 3.5 did.The Atom chip ca n't really compete with the first x86 CPU 's that shipped in Mac PC 's .
It 's close to the Core Solo found in the first Mac Mini , but the lack of out of order execution in the Atom gives the Solo a slight edge.I would imaging for Netbook like tasks , OSX would be quite nice on Atom .
Just do n't try and use photoshop or possibly even iPhoto .
But this has NOTHING to do with what NextStep could do on a 486 , OSX will NEVER run remotely usably on a 25MHz 486 ( if at all ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's like saying that Ubuntu is based directly on Unix, and I have seen Linux run on 12Mhz Mini Computers!I promise, there is no way in HELL that your getting Ubuntu running on a 12Mhz Mini Computer.
In fact, I'd wager that there isn't a Linux kernel that will work on an old 70's era Mini Computer (though I may be wrong).Windows 7 is based on Windows NT, though I doubt you will be seeing Windows 7 running on a 386 with 12 MB of RAM like NT 3.5 did.The Atom chip can't really compete with the first x86 CPU's that shipped in Mac PC's.
It's close to the Core Solo found in the first Mac Mini, but the lack of out of order execution in the Atom gives the Solo a slight edge.I would imaging for Netbook like tasks, OSX would be quite nice on Atom.
Just don't try and use photoshop or possibly even iPhoto.
But this has NOTHING to do with what NextStep could do on a 486, OSX will NEVER run remotely usably on a 25MHz 486 (if at all).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000580</id>
	<title>Re:Just a reminder from Apple</title>
	<author>samkass</author>
	<datestamp>1257419460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I just wished 'anti-trust' hammers to fall upon their heads</p></div></blockquote><p>As long as Apple is fighting its way up out of the single digits in market share, you're not going to see any anti-trust action against them on the Macintosh side of the house.  And the portable music player market is waning anyway.  The iPhone is holding its own but it's certainly got no monopoly.  In other words, don't hold your breath.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just wished 'anti-trust ' hammers to fall upon their headsAs long as Apple is fighting its way up out of the single digits in market share , you 're not going to see any anti-trust action against them on the Macintosh side of the house .
And the portable music player market is waning anyway .
The iPhone is holding its own but it 's certainly got no monopoly .
In other words , do n't hold your breath .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just wished 'anti-trust' hammers to fall upon their headsAs long as Apple is fighting its way up out of the single digits in market share, you're not going to see any anti-trust action against them on the Macintosh side of the house.
And the portable music player market is waning anyway.
The iPhone is holding its own but it's certainly got no monopoly.
In other words, don't hold your breath.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000334</id>
	<title>Re:Veiled Threat</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257418320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"OSX86 hackers can breathe easy<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... for now."</p><p>Am I the only one who imagined hearing "dun dun DUNNNNN" when reading that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" OSX86 hackers can breathe easy ... for now .
" Am I the only one who imagined hearing " dun dun DUNNNNN " when reading that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"OSX86 hackers can breathe easy ... for now.
"Am I the only one who imagined hearing "dun dun DUNNNNN" when reading that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000186</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30003472</id>
	<title>Re:OS "Hacking"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257450420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why wouldn't that be a good enough reason to do so? when I was 16 I had a server triple-booting FreeBSD, Debian and Windows 2K serving no other purpose other than running Apache to test the websites I coded, which I could've easily done on my (far less powerful) laptop with no ill effects on performance.</p><p>Useless? yes. Redundant? very. Educative? certainly. Fun? you bet. And before the nerdy trolls come knocking, yes I also had a girlfriend who loved me very much, I just knew how to administer my time properly.</p><p>Hell, if I had enough time for it and didn't hate the idea of financing Apple by buying their crap OS, I'd probably try my hand at making a hackintosh as well, it sounds like a fun weekend project.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would n't that be a good enough reason to do so ?
when I was 16 I had a server triple-booting FreeBSD , Debian and Windows 2K serving no other purpose other than running Apache to test the websites I coded , which I could 've easily done on my ( far less powerful ) laptop with no ill effects on performance.Useless ?
yes. Redundant ?
very. Educative ?
certainly. Fun ?
you bet .
And before the nerdy trolls come knocking , yes I also had a girlfriend who loved me very much , I just knew how to administer my time properly.Hell , if I had enough time for it and did n't hate the idea of financing Apple by buying their crap OS , I 'd probably try my hand at making a hackintosh as well , it sounds like a fun weekend project .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why wouldn't that be a good enough reason to do so?
when I was 16 I had a server triple-booting FreeBSD, Debian and Windows 2K serving no other purpose other than running Apache to test the websites I coded, which I could've easily done on my (far less powerful) laptop with no ill effects on performance.Useless?
yes. Redundant?
very. Educative?
certainly. Fun?
you bet.
And before the nerdy trolls come knocking, yes I also had a girlfriend who loved me very much, I just knew how to administer my time properly.Hell, if I had enough time for it and didn't hate the idea of financing Apple by buying their crap OS, I'd probably try my hand at making a hackintosh as well, it sounds like a fun weekend project.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30001910</id>
	<title>Re:OS "Hacking"</title>
	<author>jciarlan</author>
	<datestamp>1257427620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am an extremely cheap person and I want to develop iPhone apps</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am an extremely cheap person and I want to develop iPhone apps</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am an extremely cheap person and I want to develop iPhone apps</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000538</id>
	<title>Don't count on Atom support...</title>
	<author>jht</author>
	<datestamp>1257419220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look, Apple doesn't use the Atom in any products.  Ergo, there's no guarantee that a shipping version of Mac OS X will support it.  Since Atom is basically just a stripped-down x86, it probably will continue to run but no promises.</p><p>Just to remind everyone, Apple builds Macs.  Macs are not available in every possible x86/chipset combo.  Just a handful.  That's one of the reasons why Macs are typically pretty reliable, but also why the average frankencomputer can't run OS X reliably.</p><p>Yes, Mac OS X is licensed in such a way that you don't have the legal right to run it on anything but an Apple-made Mac.  Yes, they won't come after you with lawyers if you make a hackintosh.  Yes, they will come after you if you then try to sell them (like Psystar).  And yes, licenses like Apple's are restrictive.</p><p>But no, they aren't under any obligation at all to provide support for any computer other than what they expressly state on the box to be compatible and licensed.  Which, in the case of Snow Leopard, is:</p><p>- Mac computer with an Intel processor<br>- 1GB of memory<br>- 5GB of available disk space<br>- DVD drive for installation</p><p>And all the other specs are on:</p><p><a href="http://www.apple.com/macosx/specs.html" title="apple.com">http://www.apple.com/macosx/specs.html</a> [apple.com]</p><p>If your computer doesn't fit that description, you're SOL.  Period.  If Snow Leopard runs now on your Atom-based netbook and 10.6.2 winds up killing it, suck it up or stick to 10.6.1.  So it goes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look , Apple does n't use the Atom in any products .
Ergo , there 's no guarantee that a shipping version of Mac OS X will support it .
Since Atom is basically just a stripped-down x86 , it probably will continue to run but no promises.Just to remind everyone , Apple builds Macs .
Macs are not available in every possible x86/chipset combo .
Just a handful .
That 's one of the reasons why Macs are typically pretty reliable , but also why the average frankencomputer ca n't run OS X reliably.Yes , Mac OS X is licensed in such a way that you do n't have the legal right to run it on anything but an Apple-made Mac .
Yes , they wo n't come after you with lawyers if you make a hackintosh .
Yes , they will come after you if you then try to sell them ( like Psystar ) .
And yes , licenses like Apple 's are restrictive.But no , they are n't under any obligation at all to provide support for any computer other than what they expressly state on the box to be compatible and licensed .
Which , in the case of Snow Leopard , is : - Mac computer with an Intel processor- 1GB of memory- 5GB of available disk space- DVD drive for installationAnd all the other specs are on : http : //www.apple.com/macosx/specs.html [ apple.com ] If your computer does n't fit that description , you 're SOL .
Period. If Snow Leopard runs now on your Atom-based netbook and 10.6.2 winds up killing it , suck it up or stick to 10.6.1 .
So it goes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look, Apple doesn't use the Atom in any products.
Ergo, there's no guarantee that a shipping version of Mac OS X will support it.
Since Atom is basically just a stripped-down x86, it probably will continue to run but no promises.Just to remind everyone, Apple builds Macs.
Macs are not available in every possible x86/chipset combo.
Just a handful.
That's one of the reasons why Macs are typically pretty reliable, but also why the average frankencomputer can't run OS X reliably.Yes, Mac OS X is licensed in such a way that you don't have the legal right to run it on anything but an Apple-made Mac.
Yes, they won't come after you with lawyers if you make a hackintosh.
Yes, they will come after you if you then try to sell them (like Psystar).
And yes, licenses like Apple's are restrictive.But no, they aren't under any obligation at all to provide support for any computer other than what they expressly state on the box to be compatible and licensed.
Which, in the case of Snow Leopard, is:- Mac computer with an Intel processor- 1GB of memory- 5GB of available disk space- DVD drive for installationAnd all the other specs are on:http://www.apple.com/macosx/specs.html [apple.com]If your computer doesn't fit that description, you're SOL.
Period.  If Snow Leopard runs now on your Atom-based netbook and 10.6.2 winds up killing it, suck it up or stick to 10.6.1.
So it goes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000172</id>
	<title>Atom</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257417540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wouldn't OS X be underpowered and a bit sluggish on a processor that slow?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't OS X be underpowered and a bit sluggish on a processor that slow ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't OS X be underpowered and a bit sluggish on a processor that slow?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30004774</id>
	<title>Re:Don't count on Atom support...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257516660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yes, Mac OS X is licensed in such a way that you don't have the legal right to run it on anything but an Apple-made Mac.</p></div><p> Actually, <i>I</i> can. I can install Mac OS X on anything I damn want, and Apple can suck it.</p><p>(I live in europe)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , Mac OS X is licensed in such a way that you do n't have the legal right to run it on anything but an Apple-made Mac .
Actually , I can .
I can install Mac OS X on anything I damn want , and Apple can suck it .
( I live in europe )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, Mac OS X is licensed in such a way that you don't have the legal right to run it on anything but an Apple-made Mac.
Actually, I can.
I can install Mac OS X on anything I damn want, and Apple can suck it.
(I live in europe)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30004034</id>
	<title>Re:Don't count on Atom support...</title>
	<author>Ma8thew</author>
	<datestamp>1257504360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not. It runs on all Intel Macs, including 32 bit Core Duo and Solo.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not .
It runs on all Intel Macs , including 32 bit Core Duo and Solo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not.
It runs on all Intel Macs, including 32 bit Core Duo and Solo.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30002362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000186</id>
	<title>Veiled Threat</title>
	<author>whisper\_jeff</author>
	<datestamp>1257417600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...it looks like OSX86 hackers can breathe easy<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... for now.</p></div><p>
Translation: I know that yesterday's story that Apple intentionally disabled Atom processors from working for OSX was completely wrong but I'm going to imply, in an ominous way, that Apple will probably do what they didn't do (which we incorrectly said they did do) because, hey, that's sensational and sensationalism sells baby!!<br> <br>
Sorry, but it would be really nice if summaries tried to keep the editorializing to a minimum. We have reader comments to add all kinds of overblown and baseless opinions. Let's keep the focus of the summary on, you know, the news for nerds, stuff that matters.<br> <br>
I know. I know. I must be new here...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...it looks like OSX86 hackers can breathe easy ... for now .
Translation : I know that yesterday 's story that Apple intentionally disabled Atom processors from working for OSX was completely wrong but I 'm going to imply , in an ominous way , that Apple will probably do what they did n't do ( which we incorrectly said they did do ) because , hey , that 's sensational and sensationalism sells baby ! !
Sorry , but it would be really nice if summaries tried to keep the editorializing to a minimum .
We have reader comments to add all kinds of overblown and baseless opinions .
Let 's keep the focus of the summary on , you know , the news for nerds , stuff that matters .
I know .
I know .
I must be new here.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...it looks like OSX86 hackers can breathe easy ... for now.
Translation: I know that yesterday's story that Apple intentionally disabled Atom processors from working for OSX was completely wrong but I'm going to imply, in an ominous way, that Apple will probably do what they didn't do (which we incorrectly said they did do) because, hey, that's sensational and sensationalism sells baby!!
Sorry, but it would be really nice if summaries tried to keep the editorializing to a minimum.
We have reader comments to add all kinds of overblown and baseless opinions.
Let's keep the focus of the summary on, you know, the news for nerds, stuff that matters.
I know.
I know.
I must be new here...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30011592</id>
	<title>Re:Veiled Threat</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257515220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yellow journalism:<br>journalism that once softly fell from the sky, but then some dog had his way with</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yellow journalism : journalism that once softly fell from the sky , but then some dog had his way with</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yellow journalism:journalism that once softly fell from the sky, but then some dog had his way with</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000702</id>
	<title>Re:Just a reminder from Apple</title>
	<author>sbeckstead</author>
	<datestamp>1257420000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I just wished 'anti-trust' hammers to fall upon their heads.</i> <br>
I just wish people would educate themselves on what constitutes a "trust" worthy of having anti-trust applied to it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just wished 'anti-trust ' hammers to fall upon their heads .
I just wish people would educate themselves on what constitutes a " trust " worthy of having anti-trust applied to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just wished 'anti-trust' hammers to fall upon their heads.
I just wish people would educate themselves on what constitutes a "trust" worthy of having anti-trust applied to it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000644</id>
	<title>Never ascribe...</title>
	<author>sbeckstead</author>
	<datestamp>1257419640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Never put down to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.  Or a bug in the code either works for me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Never put down to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity .
Or a bug in the code either works for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Never put down to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
Or a bug in the code either works for me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000748</id>
	<title>Re:Just a reminder from Apple</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257420180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple fans and Apple haters should be united in the hope that Apple will be able to stop people using Hackintoshes.

</p><p>If you are a fan, you should hope that the Hackintosh users are forced to do the decent thing and buy the official hardware. The cost of developing the OS is said to be subsidised by the hardware cost, so the Hackintosh users are cheating Apple. Additionally, Hackintoshes may not work quite as well as real Macs, possibly giving a bad impression of the platform.

</p><p>If you are a hater, you should also hope that the Hackintosh users are forced to abandon MacOS and install a more open OS on their machines. Hackintoshes promote Apple and their software, give the illusion that MacOS is an open platform (which it isn't) and encourage others to support Apple by buying their products.

</p><p>I don't know how Apple might do this, but there are some ideas in the TCPA FAQ. Clearly it will always be possible to bypass the digital restrictions in the software itself, and I know that the Hackintosh people have already gone to bizarre lengths to get the software running on unauthorised machines such as implementing SSE3 <i>in software</i>. Therefore, the strategy would probably involve to deliberately breaking compatibility between Hackintoshes and authorised Macs. For example, without an authorised private key in your TCPA chip, you might not be able to compile programs to run on authorised Macs, or send Word documents to authorised Mac users, etc. Hackintosh users could also be locked out of applications that operate with online services such as iTunes. You might say that this would be bad public relations, but the fact is that people do not really care about Apple's business practices...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple fans and Apple haters should be united in the hope that Apple will be able to stop people using Hackintoshes .
If you are a fan , you should hope that the Hackintosh users are forced to do the decent thing and buy the official hardware .
The cost of developing the OS is said to be subsidised by the hardware cost , so the Hackintosh users are cheating Apple .
Additionally , Hackintoshes may not work quite as well as real Macs , possibly giving a bad impression of the platform .
If you are a hater , you should also hope that the Hackintosh users are forced to abandon MacOS and install a more open OS on their machines .
Hackintoshes promote Apple and their software , give the illusion that MacOS is an open platform ( which it is n't ) and encourage others to support Apple by buying their products .
I do n't know how Apple might do this , but there are some ideas in the TCPA FAQ .
Clearly it will always be possible to bypass the digital restrictions in the software itself , and I know that the Hackintosh people have already gone to bizarre lengths to get the software running on unauthorised machines such as implementing SSE3 in software .
Therefore , the strategy would probably involve to deliberately breaking compatibility between Hackintoshes and authorised Macs .
For example , without an authorised private key in your TCPA chip , you might not be able to compile programs to run on authorised Macs , or send Word documents to authorised Mac users , etc .
Hackintosh users could also be locked out of applications that operate with online services such as iTunes .
You might say that this would be bad public relations , but the fact is that people do not really care about Apple 's business practices.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple fans and Apple haters should be united in the hope that Apple will be able to stop people using Hackintoshes.
If you are a fan, you should hope that the Hackintosh users are forced to do the decent thing and buy the official hardware.
The cost of developing the OS is said to be subsidised by the hardware cost, so the Hackintosh users are cheating Apple.
Additionally, Hackintoshes may not work quite as well as real Macs, possibly giving a bad impression of the platform.
If you are a hater, you should also hope that the Hackintosh users are forced to abandon MacOS and install a more open OS on their machines.
Hackintoshes promote Apple and their software, give the illusion that MacOS is an open platform (which it isn't) and encourage others to support Apple by buying their products.
I don't know how Apple might do this, but there are some ideas in the TCPA FAQ.
Clearly it will always be possible to bypass the digital restrictions in the software itself, and I know that the Hackintosh people have already gone to bizarre lengths to get the software running on unauthorised machines such as implementing SSE3 in software.
Therefore, the strategy would probably involve to deliberately breaking compatibility between Hackintoshes and authorised Macs.
For example, without an authorised private key in your TCPA chip, you might not be able to compile programs to run on authorised Macs, or send Word documents to authorised Mac users, etc.
Hackintosh users could also be locked out of applications that operate with online services such as iTunes.
You might say that this would be bad public relations, but the fact is that people do not really care about Apple's business practices...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000888</id>
	<title>And cheapen the brand?! Gucci in Walmart.</title>
	<author>NoYob</author>
	<datestamp>1257420900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think all those Hackintoshers are also a reminder to Steve that there <strong>is</strong> a market for netbooks and non-AIO upgradable computers under 1000$.</p></div><p>Apple is making a <i>very</i> nice business out of being the premium computer and electronic gizmo maker. Making a sub $1,000 netbook would be like Gucci making a handbag to be sold in Walmart.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think all those Hackintoshers are also a reminder to Steve that there is a market for netbooks and non-AIO upgradable computers under 1000 $ .Apple is making a very nice business out of being the premium computer and electronic gizmo maker .
Making a sub $ 1,000 netbook would be like Gucci making a handbag to be sold in Walmart .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think all those Hackintoshers are also a reminder to Steve that there is a market for netbooks and non-AIO upgradable computers under 1000$.Apple is making a very nice business out of being the premium computer and electronic gizmo maker.
Making a sub $1,000 netbook would be like Gucci making a handbag to be sold in Walmart.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30002758</id>
	<title>Re:Don't count on Atom support...</title>
	<author>reub2000</author>
	<datestamp>1257437220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The MacBook Air doesn't have a DVD drive. So it's not supported by Snow Leopard?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The MacBook Air does n't have a DVD drive .
So it 's not supported by Snow Leopard ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The MacBook Air doesn't have a DVD drive.
So it's not supported by Snow Leopard?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000410</id>
	<title>Re:Veiled Threat</title>
	<author>Devout\_IPUite</author>
	<datestamp>1257418620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not doing any worse than typical newspapers (of today and for the past two hundred years). But yes, yellow journalism makes me want to smack someone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not doing any worse than typical newspapers ( of today and for the past two hundred years ) .
But yes , yellow journalism makes me want to smack someone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not doing any worse than typical newspapers (of today and for the past two hundred years).
But yes, yellow journalism makes me want to smack someone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000186</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30018280</id>
	<title>Re:Just a reminder from Apple</title>
	<author>SoupIsGoodFood\_42</author>
	<datestamp>1257603180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's also a market for cheap USB drives that look like pieces of sushi.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's also a market for cheap USB drives that look like pieces of sushi .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's also a market for cheap USB drives that look like pieces of sushi.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30011274</id>
	<title>Apple Employee, Yes this guy was an 'idiot'</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257511740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I work within a group at Apple. I'd rather remain 'anonymous' but I can assure you it was this 'bug' was NOT in our builds. I know because we do test against ATOM, and also several other hacked machines to verify clean builds, and all the builds worked on similar hardware.</p><p>No idea what this guy's issue was, but for people to assume that it had anything to do with us willfully disabling support is just stupid.</p><p>With each point release we have a set of objects, we don't have 3 builds of 10.6.2 that WORK on ATOM, and magically in between spend large amounts of time and effort to go through code and put in a new 'feature' to disable support. The fact that the internet community thinks we would go back and disable something like this in the MIDDLE of a release cycle is silly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I work within a group at Apple .
I 'd rather remain 'anonymous ' but I can assure you it was this 'bug ' was NOT in our builds .
I know because we do test against ATOM , and also several other hacked machines to verify clean builds , and all the builds worked on similar hardware.No idea what this guy 's issue was , but for people to assume that it had anything to do with us willfully disabling support is just stupid.With each point release we have a set of objects , we do n't have 3 builds of 10.6.2 that WORK on ATOM , and magically in between spend large amounts of time and effort to go through code and put in a new 'feature ' to disable support .
The fact that the internet community thinks we would go back and disable something like this in the MIDDLE of a release cycle is silly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work within a group at Apple.
I'd rather remain 'anonymous' but I can assure you it was this 'bug' was NOT in our builds.
I know because we do test against ATOM, and also several other hacked machines to verify clean builds, and all the builds worked on similar hardware.No idea what this guy's issue was, but for people to assume that it had anything to do with us willfully disabling support is just stupid.With each point release we have a set of objects, we don't have 3 builds of 10.6.2 that WORK on ATOM, and magically in between spend large amounts of time and effort to go through code and put in a new 'feature' to disable support.
The fact that the internet community thinks we would go back and disable something like this in the MIDDLE of a release cycle is silly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30002910</id>
	<title>Let me get this straight...</title>
	<author>PhunkySchtuff</author>
	<datestamp>1257439980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, Apple aren't disabling support after all for a CPU/Chipset that they never supported in the first place?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , Apple are n't disabling support after all for a CPU/Chipset that they never supported in the first place ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, Apple aren't disabling support after all for a CPU/Chipset that they never supported in the first place?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30002006</id>
	<title>amanda</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257428700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, this was some blog poster that screwed up his Hackintosh and blamed it on Apple.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , this was some blog poster that screwed up his Hackintosh and blamed it on Apple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, this was some blog poster that screwed up his Hackintosh and blamed it on Apple.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30002724</id>
	<title>A historical first for Mudslums:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257436740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33678801/ns/us\_news-crime\_and\_courts/" title="msn.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33678801/ns/us\_news-crime\_and\_courts/</a> [msn.com]</p><p>In a historical first for Mudslums, a deranged Mudslum actually attacked a military target instead of an unsuspecting crowd of civilians.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33678801/ns/us \ _news-crime \ _and \ _courts/ [ msn.com ] In a historical first for Mudslums , a deranged Mudslum actually attacked a military target instead of an unsuspecting crowd of civilians .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33678801/ns/us\_news-crime\_and\_courts/ [msn.com]In a historical first for Mudslums, a deranged Mudslum actually attacked a military target instead of an unsuspecting crowd of civilians.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000686</id>
	<title>Re:Just a reminder from Apple</title>
	<author>MobileTatsu-NJG</author>
	<datestamp>1257419880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So does that mean we're gonna see a bunch of retractions from all the people in the other thread saying how evil Apple was for disabling support for a CPU they don't even use on their OS?</p></div><p>I hope one day Slashdotters are known for being that classy.  One day they'll figure out that owning up to something like that can earn them 'Insightful' mods, too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So does that mean we 're gon na see a bunch of retractions from all the people in the other thread saying how evil Apple was for disabling support for a CPU they do n't even use on their OS ? I hope one day Slashdotters are known for being that classy .
One day they 'll figure out that owning up to something like that can earn them 'Insightful ' mods , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So does that mean we're gonna see a bunch of retractions from all the people in the other thread saying how evil Apple was for disabling support for a CPU they don't even use on their OS?I hope one day Slashdotters are known for being that classy.
One day they'll figure out that owning up to something like that can earn them 'Insightful' mods, too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000512</id>
	<title>It's all very well</title>
	<author>dandart</author>
	<datestamp>1257419100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's all very well to hack software, but to go against an EULA, and put something on something that wasn't designed for that something...
<br> <br>
No, you're right, OSX86 FTW!</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's all very well to hack software , but to go against an EULA , and put something on something that was n't designed for that something.. . No , you 're right , OSX86 FTW !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's all very well to hack software, but to go against an EULA, and put something on something that wasn't designed for that something...
 
No, you're right, OSX86 FTW!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30002592</id>
	<title>Apple are EVIL!!</title>
	<author>GrahamCox</author>
	<datestamp>1257435000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>iTunes LP format is closed and you have to pay $10,000 to Apple to have them make you one! Apple are EVIL!!<br> <br>
Oh wait, they released the format specs and anyone can make one.<br> <br>
OK, they took from open source and added Grand Central Dispatch without giving back to the community! Apple are EVIL!!<br> <br>
Oh wait, they released the GCD sources to Darwin.<br> <br>
OK, they nobbled the Atom processor in the latest OS build so people can't run Mac OS on some no-name brand PC! Apple are EVIL!!<br> <br>
Oh wait, it was probably just a bug.<br> <br>
And so on, and so on...</htmltext>
<tokenext>iTunes LP format is closed and you have to pay $ 10,000 to Apple to have them make you one !
Apple are EVIL ! !
Oh wait , they released the format specs and anyone can make one .
OK , they took from open source and added Grand Central Dispatch without giving back to the community !
Apple are EVIL ! !
Oh wait , they released the GCD sources to Darwin .
OK , they nobbled the Atom processor in the latest OS build so people ca n't run Mac OS on some no-name brand PC !
Apple are EVIL ! !
Oh wait , it was probably just a bug .
And so on , and so on.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>iTunes LP format is closed and you have to pay $10,000 to Apple to have them make you one!
Apple are EVIL!!
Oh wait, they released the format specs and anyone can make one.
OK, they took from open source and added Grand Central Dispatch without giving back to the community!
Apple are EVIL!!
Oh wait, they released the GCD sources to Darwin.
OK, they nobbled the Atom processor in the latest OS build so people can't run Mac OS on some no-name brand PC!
Apple are EVIL!!
Oh wait, it was probably just a bug.
And so on, and so on...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30004542</id>
	<title>Re:Apple are EVIL!!</title>
	<author>garote</author>
	<datestamp>1257513180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You forgot "Apple is a FOR PROFIT company!! That means they HATE YOU, and all they want is to STEAL YOUR MONEY!!1!"</p><p>As well as "Apple is just a bunch of commodity parts inside a fashionable case!  Foxconn sells some cut-rate motherboards, therefore Apple motherboards are cut-rate!!1!"</p><p>And "Apple preventing Palm from piggybacking on iTunes is totally monopolistic and anti-competitive and EVIL!!1!"</p><p>Not to mention "Apple has an approval process for iPhone apps, and they've rejected some apps, which means they HATE ALL DEVELOPERS and want to limit your GOD-GIVEN INALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHT to do ANYTHING YOU WANT with your phone and have it still be under warranty!!1!"</p><p>Oh yeah and "Apple STOLE the GUI from Xerox!!1!", can't forgot that one...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot " Apple is a FOR PROFIT company ! !
That means they HATE YOU , and all they want is to STEAL YOUR MONEY ! ! 1 !
" As well as " Apple is just a bunch of commodity parts inside a fashionable case !
Foxconn sells some cut-rate motherboards , therefore Apple motherboards are cut-rate ! ! 1 !
" And " Apple preventing Palm from piggybacking on iTunes is totally monopolistic and anti-competitive and EVIL ! ! 1 !
" Not to mention " Apple has an approval process for iPhone apps , and they 've rejected some apps , which means they HATE ALL DEVELOPERS and want to limit your GOD-GIVEN INALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHT to do ANYTHING YOU WANT with your phone and have it still be under warranty ! ! 1 !
" Oh yeah and " Apple STOLE the GUI from Xerox ! ! 1 !
" , ca n't forgot that one.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot "Apple is a FOR PROFIT company!!
That means they HATE YOU, and all they want is to STEAL YOUR MONEY!!1!
"As well as "Apple is just a bunch of commodity parts inside a fashionable case!
Foxconn sells some cut-rate motherboards, therefore Apple motherboards are cut-rate!!1!
"And "Apple preventing Palm from piggybacking on iTunes is totally monopolistic and anti-competitive and EVIL!!1!
"Not to mention "Apple has an approval process for iPhone apps, and they've rejected some apps, which means they HATE ALL DEVELOPERS and want to limit your GOD-GIVEN INALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHT to do ANYTHING YOU WANT with your phone and have it still be under warranty!!1!
"Oh yeah and "Apple STOLE the GUI from Xerox!!1!
", can't forgot that one...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30002592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000148</id>
	<title>WOLF!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257417420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WOLF! WOLF!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WOLF !
WOLF !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WOLF!
WOLF!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30062640</id>
	<title>Re:Atom</title>
	<author>Dracker</author>
	<datestamp>1257101160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have a Hackintosh netbook.  MSI Wind U123, RAM upgraded to 2GB.

I have run Photoshop Lightroom on it.  It's not blazing fast, but it works fine.  Atom's not the main limiting factor in this case.  From my experience, the main limiting factor of OSX on netbooks is the screen resolution.  OSX and the apps that run on it are not designed for a 1024x600 screen, and it shows.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a Hackintosh netbook .
MSI Wind U123 , RAM upgraded to 2GB .
I have run Photoshop Lightroom on it .
It 's not blazing fast , but it works fine .
Atom 's not the main limiting factor in this case .
From my experience , the main limiting factor of OSX on netbooks is the screen resolution .
OSX and the apps that run on it are not designed for a 1024x600 screen , and it shows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a Hackintosh netbook.
MSI Wind U123, RAM upgraded to 2GB.
I have run Photoshop Lightroom on it.
It's not blazing fast, but it works fine.
Atom's not the main limiting factor in this case.
From my experience, the main limiting factor of OSX on netbooks is the screen resolution.
OSX and the apps that run on it are not designed for a 1024x600 screen, and it shows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000242</id>
	<title>Re:Just a reminder from Apple</title>
	<author>s73v3r</author>
	<datestamp>1257417780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>So does that mean we're gonna see a bunch of retractions from all the people in the other thread saying how evil Apple was for disabling support for a CPU they don't even use on their OS?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So does that mean we 're gon na see a bunch of retractions from all the people in the other thread saying how evil Apple was for disabling support for a CPU they do n't even use on their OS ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So does that mean we're gonna see a bunch of retractions from all the people in the other thread saying how evil Apple was for disabling support for a CPU they don't even use on their OS?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30006882</id>
	<title>Re:Don't count on Atom support...</title>
	<author>Jerry Smith</author>
	<datestamp>1257530940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The MacBook Air doesn't have a DVD drive. So it's not supported by Snow Leopard?</p></div><p>"- DVD drive for installation" means that a DVD-drive must be available for installing the OS, it doesn't need to be builtin.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The MacBook Air does n't have a DVD drive .
So it 's not supported by Snow Leopard ?
" - DVD drive for installation " means that a DVD-drive must be available for installing the OS , it does n't need to be builtin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The MacBook Air doesn't have a DVD drive.
So it's not supported by Snow Leopard?
"- DVD drive for installation" means that a DVD-drive must be available for installing the OS, it doesn't need to be builtin.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30002758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000232</id>
	<title>Re:Just a reminder from Apple</title>
	<author>Icegryphon</author>
	<datestamp>1257417780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, Steve is busy peeing on all those myPods<br>
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7L2fsubA2-c" title="youtube.com">Mapple Store pt1</a> [youtube.com] <br>
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZGIn9bpALo" title="youtube.com"> Mapple Store pt2</a> [youtube.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , Steve is busy peeing on all those myPods Mapple Store pt1 [ youtube.com ] Mapple Store pt2 [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, Steve is busy peeing on all those myPods
Mapple Store pt1 [youtube.com] 
 Mapple Store pt2 [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30001462</id>
	<title>Re:Veiled Threat</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1257423900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, are there people who haven't maxed their karma?</p><p>I thought killing off the numbered karma scale was supposed to cut down on that sort of thing.  Silly me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , are there people who have n't maxed their karma ? I thought killing off the numbered karma scale was supposed to cut down on that sort of thing .
Silly me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, are there people who haven't maxed their karma?I thought killing off the numbered karma scale was supposed to cut down on that sort of thing.
Silly me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000490</id>
	<title>Re:Veiled Threat</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1257418980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One specific development build of OSX didn't work properly on a completely unsupported platform, affecting perhaps tens of people nationwide.  Subsequent builds did not exhibit this problem.  News at 11.
</p><p>Of course some people are going to flip out and claim Apple is doing something evil.  When it gets fixed in a later build, someone is probably going to claim that Apple backed down due to the outrage of Hackintosh owners.  In reality, it's entirely possible that they had a bug in a development build that unintentionally broke Atom support, and then fixed the bug and unintentionally restored Atom support.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One specific development build of OSX did n't work properly on a completely unsupported platform , affecting perhaps tens of people nationwide .
Subsequent builds did not exhibit this problem .
News at 11 .
Of course some people are going to flip out and claim Apple is doing something evil .
When it gets fixed in a later build , someone is probably going to claim that Apple backed down due to the outrage of Hackintosh owners .
In reality , it 's entirely possible that they had a bug in a development build that unintentionally broke Atom support , and then fixed the bug and unintentionally restored Atom support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One specific development build of OSX didn't work properly on a completely unsupported platform, affecting perhaps tens of people nationwide.
Subsequent builds did not exhibit this problem.
News at 11.
Of course some people are going to flip out and claim Apple is doing something evil.
When it gets fixed in a later build, someone is probably going to claim that Apple backed down due to the outrage of Hackintosh owners.
In reality, it's entirely possible that they had a bug in a development build that unintentionally broke Atom support, and then fixed the bug and unintentionally restored Atom support.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000186</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000254</id>
	<title>What a wonderful opportunity!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257417840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Goody! Now we can post another 500 messages arguing about whether EULAs should be enforceable or not.  With luck, this time we can finally finish the argument and come to a conclusion that brings peace to all.  I hope Apple and Psystar are prepared to follow the decrees and rulings of the best minds of the Slashdot community.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Goody !
Now we can post another 500 messages arguing about whether EULAs should be enforceable or not .
With luck , this time we can finally finish the argument and come to a conclusion that brings peace to all .
I hope Apple and Psystar are prepared to follow the decrees and rulings of the best minds of the Slashdot community .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Goody!
Now we can post another 500 messages arguing about whether EULAs should be enforceable or not.
With luck, this time we can finally finish the argument and come to a conclusion that brings peace to all.
I hope Apple and Psystar are prepared to follow the decrees and rulings of the best minds of the Slashdot community.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30005212</id>
	<title>Re:Apple are EVIL!!</title>
	<author>guruevi</author>
	<datestamp>1257519900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think people are used to big corporation being EVIL! due to the likes of Microsoft, Big Oil, GM etc. and they're looking for these companies to be EVIL! as well.</p><p>If Microsoft was Apple they would be doing stuff like that if they think it would improve their business or lock in their consumers. Apple and Google on the other hand are a bit better (not perfectly good I'll say) in treating their customers well and making sure they're customers get what's promised. They also have a lot to lose if they wouldn't do this, they don't have a monopoly position that allows them to bully their customers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think people are used to big corporation being EVIL !
due to the likes of Microsoft , Big Oil , GM etc .
and they 're looking for these companies to be EVIL !
as well.If Microsoft was Apple they would be doing stuff like that if they think it would improve their business or lock in their consumers .
Apple and Google on the other hand are a bit better ( not perfectly good I 'll say ) in treating their customers well and making sure they 're customers get what 's promised .
They also have a lot to lose if they would n't do this , they do n't have a monopoly position that allows them to bully their customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think people are used to big corporation being EVIL!
due to the likes of Microsoft, Big Oil, GM etc.
and they're looking for these companies to be EVIL!
as well.If Microsoft was Apple they would be doing stuff like that if they think it would improve their business or lock in their consumers.
Apple and Google on the other hand are a bit better (not perfectly good I'll say) in treating their customers well and making sure they're customers get what's promised.
They also have a lot to lose if they wouldn't do this, they don't have a monopoly position that allows them to bully their customers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30002592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000510</id>
	<title>The dogcow says Moof not wolf</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1257419100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The dogcow says Moof not wolf</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The dogcow says Moof not wolf</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The dogcow says Moof not wolf</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000228</id>
	<title>Re:Just a reminder from Apple</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257417780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think all those Hackintoshers are also a reminder to Steve that there <strong>is</strong> a market for netbooks and non-AIO upgradable computers under 1000$.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think all those Hackintoshers are also a reminder to Steve that there is a market for netbooks and non-AIO upgradable computers under 1000 $ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think all those Hackintoshers are also a reminder to Steve that there is a market for netbooks and non-AIO upgradable computers under 1000$.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000500</id>
	<title>Ahem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257419040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They can't disable it since it's on the upcoming Apple Slate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They ca n't disable it since it 's on the upcoming Apple Slate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They can't disable it since it's on the upcoming Apple Slate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30002362</id>
	<title>Re:Don't count on Atom support...</title>
	<author>DigiShaman</author>
	<datestamp>1257432360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait a sec. I thought Snow Leopard was a 64bit OS only. Right? According to Intel only the 230 and 330 Atom processors have the 64bit instruction set.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait a sec .
I thought Snow Leopard was a 64bit OS only .
Right ? According to Intel only the 230 and 330 Atom processors have the 64bit instruction set .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait a sec.
I thought Snow Leopard was a 64bit OS only.
Right? According to Intel only the 230 and 330 Atom processors have the 64bit instruction set.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000450</id>
	<title>Re:Atom</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257418860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You realize that Mac OS X is based directly on NeXTSTEP, right? And NeXTSTEP ran well on 25 MHz 68040 computers!</p><p>Something would be really fucked if Mac OS X couldn't run well on the Atom processors, which in terms of processing power are actually on par with high-end x86 systems from late 2006.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You realize that Mac OS X is based directly on NeXTSTEP , right ?
And NeXTSTEP ran well on 25 MHz 68040 computers ! Something would be really fucked if Mac OS X could n't run well on the Atom processors , which in terms of processing power are actually on par with high-end x86 systems from late 2006 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You realize that Mac OS X is based directly on NeXTSTEP, right?
And NeXTSTEP ran well on 25 MHz 68040 computers!Something would be really fucked if Mac OS X couldn't run well on the Atom processors, which in terms of processing power are actually on par with high-end x86 systems from late 2006.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000604</id>
	<title>Not supporting v Disabling</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257419520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a big difference between these two terms. Its ok for Apple to not support hardware that is not theirs. Its another thing to go out of your way, put time and resources into not allowing other people (most of who purchased your product legitimately) to use your product.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a big difference between these two terms .
Its ok for Apple to not support hardware that is not theirs .
Its another thing to go out of your way , put time and resources into not allowing other people ( most of who purchased your product legitimately ) to use your product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a big difference between these two terms.
Its ok for Apple to not support hardware that is not theirs.
Its another thing to go out of your way, put time and resources into not allowing other people (most of who purchased your product legitimately) to use your product.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000618</id>
	<title>I guess the lesson is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257419580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>not to listen to unsourced blogs written by someone just because they might have overheard someone talking about it in a bar somewhere sometime. Quite why this was all over the internet is anyone's guess.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>not to listen to unsourced blogs written by someone just because they might have overheard someone talking about it in a bar somewhere sometime .
Quite why this was all over the internet is anyone 's guess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>not to listen to unsourced blogs written by someone just because they might have overheard someone talking about it in a bar somewhere sometime.
Quite why this was all over the internet is anyone's guess.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30005006</id>
	<title>Re:Just a reminder from Apple</title>
	<author>itsdapead</author>
	<datestamp>1257518460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think all those Hackintoshers are also a reminder to Steve that there is a market for netbooks and non-AIO upgradable computers under 1000$.</p></div><p>Of course there is a market.
</p><p>The $64,000 question is, however, what would supporting that market do to Apple's current sales of mid/high-end laptops, all-in-ones and workstations? Such systems probably yield much higher profit margins than netbooks and entry-level towers.
</p><p>Its a dead cert that many loyal Apple customers would go for a cheaper alternative if it were offered: Apple need to be damned sure that they were going to attract enough genuinely new custom to more than compensate for that.
</p><p>Thing is, Apple's current business model of selling premium-priced "boutique" systems seems to be working quite nicely - why risk it by competing with yourself?
</p><p>I'm sure that they'll come out with a "response" to the netbook market soon - but I'd bet on a jumbo iPod Touch rather than a mini Mac.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think all those Hackintoshers are also a reminder to Steve that there is a market for netbooks and non-AIO upgradable computers under 1000 $ .Of course there is a market .
The $ 64,000 question is , however , what would supporting that market do to Apple 's current sales of mid/high-end laptops , all-in-ones and workstations ?
Such systems probably yield much higher profit margins than netbooks and entry-level towers .
Its a dead cert that many loyal Apple customers would go for a cheaper alternative if it were offered : Apple need to be damned sure that they were going to attract enough genuinely new custom to more than compensate for that .
Thing is , Apple 's current business model of selling premium-priced " boutique " systems seems to be working quite nicely - why risk it by competing with yourself ?
I 'm sure that they 'll come out with a " response " to the netbook market soon - but I 'd bet on a jumbo iPod Touch rather than a mini Mac .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think all those Hackintoshers are also a reminder to Steve that there is a market for netbooks and non-AIO upgradable computers under 1000$.Of course there is a market.
The $64,000 question is, however, what would supporting that market do to Apple's current sales of mid/high-end laptops, all-in-ones and workstations?
Such systems probably yield much higher profit margins than netbooks and entry-level towers.
Its a dead cert that many loyal Apple customers would go for a cheaper alternative if it were offered: Apple need to be damned sure that they were going to attract enough genuinely new custom to more than compensate for that.
Thing is, Apple's current business model of selling premium-priced "boutique" systems seems to be working quite nicely - why risk it by competing with yourself?
I'm sure that they'll come out with a "response" to the netbook market soon - but I'd bet on a jumbo iPod Touch rather than a mini Mac.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30003418</id>
	<title>Re:Atom</title>
	<author>Draek</author>
	<datestamp>1257449640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure, but when have people with Hackintosh cared about speed or working features? it is, and always has been, a "because we can" type of project, much like the NetBSD guys and their toaster.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , but when have people with Hackintosh cared about speed or working features ?
it is , and always has been , a " because we can " type of project , much like the NetBSD guys and their toaster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, but when have people with Hackintosh cared about speed or working features?
it is, and always has been, a "because we can" type of project, much like the NetBSD guys and their toaster.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000852</id>
	<title>OS "Hacking"</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1257420720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except for the fun of it, why would anyone want to run an OS that is liable to die at any point?  Never really saw the point of doing it other then the 'look what i did' bragging rights factor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except for the fun of it , why would anyone want to run an OS that is liable to die at any point ?
Never really saw the point of doing it other then the 'look what i did ' bragging rights factor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except for the fun of it, why would anyone want to run an OS that is liable to die at any point?
Never really saw the point of doing it other then the 'look what i did' bragging rights factor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000388</id>
	<title>Re:Just a reminder from Apple</title>
	<author>Devout\_IPUite</author>
	<datestamp>1257418500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I didn't say Apple was 'evil', I just wished 'anti-trust' hammers to fall upon their heads. But I still wish that. And I DO use their OS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't say Apple was 'evil ' , I just wished 'anti-trust ' hammers to fall upon their heads .
But I still wish that .
And I DO use their OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't say Apple was 'evil', I just wished 'anti-trust' hammers to fall upon their heads.
But I still wish that.
And I DO use their OS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30002648</id>
	<title>Re:b-b-b-but....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257435780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What the fuck are you so butthurt over?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What the fuck are you so butthurt over ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the fuck are you so butthurt over?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30003172</id>
	<title>Re:And cheapen the brand?! Gucci in Walmart.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257445080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>Apple is making a very nice business out of being the premium computer and electronic gizmo maker. </em></p><p>Let's declare a truce and just agree that they've successful marketed their hardware that way.</p><p>You can believe in their marketing scheme.  Some of the rest of us can feel their customers are being duped.</p><p>Well, not really, duped.  Whatever it costs someone to boost their self-esteem is probably worth it to them.  Gucci handbags have a similar theraputic value, for their buyers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple is making a very nice business out of being the premium computer and electronic gizmo maker .
Let 's declare a truce and just agree that they 've successful marketed their hardware that way.You can believe in their marketing scheme .
Some of the rest of us can feel their customers are being duped.Well , not really , duped .
Whatever it costs someone to boost their self-esteem is probably worth it to them .
Gucci handbags have a similar theraputic value , for their buyers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple is making a very nice business out of being the premium computer and electronic gizmo maker.
Let's declare a truce and just agree that they've successful marketed their hardware that way.You can believe in their marketing scheme.
Some of the rest of us can feel their customers are being duped.Well, not really, duped.
Whatever it costs someone to boost their self-esteem is probably worth it to them.
Gucci handbags have a similar theraputic value, for their buyers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30004792</id>
	<title>Re:Don't count on Atom support...</title>
	<author>Rubinstien</author>
	<datestamp>1257516960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The install DVD contains an application called "Remote Install Mac OS X", which will run on Mac OS X or Windows.  You install that on a "partner" machine, and can then use the DVD drive from the partner machine remotely for the install.  You also have the option of an external USB DVD drive.</p><p>--Robert</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The install DVD contains an application called " Remote Install Mac OS X " , which will run on Mac OS X or Windows .
You install that on a " partner " machine , and can then use the DVD drive from the partner machine remotely for the install .
You also have the option of an external USB DVD drive.--Robert</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The install DVD contains an application called "Remote Install Mac OS X", which will run on Mac OS X or Windows.
You install that on a "partner" machine, and can then use the DVD drive from the partner machine remotely for the install.
You also have the option of an external USB DVD drive.--Robert</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30002758</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2110259_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2110259_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30005212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30002592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2110259_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30001666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2110259_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2110259_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30004542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30002592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2110259_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30001190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2110259_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30002322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2110259_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30005006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2110259_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30005814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30002362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2110259_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30001702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2110259_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30002680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2110259_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30004034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30002362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2110259_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30001462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2110259_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2110259_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2110259_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30001910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2110259_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30003172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2110259_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30062640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2110259_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30011592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2110259_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30003562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2110259_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2110259_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30004792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30002758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2110259_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2110259_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30003418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2110259_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30004774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2110259_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30002716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2110259_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30006882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30002758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2110259_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30003472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2110259_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2110259_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30002724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2110259_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2110259_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30001306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2110259_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2110259_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2110259_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30001668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2110259_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2110259_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30004556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2110259_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2110259_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2110259_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30001630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2110259_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30018280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2110259_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30002648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2110259_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30002272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2110259_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30001502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_2110259.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000644
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_2110259.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30003418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000450
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000858
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30062640
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30001668
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_2110259.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000186
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000410
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30011592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000334
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000224
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30001462
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000438
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30002272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30001702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000490
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30001190
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30001666
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_2110259.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000152
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000228
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000888
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30003562
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30003172
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30002716
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30005006
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30002322
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30018280
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000242
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000748
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000388
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000702
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30001306
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000580
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000686
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30001630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000624
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_2110259.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30011274
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_2110259.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30001910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30001502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30003472
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_2110259.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30006024
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_2110259.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000618
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_2110259.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30001274
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_2110259.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30002592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30005212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30004542
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_2110259.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000148
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30002724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000510
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30002680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000522
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30002648
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_2110259.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30002758
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30004792
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30006882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30002362
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30005814
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30004034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30004774
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_2110259.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000254
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_2110259.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30000604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2110259.30004556
</commentlist>
</conversation>
