<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_05_2311241</id>
	<title>Google Releases Open Source JavaScript Tools</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1257420240000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Dan Jones writes <i>"Google has open sourced several of its key <a href="http://www.cio.com.au/article/325235/google\_releases\_core\_development\_tools\_open\_source">JavaScript application development tools</a>, hoping that they will prove useful for external programmers to build faster Web applications. According to Google, by enabling and allowing developers to use the same tools that Google uses, they can not only build rich applications but also make the Web really fast. The <a href="http://code.google.com/closure/">Closure JavaScript</a> compiler and library are used as the standard Javascript library for pretty much any large, public Web application that Google is serving today, including some of its most popular Web applications, including Gmail, Google Docs and Google Maps. Google has also released Closure Templates which are designed to automate the dynamic creation of HTML. The announcement comes a few months after Google <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/07/13/2027224/Google-Releases-Open-Source-NX-Server">released and open sourced the NX server</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dan Jones writes " Google has open sourced several of its key JavaScript application development tools , hoping that they will prove useful for external programmers to build faster Web applications .
According to Google , by enabling and allowing developers to use the same tools that Google uses , they can not only build rich applications but also make the Web really fast .
The Closure JavaScript compiler and library are used as the standard Javascript library for pretty much any large , public Web application that Google is serving today , including some of its most popular Web applications , including Gmail , Google Docs and Google Maps .
Google has also released Closure Templates which are designed to automate the dynamic creation of HTML .
The announcement comes a few months after Google released and open sourced the NX server .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dan Jones writes "Google has open sourced several of its key JavaScript application development tools, hoping that they will prove useful for external programmers to build faster Web applications.
According to Google, by enabling and allowing developers to use the same tools that Google uses, they can not only build rich applications but also make the Web really fast.
The Closure JavaScript compiler and library are used as the standard Javascript library for pretty much any large, public Web application that Google is serving today, including some of its most popular Web applications, including Gmail, Google Docs and Google Maps.
Google has also released Closure Templates which are designed to automate the dynamic creation of HTML.
The announcement comes a few months after Google released and open sourced the NX server.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30002948</id>
	<title>Re:Closure/Clojure/closures</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257440760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it goes to show a certain arrogance at google.  First google steals "chrome" from mozilla, now they have "closure".  Eventually they'll start a beer recommendation service and call it "Duff's Device".  They think their stuff is so great that they can use any name they want to, even if it's already used and  well established by something else.</p><p>These are smart people.  Either they are the world's most uncreative smart people or they co-opt other people's terms on purpose.  With 'chrome' especially they were obviously just being dicks.</p><p>And don't get me started on Apple... adding Blocks to a language that already has blocks.  The only explanation is so that people have to say "Apple Blocks" to distinguish it.  Give me a break.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it goes to show a certain arrogance at google .
First google steals " chrome " from mozilla , now they have " closure " .
Eventually they 'll start a beer recommendation service and call it " Duff 's Device " .
They think their stuff is so great that they can use any name they want to , even if it 's already used and well established by something else.These are smart people .
Either they are the world 's most uncreative smart people or they co-opt other people 's terms on purpose .
With 'chrome ' especially they were obviously just being dicks.And do n't get me started on Apple... adding Blocks to a language that already has blocks .
The only explanation is so that people have to say " Apple Blocks " to distinguish it .
Give me a break .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it goes to show a certain arrogance at google.
First google steals "chrome" from mozilla, now they have "closure".
Eventually they'll start a beer recommendation service and call it "Duff's Device".
They think their stuff is so great that they can use any name they want to, even if it's already used and  well established by something else.These are smart people.
Either they are the world's most uncreative smart people or they co-opt other people's terms on purpose.
With 'chrome' especially they were obviously just being dicks.And don't get me started on Apple... adding Blocks to a language that already has blocks.
The only explanation is so that people have to say "Apple Blocks" to distinguish it.
Give me a break.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001638</id>
	<title>Embracing and extending</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257425400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know that it probably work in current major browsers without problems, but somewhat look a bit like a push towards Chrome. If things start to base more and more in javascript, specially complex one, not only the old browsers will die (ok, killing IE6 for good is an obligation for the future of mankind, or at least internet), but also current/competitive browsers not so fast at the javascript arena will get a big hit too. Good enough will stop being enough when most internet need complex javascript and a blazing fast javascript engine to work. But i suppose that is better that it be based on open standards from the start than the adoble flash way.<br><br>I suppose that complaining about this sounds like asking to forget civilization and go back to rural communities and simpler old way of life, but sometimes you miss the good old web as it used to be (yes, even the slashdot comment editor from 1997)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know that it probably work in current major browsers without problems , but somewhat look a bit like a push towards Chrome .
If things start to base more and more in javascript , specially complex one , not only the old browsers will die ( ok , killing IE6 for good is an obligation for the future of mankind , or at least internet ) , but also current/competitive browsers not so fast at the javascript arena will get a big hit too .
Good enough will stop being enough when most internet need complex javascript and a blazing fast javascript engine to work .
But i suppose that is better that it be based on open standards from the start than the adoble flash way.I suppose that complaining about this sounds like asking to forget civilization and go back to rural communities and simpler old way of life , but sometimes you miss the good old web as it used to be ( yes , even the slashdot comment editor from 1997 )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know that it probably work in current major browsers without problems, but somewhat look a bit like a push towards Chrome.
If things start to base more and more in javascript, specially complex one, not only the old browsers will die (ok, killing IE6 for good is an obligation for the future of mankind, or at least internet), but also current/competitive browsers not so fast at the javascript arena will get a big hit too.
Good enough will stop being enough when most internet need complex javascript and a blazing fast javascript engine to work.
But i suppose that is better that it be based on open standards from the start than the adoble flash way.I suppose that complaining about this sounds like asking to forget civilization and go back to rural communities and simpler old way of life, but sometimes you miss the good old web as it used to be (yes, even the slashdot comment editor from 1997)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001832</id>
	<title>multi-threading</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257426960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless this library, or Javascript in general has a usable threading model, it will remain a toy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless this library , or Javascript in general has a usable threading model , it will remain a toy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless this library, or Javascript in general has a usable threading model, it will remain a toy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30002582</id>
	<title>ATM?</title>
	<author>mevets</author>
	<datestamp>1257434940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So javascript is synonymous with ass-to-mouth?  I take it you mean the receiving end.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So javascript is synonymous with ass-to-mouth ?
I take it you mean the receiving end .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So javascript is synonymous with ass-to-mouth?
I take it you mean the receiving end.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30003766</id>
	<title>How does this integrate with GWT</title>
	<author>Chrisq</author>
	<datestamp>1257499680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>GWT is a great Java to Javascript environment, but falls down in that to produce new components (ouside the toolbox provided) is difficult and requires raw javascript. Does anyone know if these products integrate or work together, because what would be really nice would be to be able to use closure to produce GWT components</htmltext>
<tokenext>GWT is a great Java to Javascript environment , but falls down in that to produce new components ( ouside the toolbox provided ) is difficult and requires raw javascript .
Does anyone know if these products integrate or work together , because what would be really nice would be to be able to use closure to produce GWT components</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GWT is a great Java to Javascript environment, but falls down in that to produce new components (ouside the toolbox provided) is difficult and requires raw javascript.
Does anyone know if these products integrate or work together, because what would be really nice would be to be able to use closure to produce GWT components</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001564</id>
	<title>Nice...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257424740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>These could come in handy. Google has had a fair bit of experience making Javascript apps that run acceptably. I've got a project coming up, and I'll bookmark this for consideration.
<br> <br>
Thanks Google. =)</htmltext>
<tokenext>These could come in handy .
Google has had a fair bit of experience making Javascript apps that run acceptably .
I 've got a project coming up , and I 'll bookmark this for consideration .
Thanks Google .
= )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These could come in handy.
Google has had a fair bit of experience making Javascript apps that run acceptably.
I've got a project coming up, and I'll bookmark this for consideration.
Thanks Google.
=)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30003112</id>
	<title>It's also faster than Python</title>
	<author>melted</author>
	<datestamp>1257444300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And Ruby, PHP and Perl. Check it out for yourselves: <a href="http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/benchmark.php?test=all&amp;lang=v8&amp;lang2=python&amp;box=1" title="debian.org">http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/benchmark.php?test=all&amp;lang=v8&amp;lang2=python&amp;box=1</a> [debian.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And Ruby , PHP and Perl .
Check it out for yourselves : http : //shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/benchmark.php ? test = all&amp;lang = v8&amp;lang2 = python&amp;box = 1 [ debian.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And Ruby, PHP and Perl.
Check it out for yourselves: http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/benchmark.php?test=all&amp;lang=v8&amp;lang2=python&amp;box=1 [debian.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30005842</id>
	<title>Re:Lego-like</title>
	<author>herve\_masson</author>
	<datestamp>1257524220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>6. Dealing with memory leaks on most browsers (ex: ff) is nearly impossible</p><p>On your #2 point, my experience is that coding for: FF3, Safari4, Chrome and IE8, is no longer a compatibility nightmare. Dealing with performances and memory remain a nightmare on my view (except on Chrome which rocks on garbage collecting).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>6 .
Dealing with memory leaks on most browsers ( ex : ff ) is nearly impossibleOn your # 2 point , my experience is that coding for : FF3 , Safari4 , Chrome and IE8 , is no longer a compatibility nightmare .
Dealing with performances and memory remain a nightmare on my view ( except on Chrome which rocks on garbage collecting ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>6.
Dealing with memory leaks on most browsers (ex: ff) is nearly impossibleOn your #2 point, my experience is that coding for: FF3, Safari4, Chrome and IE8, is no longer a compatibility nightmare.
Dealing with performances and memory remain a nightmare on my view (except on Chrome which rocks on garbage collecting).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30002194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001724</id>
	<title>Re:My gawd</title>
	<author>Dhalka226</author>
	<datestamp>1257426180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally I find your post to be completely trollish, but let's go ahead and assume everything you've said is correct.

</p><p>So what?

</p><p>I don't personally find web-based tools better than ones I install on my own system.  Let's go ahead and assume that nobody does and nobody ever will.  Why is it wrong or in any way bad that web sites want to push as close as they can to that functionality, either as a replacement for it or simply to enhance their own users' experience?  If it becomes the problem you're oh-so-afraid of, it means that people actually like what's going on.  I know that's nasty to some geeks who think they know best and anybody who doesn't agree are worthless peasants treading on their turf, but to more reasonable people it's a good thing.

</p><p>Yes, people will make bad decisions in when, where and how they use JavaScript tools.  That's true of any tool.  It doesn't devalue it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally I find your post to be completely trollish , but let 's go ahead and assume everything you 've said is correct .
So what ?
I do n't personally find web-based tools better than ones I install on my own system .
Let 's go ahead and assume that nobody does and nobody ever will .
Why is it wrong or in any way bad that web sites want to push as close as they can to that functionality , either as a replacement for it or simply to enhance their own users ' experience ?
If it becomes the problem you 're oh-so-afraid of , it means that people actually like what 's going on .
I know that 's nasty to some geeks who think they know best and anybody who does n't agree are worthless peasants treading on their turf , but to more reasonable people it 's a good thing .
Yes , people will make bad decisions in when , where and how they use JavaScript tools .
That 's true of any tool .
It does n't devalue it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally I find your post to be completely trollish, but let's go ahead and assume everything you've said is correct.
So what?
I don't personally find web-based tools better than ones I install on my own system.
Let's go ahead and assume that nobody does and nobody ever will.
Why is it wrong or in any way bad that web sites want to push as close as they can to that functionality, either as a replacement for it or simply to enhance their own users' experience?
If it becomes the problem you're oh-so-afraid of, it means that people actually like what's going on.
I know that's nasty to some geeks who think they know best and anybody who doesn't agree are worthless peasants treading on their turf, but to more reasonable people it's a good thing.
Yes, people will make bad decisions in when, where and how they use JavaScript tools.
That's true of any tool.
It doesn't devalue it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001752</id>
	<title>jtemplates vs. closure templates?</title>
	<author>Azureflare</author>
	<datestamp>1257426420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I currently use jquery and jtemplates with json data. How do the closure template commands compare to jtemplates? I didn't really see any ajax functionality in the tutorials but I haven't had time to delve any deeper. Has anyone spent more time with this?<br> <br>
I'm still going to read through it, was just wondering if anyone else has more experience with closure.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I currently use jquery and jtemplates with json data .
How do the closure template commands compare to jtemplates ?
I did n't really see any ajax functionality in the tutorials but I have n't had time to delve any deeper .
Has anyone spent more time with this ?
I 'm still going to read through it , was just wondering if anyone else has more experience with closure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I currently use jquery and jtemplates with json data.
How do the closure template commands compare to jtemplates?
I didn't really see any ajax functionality in the tutorials but I haven't had time to delve any deeper.
Has anyone spent more time with this?
I'm still going to read through it, was just wondering if anyone else has more experience with closure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30002736</id>
	<title>Re:Apache v2.0</title>
	<author>markkezner</author>
	<datestamp>1257437040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You absolutely can use that in commercial products. You can also create derivative works and not release the source.</p><p>Apache 2.0 is considered a "commerce friendly" open source license (whatever that means). You'll see it in commercial products like Android and the Apache web server.</p><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache\_License" title="wikipedia.org">Wikipedia entry</a> [wikipedia.org] <br>
<a href="http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html" title="apache.org">Apache 2.0 License full text</a> [apache.org] </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You absolutely can use that in commercial products .
You can also create derivative works and not release the source.Apache 2.0 is considered a " commerce friendly " open source license ( whatever that means ) .
You 'll see it in commercial products like Android and the Apache web server .
Wikipedia entry [ wikipedia.org ] Apache 2.0 License full text [ apache.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You absolutely can use that in commercial products.
You can also create derivative works and not release the source.Apache 2.0 is considered a "commerce friendly" open source license (whatever that means).
You'll see it in commercial products like Android and the Apache web server.
Wikipedia entry [wikipedia.org] 
Apache 2.0 License full text [apache.org] </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30002172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001844</id>
	<title>Re:Embracing and extending</title>
	<author>amicusNYCL</author>
	<datestamp>1257427140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If things start to base more and more in javascript, specially complex one, not only the old browsers will die (ok, killing IE6 for good is an obligation for the future of mankind, or at least internet), but also current/competitive browsers not so fast at the javascript arena will get a big hit too. Good enough will stop being enough when most internet need complex javascript and a blazing fast javascript engine to work.</p></div><p>It's not really that bad.  I've been developing a pretty massive application based on ExtJS that runs surprisingly fast in IE6.  In Chrome or Firefox it runs very fast.  I'm talking about 450KB minified Javascript files here, doing things like laying out data in sortable filtering grids, tree structures, drag and drop, etc.  I'm surprised at how well IE manages to use it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If things start to base more and more in javascript , specially complex one , not only the old browsers will die ( ok , killing IE6 for good is an obligation for the future of mankind , or at least internet ) , but also current/competitive browsers not so fast at the javascript arena will get a big hit too .
Good enough will stop being enough when most internet need complex javascript and a blazing fast javascript engine to work.It 's not really that bad .
I 've been developing a pretty massive application based on ExtJS that runs surprisingly fast in IE6 .
In Chrome or Firefox it runs very fast .
I 'm talking about 450KB minified Javascript files here , doing things like laying out data in sortable filtering grids , tree structures , drag and drop , etc .
I 'm surprised at how well IE manages to use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If things start to base more and more in javascript, specially complex one, not only the old browsers will die (ok, killing IE6 for good is an obligation for the future of mankind, or at least internet), but also current/competitive browsers not so fast at the javascript arena will get a big hit too.
Good enough will stop being enough when most internet need complex javascript and a blazing fast javascript engine to work.It's not really that bad.
I've been developing a pretty massive application based on ExtJS that runs surprisingly fast in IE6.
In Chrome or Firefox it runs very fast.
I'm talking about 450KB minified Javascript files here, doing things like laying out data in sortable filtering grids, tree structures, drag and drop, etc.
I'm surprised at how well IE manages to use it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30005242</id>
	<title>Re:It's also faster than Python</title>
	<author>Dragonslicer</author>
	<datestamp>1257520080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's also faster than Python And Ruby, PHP and Perl.</p></div><p>Languages can't be faster or slower than other languages, since a language is just a syntax specification. Compilers, interpreters, and other runtime environments are what you would compare for speed. In the case of JavaScript, you have several competing implementations (at least 4 or 5 that are well known, plus many others that aren't well known), and speed is probably the only significant selling point in any of them. With the rest of the languages you list, there's really only one commonly used implementation of each, and it's written by the same group that's responsible for the language specification, so there tends to be less focus on speed of the interpreter and more focus on adding new features to the language itself.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's also faster than Python And Ruby , PHP and Perl.Languages ca n't be faster or slower than other languages , since a language is just a syntax specification .
Compilers , interpreters , and other runtime environments are what you would compare for speed .
In the case of JavaScript , you have several competing implementations ( at least 4 or 5 that are well known , plus many others that are n't well known ) , and speed is probably the only significant selling point in any of them .
With the rest of the languages you list , there 's really only one commonly used implementation of each , and it 's written by the same group that 's responsible for the language specification , so there tends to be less focus on speed of the interpreter and more focus on adding new features to the language itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's also faster than Python And Ruby, PHP and Perl.Languages can't be faster or slower than other languages, since a language is just a syntax specification.
Compilers, interpreters, and other runtime environments are what you would compare for speed.
In the case of JavaScript, you have several competing implementations (at least 4 or 5 that are well known, plus many others that aren't well known), and speed is probably the only significant selling point in any of them.
With the rest of the languages you list, there's really only one commonly used implementation of each, and it's written by the same group that's responsible for the language specification, so there tends to be less focus on speed of the interpreter and more focus on adding new features to the language itself.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30003112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001784</id>
	<title>Re:Embracing and extending</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257426600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>rural communities are indeed better, more space, less snitching, you get to know people rather than just assuming everyone is a paedophile<br> <br>

JavaScript is what is driving the hardware upgrade cycle these days. I can use email/IM/word processors, even minimalist image editors and possibly VoiP on a pentium 90 reasonably well but it won't run the newest browsers or load even a 'minimalist' modern site. I think client-side scripting in browsers should be done away with completely, come up with a protocol-level replacement for AJAX and maybe add a few features to CSS and nothing of value will be lost.</htmltext>
<tokenext>rural communities are indeed better , more space , less snitching , you get to know people rather than just assuming everyone is a paedophile JavaScript is what is driving the hardware upgrade cycle these days .
I can use email/IM/word processors , even minimalist image editors and possibly VoiP on a pentium 90 reasonably well but it wo n't run the newest browsers or load even a 'minimalist ' modern site .
I think client-side scripting in browsers should be done away with completely , come up with a protocol-level replacement for AJAX and maybe add a few features to CSS and nothing of value will be lost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>rural communities are indeed better, more space, less snitching, you get to know people rather than just assuming everyone is a paedophile 

JavaScript is what is driving the hardware upgrade cycle these days.
I can use email/IM/word processors, even minimalist image editors and possibly VoiP on a pentium 90 reasonably well but it won't run the newest browsers or load even a 'minimalist' modern site.
I think client-side scripting in browsers should be done away with completely, come up with a protocol-level replacement for AJAX and maybe add a few features to CSS and nothing of value will be lost.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30011580</id>
	<title>Re:It's also faster than Python</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257515100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>cPython, Python 3, psyco, pypy, iron python, jython,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>mri Ruby, Ruby 1.9, JRuby, Rubinius, iron ruby,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>cPython , Python 3 , psyco , pypy , iron python , jython , ...mri Ruby , Ruby 1.9 , JRuby , Rubinius , iron ruby , .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>cPython, Python 3, psyco, pypy, iron python, jython, ...mri Ruby, Ruby 1.9, JRuby, Rubinius, iron ruby, ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30005242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30002084</id>
	<title>Re:My gawd</title>
	<author>Zardoz44</author>
	<datestamp>1257429660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>None of us would use JavaScript? Maybe one of us likes it.</p><p>Stop confusing the DOM with JavaScript. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find 100 flaws, and less than 10 core language problems (e.g., non-library), with many in both lists being subjective issues.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>None of us would use JavaScript ?
Maybe one of us likes it.Stop confusing the DOM with JavaScript .
I think you 'd be hard-pressed to find 100 flaws , and less than 10 core language problems ( e.g. , non-library ) , with many in both lists being subjective issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>None of us would use JavaScript?
Maybe one of us likes it.Stop confusing the DOM with JavaScript.
I think you'd be hard-pressed to find 100 flaws, and less than 10 core language problems (e.g., non-library), with many in both lists being subjective issues.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30002172</id>
	<title>Re:Apache v2.0</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257430560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It seams silly to mention that it's open source without giving the license. Btw It's not copyleft, allows linking from other licenses and is GPLv3 compatible</p></div><p>Can you rephrase that in english please? Does that mean we can't use this in commercial products?<br> <br>

I'm curious why Google didn't choose the the dual MIT/GPL license like jquery uses.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seams silly to mention that it 's open source without giving the license .
Btw It 's not copyleft , allows linking from other licenses and is GPLv3 compatibleCan you rephrase that in english please ?
Does that mean we ca n't use this in commercial products ?
I 'm curious why Google did n't choose the the dual MIT/GPL license like jquery uses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seams silly to mention that it's open source without giving the license.
Btw It's not copyleft, allows linking from other licenses and is GPLv3 compatibleCan you rephrase that in english please?
Does that mean we can't use this in commercial products?
I'm curious why Google didn't choose the the dual MIT/GPL license like jquery uses.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30010310</id>
	<title>How does this compare to GWT?</title>
	<author>phaet0n</author>
	<datestamp>1257504780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would be really nice to know how Google Closure compares to GWT at a technical level. Of course, it's pretty clear to see how they differ at a high level: GWT is written in Java and compiled to JavaScript, and Closure seems to be an all JavaScript system with UI libraries and templating features. I'd just love to know more about their comparative analysis of their internals and targeted usage scenarios.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be really nice to know how Google Closure compares to GWT at a technical level .
Of course , it 's pretty clear to see how they differ at a high level : GWT is written in Java and compiled to JavaScript , and Closure seems to be an all JavaScript system with UI libraries and templating features .
I 'd just love to know more about their comparative analysis of their internals and targeted usage scenarios .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be really nice to know how Google Closure compares to GWT at a technical level.
Of course, it's pretty clear to see how they differ at a high level: GWT is written in Java and compiled to JavaScript, and Closure seems to be an all JavaScript system with UI libraries and templating features.
I'd just love to know more about their comparative analysis of their internals and targeted usage scenarios.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30003792</id>
	<title>Re:My gawd</title>
	<author>kripkenstein</author>
	<datestamp>1257500100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>None of us would use Javascript if we had a choice, but we don't. So toolkits like JQuery or this release by Google are life savers.</p></div><p>JavaScript <b>the language</b> is actually very nice - the main problems with 'JavaScript' are browser inconsistencies, the DOM, etc. etc.
<br> <br>
But if you take JavaScript itself, then yeah it has some problems - it was rushed - but it has <a href="http://googlecode.blogspot.com/2009/03/doug-crockford-javascript-good-parts.html" title="blogspot.com">good parts</a> [blogspot.com]: It's a dynamic language, supports closures, first-class functions, convenient object definition syntax (from where we get JSON), etc. Due to its ubiquity, it also has the most secure and fast engines of any dynamic language (except for LuaJIT, but a comparison there is a topic all in itself).
<br> <br>
Because of those, JavaScript is being used more and more as a scripting language outside of web browsers, for example in desktop environments, game engines, etc. If you stick to good coding practices in JavaScript, you can write large and robust applications in it.
<br> <br>
But, again, to return to the original point, the current state of JavaScript <b>in browsers</b> is very messy. Which is why we need things like jQuery, and maybe this new library from Google as well.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>None of us would use Javascript if we had a choice , but we do n't .
So toolkits like JQuery or this release by Google are life savers.JavaScript the language is actually very nice - the main problems with 'JavaScript ' are browser inconsistencies , the DOM , etc .
etc . But if you take JavaScript itself , then yeah it has some problems - it was rushed - but it has good parts [ blogspot.com ] : It 's a dynamic language , supports closures , first-class functions , convenient object definition syntax ( from where we get JSON ) , etc .
Due to its ubiquity , it also has the most secure and fast engines of any dynamic language ( except for LuaJIT , but a comparison there is a topic all in itself ) .
Because of those , JavaScript is being used more and more as a scripting language outside of web browsers , for example in desktop environments , game engines , etc .
If you stick to good coding practices in JavaScript , you can write large and robust applications in it .
But , again , to return to the original point , the current state of JavaScript in browsers is very messy .
Which is why we need things like jQuery , and maybe this new library from Google as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>None of us would use Javascript if we had a choice, but we don't.
So toolkits like JQuery or this release by Google are life savers.JavaScript the language is actually very nice - the main problems with 'JavaScript' are browser inconsistencies, the DOM, etc.
etc.
 
But if you take JavaScript itself, then yeah it has some problems - it was rushed - but it has good parts [blogspot.com]: It's a dynamic language, supports closures, first-class functions, convenient object definition syntax (from where we get JSON), etc.
Due to its ubiquity, it also has the most secure and fast engines of any dynamic language (except for LuaJIT, but a comparison there is a topic all in itself).
Because of those, JavaScript is being used more and more as a scripting language outside of web browsers, for example in desktop environments, game engines, etc.
If you stick to good coding practices in JavaScript, you can write large and robust applications in it.
But, again, to return to the original point, the current state of JavaScript in browsers is very messy.
Which is why we need things like jQuery, and maybe this new library from Google as well.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30002392</id>
	<title>Re:My gawd</title>
	<author>Flammon</author>
	<datestamp>1257432840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I had a choice, I would use Javascript.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I had a choice , I would use Javascript .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I had a choice, I would use Javascript.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001584</id>
	<title>Closure/Clojure/closures</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257424920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good grief.  Homophone insanity.  We've got <a href="http://clojure.org/" title="clojure.org">Clojure</a> [clojure.org] doing interesting things in the language and concurrency space.  <a href="http://thirdcog.eu/pwcblocks/" title="thirdcog.eu">Block support in C/Objective-C</a> [thirdcog.eu] reinjecting "closures" into everyone's vocabulary.  And now Google jumps in with "Closure" just to make sure that no one has any idea what anyone else is talking about...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good grief .
Homophone insanity .
We 've got Clojure [ clojure.org ] doing interesting things in the language and concurrency space .
Block support in C/Objective-C [ thirdcog.eu ] reinjecting " closures " into everyone 's vocabulary .
And now Google jumps in with " Closure " just to make sure that no one has any idea what anyone else is talking about.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good grief.
Homophone insanity.
We've got Clojure [clojure.org] doing interesting things in the language and concurrency space.
Block support in C/Objective-C [thirdcog.eu] reinjecting "closures" into everyone's vocabulary.
And now Google jumps in with "Closure" just to make sure that no one has any idea what anyone else is talking about...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001806</id>
	<title>Re:Unimpressive</title>
	<author>lhoguin</author>
	<datestamp>1257426780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looking at the library's source code, I don't find many new things that I can't already find in another library. I'm sure there's interesting components, but this looks more like another case of NIH than anything. If their code really is faster I'd rather have them work on existing libraries and try to speed things up for everyone rather than creating more of the same thing.</p><p>Of course, if everyone uses Google's tools and libraries, it makes things easier for them to optimize Chrome, which is probably the whole point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looking at the library 's source code , I do n't find many new things that I ca n't already find in another library .
I 'm sure there 's interesting components , but this looks more like another case of NIH than anything .
If their code really is faster I 'd rather have them work on existing libraries and try to speed things up for everyone rather than creating more of the same thing.Of course , if everyone uses Google 's tools and libraries , it makes things easier for them to optimize Chrome , which is probably the whole point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looking at the library's source code, I don't find many new things that I can't already find in another library.
I'm sure there's interesting components, but this looks more like another case of NIH than anything.
If their code really is faster I'd rather have them work on existing libraries and try to speed things up for everyone rather than creating more of the same thing.Of course, if everyone uses Google's tools and libraries, it makes things easier for them to optimize Chrome, which is probably the whole point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30004458</id>
	<title>Re:Lego-like</title>
	<author>lhoguin</author>
	<datestamp>1257511740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm also interested in the UI Widgets like an Autocomplete text field. I've been waiting for the jQuery UI team to finish that one widget for months, but for some reason their development is so slow!</p></div><p>I've been using <a href="http://bassistance.de/jquery-plugins/jquery-plugin-autocomplete/" title="bassistance.de" rel="nofollow">the original autocomplete plugin</a> [bassistance.de] for a long time now, it works great. This is the plugin that is used as a basis for the UI autocomplete component. Anything preventing you from using it in the meanwhile?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm also interested in the UI Widgets like an Autocomplete text field .
I 've been waiting for the jQuery UI team to finish that one widget for months , but for some reason their development is so slow ! I 've been using the original autocomplete plugin [ bassistance.de ] for a long time now , it works great .
This is the plugin that is used as a basis for the UI autocomplete component .
Anything preventing you from using it in the meanwhile ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm also interested in the UI Widgets like an Autocomplete text field.
I've been waiting for the jQuery UI team to finish that one widget for months, but for some reason their development is so slow!I've been using the original autocomplete plugin [bassistance.de] for a long time now, it works great.
This is the plugin that is used as a basis for the UI autocomplete component.
Anything preventing you from using it in the meanwhile?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30002194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30003068</id>
	<title>Re:My gawd</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1257443280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, it's not Javascript that's the problem, it's the web browser.  We should just take the javascript interpreter out of the browsers and use it alone to interpret Javascript programs.  Let the program talk directly to the web server, database, whatever.  You could even use ports other than 80!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , it 's not Javascript that 's the problem , it 's the web browser .
We should just take the javascript interpreter out of the browsers and use it alone to interpret Javascript programs .
Let the program talk directly to the web server , database , whatever .
You could even use ports other than 80 !
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, it's not Javascript that's the problem, it's the web browser.
We should just take the javascript interpreter out of the browsers and use it alone to interpret Javascript programs.
Let the program talk directly to the web server, database, whatever.
You could even use ports other than 80!
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30004636</id>
	<title>JavaScript isn't more flawed than other languages.</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1257514680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you think Javascript isn't very powerful and cannot see its advantages, particularly with dynamic types, then you obviously haven't used it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you think Javascript is n't very powerful and can not see its advantages , particularly with dynamic types , then you obviously have n't used it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you think Javascript isn't very powerful and cannot see its advantages, particularly with dynamic types, then you obviously haven't used it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30002194</id>
	<title>Lego-like</title>
	<author>Art3x</author>
	<datestamp>1257430800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Closure Library has a lot of useful-looking classes and functions, like for working with Arrays, Dates, or the URL. They're divided into short files, so that you can use just the parts you want and not have to download one big file.</p><p>jQuery has definitely been a great library, especially at finding things in the DOM. And I think its API for handling events is easier (definitely less to type) than this. But it doesn't have all of the things that this has --- short helpers that probably I would end up writing on my own (and already have started to).</p><p>I'm also interested in the UI Widgets like an Autocomplete text field. I've been waiting for the jQuery UI team to finish that one widget for months, but for some reason their development is so slow!</p><p>Standard Disclaimer about JavaScript:</p><ol>
<li>1. JavaScript is a nice language.</li><li>2. Writing JavaScript to work in Internet Explorer, Firefox, Safari, and Opera is a nightmare like no other.</li><li>3. Mainly it boils down to writing JavaScript to work in (A) Internet Explorer and in (B) browsers that are not Internet Explorer.</li><li>4. The "core" JavaScript is really nice: dynamic typing, super-short syntax for hash tables, arrays, regular expressions; dot-chaining of members and methods.</li><li>5. The browser API, or "DOM", part of JavaScript is different in IE than in the rest, and this, I think, is the main reason it's a pain. But jQuery and other libraries smooth this over.</li></ol><p>Like has been said, watch the Google Video "JavaScript: the Good Parts" to elaborate on this. And if you hate JavaScript but are forced to write it and haven't read JavaScript: The Definitive Guide, it's the best book on JavaScript and one of the best O'Reilly books period.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Closure Library has a lot of useful-looking classes and functions , like for working with Arrays , Dates , or the URL .
They 're divided into short files , so that you can use just the parts you want and not have to download one big file.jQuery has definitely been a great library , especially at finding things in the DOM .
And I think its API for handling events is easier ( definitely less to type ) than this .
But it does n't have all of the things that this has --- short helpers that probably I would end up writing on my own ( and already have started to ) .I 'm also interested in the UI Widgets like an Autocomplete text field .
I 've been waiting for the jQuery UI team to finish that one widget for months , but for some reason their development is so slow ! Standard Disclaimer about JavaScript : 1 .
JavaScript is a nice language.2 .
Writing JavaScript to work in Internet Explorer , Firefox , Safari , and Opera is a nightmare like no other.3 .
Mainly it boils down to writing JavaScript to work in ( A ) Internet Explorer and in ( B ) browsers that are not Internet Explorer.4 .
The " core " JavaScript is really nice : dynamic typing , super-short syntax for hash tables , arrays , regular expressions ; dot-chaining of members and methods.5 .
The browser API , or " DOM " , part of JavaScript is different in IE than in the rest , and this , I think , is the main reason it 's a pain .
But jQuery and other libraries smooth this over.Like has been said , watch the Google Video " JavaScript : the Good Parts " to elaborate on this .
And if you hate JavaScript but are forced to write it and have n't read JavaScript : The Definitive Guide , it 's the best book on JavaScript and one of the best O'Reilly books period .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Closure Library has a lot of useful-looking classes and functions, like for working with Arrays, Dates, or the URL.
They're divided into short files, so that you can use just the parts you want and not have to download one big file.jQuery has definitely been a great library, especially at finding things in the DOM.
And I think its API for handling events is easier (definitely less to type) than this.
But it doesn't have all of the things that this has --- short helpers that probably I would end up writing on my own (and already have started to).I'm also interested in the UI Widgets like an Autocomplete text field.
I've been waiting for the jQuery UI team to finish that one widget for months, but for some reason their development is so slow!Standard Disclaimer about JavaScript:
1.
JavaScript is a nice language.2.
Writing JavaScript to work in Internet Explorer, Firefox, Safari, and Opera is a nightmare like no other.3.
Mainly it boils down to writing JavaScript to work in (A) Internet Explorer and in (B) browsers that are not Internet Explorer.4.
The "core" JavaScript is really nice: dynamic typing, super-short syntax for hash tables, arrays, regular expressions; dot-chaining of members and methods.5.
The browser API, or "DOM", part of JavaScript is different in IE than in the rest, and this, I think, is the main reason it's a pain.
But jQuery and other libraries smooth this over.Like has been said, watch the Google Video "JavaScript: the Good Parts" to elaborate on this.
And if you hate JavaScript but are forced to write it and haven't read JavaScript: The Definitive Guide, it's the best book on JavaScript and one of the best O'Reilly books period.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30009240</id>
	<title>Re:My gawd</title>
	<author>physburn</author>
	<datestamp>1257499920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Life savers indeed, anything that takes the browser variations (and there a zillions of them) out of javascript
and lets you code with just one standard, makes the difference between debugging for each browser and
debugging just the once.
<p>
---
</p><p>
<a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/blogs/Javascript\%20Programming/feed.html" title="feeddistiller.com">Javascript Programming</a> [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ <a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/" title="feeddistiller.com">Feed Distiller</a> [feeddistiller.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Life savers indeed , anything that takes the browser variations ( and there a zillions of them ) out of javascript and lets you code with just one standard , makes the difference between debugging for each browser and debugging just the once .
--- Javascript Programming [ feeddistiller.com ] Feed @ Feed Distiller [ feeddistiller.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Life savers indeed, anything that takes the browser variations (and there a zillions of them) out of javascript
and lets you code with just one standard, makes the difference between debugging for each browser and
debugging just the once.
---

Javascript Programming [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30002326</id>
	<title>Re:My gawd</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257432060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> You get all the advantages of programming in Java</p></div><p>What, you get to drive up your LOCs/day "productivity" rating? Only a true masochist could come up with a way to take a fairly terse dynamic language and gunk it up with Java.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You get all the advantages of programming in JavaWhat , you get to drive up your LOCs/day " productivity " rating ?
Only a true masochist could come up with a way to take a fairly terse dynamic language and gunk it up with Java .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> You get all the advantages of programming in JavaWhat, you get to drive up your LOCs/day "productivity" rating?
Only a true masochist could come up with a way to take a fairly terse dynamic language and gunk it up with Java.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30002240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30004592</id>
	<title>Re:Embracing and extending</title>
	<author>the\_womble</author>
	<datestamp>1257514020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>rural communities are indeed better, more space, less snitching, you get to know people rather than just assuming everyone is a paedophile</p></div><p>Assuming that everyone is a paedophile is not a fundamental part of British culture, ou insensitive clod!</p><p>The government plans to regularly interview kids without parents present, put cameras in some people's homes, and to require people to register before you can give a friend's children a lift to school.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>rural communities are indeed better , more space , less snitching , you get to know people rather than just assuming everyone is a paedophileAssuming that everyone is a paedophile is not a fundamental part of British culture , ou insensitive clod ! The government plans to regularly interview kids without parents present , put cameras in some people 's homes , and to require people to register before you can give a friend 's children a lift to school .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>rural communities are indeed better, more space, less snitching, you get to know people rather than just assuming everyone is a paedophileAssuming that everyone is a paedophile is not a fundamental part of British culture, ou insensitive clod!The government plans to regularly interview kids without parents present, put cameras in some people's homes, and to require people to register before you can give a friend's children a lift to school.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001720</id>
	<title>NX</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257426120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what does this have to do with the NX server? or is it just the notion of being opensource as well?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what does this have to do with the NX server ?
or is it just the notion of being opensource as well ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what does this have to do with the NX server?
or is it just the notion of being opensource as well?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30002232</id>
	<title>What we really want</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1257431340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What would really be nice is an HTML/XML-like language that has features for building real desktop-like GUI's 95\% declaratively in a state-ful way instead of JavaScript IF's, loops, and pathy set/gets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What would really be nice is an HTML/XML-like language that has features for building real desktop-like GUI 's 95 \ % declaratively in a state-ful way instead of JavaScript IF 's , loops , and pathy set/gets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What would really be nice is an HTML/XML-like language that has features for building real desktop-like GUI's 95\% declaratively in a state-ful way instead of JavaScript IF's, loops, and pathy set/gets.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001768</id>
	<title>Re:My gawd</title>
	<author>asdf7890</author>
	<datestamp>1257426540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why are people investing so much in a fundamentally flawed scripting language that has almost no use at all outside the browser and that Palm Pre thing that is basically a browser in a plastic case?</p></div><p>Actually JavaScript is a rather good language in many ways, though it does have some flaws. Give "<a href="http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596517748/" title="oreilly.com">JavaScript, the Good Parts</a> [oreilly.com]" a quick read some time.</p><p>The main problem in the place where people usually see the language, in the browser, is when interacting with the Document Object Model in browsers - a model that isn't exactly my favourite environment to start with and that is before considering all the hacking you have to do to get things to work well on multiple browsers (even when only considering modern versions).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are people investing so much in a fundamentally flawed scripting language that has almost no use at all outside the browser and that Palm Pre thing that is basically a browser in a plastic case ? Actually JavaScript is a rather good language in many ways , though it does have some flaws .
Give " JavaScript , the Good Parts [ oreilly.com ] " a quick read some time.The main problem in the place where people usually see the language , in the browser , is when interacting with the Document Object Model in browsers - a model that is n't exactly my favourite environment to start with and that is before considering all the hacking you have to do to get things to work well on multiple browsers ( even when only considering modern versions ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are people investing so much in a fundamentally flawed scripting language that has almost no use at all outside the browser and that Palm Pre thing that is basically a browser in a plastic case?Actually JavaScript is a rather good language in many ways, though it does have some flaws.
Give "JavaScript, the Good Parts [oreilly.com]" a quick read some time.The main problem in the place where people usually see the language, in the browser, is when interacting with the Document Object Model in browsers - a model that isn't exactly my favourite environment to start with and that is before considering all the hacking you have to do to get things to work well on multiple browsers (even when only considering modern versions).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001744</id>
	<title>Re:My gawd</title>
	<author>CannonballHead</author>
	<datestamp>1257426360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why are people investing so much in a fundamentally flawed scripting language that has almost no use at all outside the browser</p></div><p>Got any other [well supported] options?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are people investing so much in a fundamentally flawed scripting language that has almost no use at all outside the browserGot any other [ well supported ] options ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are people investing so much in a fundamentally flawed scripting language that has almost no use at all outside the browserGot any other [well supported] options?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001690</id>
	<title>Source code link</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257425820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Neither the summary nor TFA link to the actual code: http://code.google.com/p/closure/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Neither the summary nor TFA link to the actual code : http : //code.google.com/p/closure/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Neither the summary nor TFA link to the actual code: http://code.google.com/p/closure/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30002334</id>
	<title>Re:Closure/Clojure/closures</title>
	<author>Requiem18th</author>
	<datestamp>1257432120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are continuing with the work they started with the "Chrome" browser, making sure nobody find out that Mozilla invented "chrome://" or what it can do with that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are continuing with the work they started with the " Chrome " browser , making sure nobody find out that Mozilla invented " chrome : // " or what it can do with that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are continuing with the work they started with the "Chrome" browser, making sure nobody find out that Mozilla invented "chrome://" or what it can do with that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001596</id>
	<title>Unimpressive</title>
	<author>BitHive</author>
	<datestamp>1257425040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Half the demos don't work and these widgets are hideous even by Google standards.  I'm gonna stick with ExtJs for the forseeable future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Half the demos do n't work and these widgets are hideous even by Google standards .
I 'm gon na stick with ExtJs for the forseeable future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Half the demos don't work and these widgets are hideous even by Google standards.
I'm gonna stick with ExtJs for the forseeable future.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001780</id>
	<title>You can build applications using javascript</title>
	<author>pizzach</author>
	<datestamp>1257426600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not that rare.  Many cellphones are going this route nowadays as well as the Mac OS X dashboard widgets and <a href="http://macosx.com/forums/software-programming-web-scripting/16435-javascript-cocoa-application.html" title="macosx.com">Mac OS X apps</a> [macosx.com].  Then of course, there are the <a href="http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/01/javascript-gtk-bindings.ars" title="arstechnica.com">gtk javascript bindings</a> [arstechnica.com].</p><p>Javascript is finding itself in more and more places nowadays.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not that rare .
Many cellphones are going this route nowadays as well as the Mac OS X dashboard widgets and Mac OS X apps [ macosx.com ] .
Then of course , there are the gtk javascript bindings [ arstechnica.com ] .Javascript is finding itself in more and more places nowadays .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not that rare.
Many cellphones are going this route nowadays as well as the Mac OS X dashboard widgets and Mac OS X apps [macosx.com].
Then of course, there are the gtk javascript bindings [arstechnica.com].Javascript is finding itself in more and more places nowadays.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30002412</id>
	<title>Closure/Clojure/closures/Clozure</title>
	<author>uid8472</author>
	<datestamp>1257433080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Good grief. Homophone insanity. We've got Clojure [...] "closures" [...] And now Google jumps in with "Closure"</i> </p><p>It's worse than that; there's also <a href="http://www.clozure.com/index.html" title="clozure.com">Clozure Common Lisp</a> [clozure.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good grief .
Homophone insanity .
We 've got Clojure [ ... ] " closures " [ ... ] And now Google jumps in with " Closure " It 's worse than that ; there 's also Clozure Common Lisp [ clozure.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Good grief.
Homophone insanity.
We've got Clojure [...] "closures" [...] And now Google jumps in with "Closure" It's worse than that; there's also Clozure Common Lisp [clozure.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001758</id>
	<title>Re:My gawd</title>
	<author>Post-O-Matron</author>
	<datestamp>1257426480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let me guess: you're a non-web developer? A.K.A a "real" developer.</p><p>Well, in the current web world saying "why use Javascript??" is about a smart question as asking "Why use C??" or "Why use Java??" in the desktop world.</p><p>It may have 10,000 flaws in it, but that's the de-facto standard ATM.</p><p>Furthermore, unlike the desktop realm were you install your dependencies with an installer, in the web you have to wait 5 years for the crap old technologies to drain out after the new better one comes out.</p><p>None of us would use Javascript if we had a choice, but we don't. So toolkits like JQuery or this release by Google are life savers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me guess : you 're a non-web developer ?
A.K.A a " real " developer.Well , in the current web world saying " why use Javascript ? ?
" is about a smart question as asking " Why use C ? ?
" or " Why use Java ? ?
" in the desktop world.It may have 10,000 flaws in it , but that 's the de-facto standard ATM.Furthermore , unlike the desktop realm were you install your dependencies with an installer , in the web you have to wait 5 years for the crap old technologies to drain out after the new better one comes out.None of us would use Javascript if we had a choice , but we do n't .
So toolkits like JQuery or this release by Google are life savers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me guess: you're a non-web developer?
A.K.A a "real" developer.Well, in the current web world saying "why use Javascript??
" is about a smart question as asking "Why use C??
" or "Why use Java??
" in the desktop world.It may have 10,000 flaws in it, but that's the de-facto standard ATM.Furthermore, unlike the desktop realm were you install your dependencies with an installer, in the web you have to wait 5 years for the crap old technologies to drain out after the new better one comes out.None of us would use Javascript if we had a choice, but we don't.
So toolkits like JQuery or this release by Google are life savers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30002192</id>
	<title>Re:Closure/Clojure/closures</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257430740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I seriously have no idea what you're talking about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I seriously have no idea what you 're talking about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I seriously have no idea what you're talking about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30002780</id>
	<title>Re:My gawd</title>
	<author>jo42</author>
	<datestamp>1257437520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>de-facto standard ATM</p></div><p>Some saying about when the only tool you have is a hammer comes to mind here...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>de-facto standard ATMSome saying about when the only tool you have is a hammer comes to mind here.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>de-facto standard ATMSome saying about when the only tool you have is a hammer comes to mind here...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30002884</id>
	<title>wait...</title>
	<author>smash</author>
	<datestamp>1257439380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>... is google evil this week, or not?</htmltext>
<tokenext>... is google evil this week , or not ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... is google evil this week, or not?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30011442</id>
	<title>Re:It's also faster than Python</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257513300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Benchmarking programming languages?</p><p>How can we benchmark a programming language?<br>We can't - we benchmark programming language implementations.</p><p>How can we benchmark language implementations?<br>We can't - we measure particular programs.</p><p>http://shootout.alioth.debian.org</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Benchmarking programming languages ? How can we benchmark a programming language ? We ca n't - we benchmark programming language implementations.How can we benchmark language implementations ? We ca n't - we measure particular programs.http : //shootout.alioth.debian.org</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Benchmarking programming languages?How can we benchmark a programming language?We can't - we benchmark programming language implementations.How can we benchmark language implementations?We can't - we measure particular programs.http://shootout.alioth.debian.org</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30005242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30002560</id>
	<title>yo dawg</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257434520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I heard you like to script, so I <a href="http://code.google.com/closure/compiler/" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">compiled your JavaScript to JavaScript</a> [google.com], so you can script while you script.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I heard you like to script , so I compiled your JavaScript to JavaScript [ google.com ] , so you can script while you script .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I heard you like to script, so I compiled your JavaScript to JavaScript [google.com], so you can script while you script.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30003830</id>
	<title>Re:Nice...</title>
	<author>Akral</author>
	<datestamp>1257501060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a 500kb limit on the size of Javascript code.<br><a href="http://code.google.com/closure/compiler/docs/api-ref.html" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://code.google.com/closure/compiler/docs/api-ref.html</a> [google.com]</p><p>Wait, 860KB?! O\_O</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a 500kb limit on the size of Javascript code.http : //code.google.com/closure/compiler/docs/api-ref.html [ google.com ] Wait , 860KB ? !
O \ _O</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a 500kb limit on the size of Javascript code.http://code.google.com/closure/compiler/docs/api-ref.html [google.com]Wait, 860KB?!
O\_O</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30002240</id>
	<title>Re:My gawd</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257431400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>but that's the de-facto standard ATM.</p></div><p>JavaScript may be the de-facto standard <i>runtime</i> ATM, since that's what the browser vendors have implemented, but there's other options for the interface the developer deals with. There's a bunch of things that have a different developer interface and yet compile down to JavaScript. Heck, this library includes a compiler that compiles JavaScript down to JavaScript.</p><p>For example, Google's other JavaScript library project, GWT, allows you to do almost anything you can do in straight JavaScript using Java instead. You get all the advantages of programming in Java (mostly tooling) and yet your code runs in the browser and, IME, performs better too.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>None of us would use Javascript if we had a choice, but we don't.</p></div><p>You do, you either just don't know about your options or you don't like those languages as much as you like JavaScript.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but that 's the de-facto standard ATM.JavaScript may be the de-facto standard runtime ATM , since that 's what the browser vendors have implemented , but there 's other options for the interface the developer deals with .
There 's a bunch of things that have a different developer interface and yet compile down to JavaScript .
Heck , this library includes a compiler that compiles JavaScript down to JavaScript.For example , Google 's other JavaScript library project , GWT , allows you to do almost anything you can do in straight JavaScript using Java instead .
You get all the advantages of programming in Java ( mostly tooling ) and yet your code runs in the browser and , IME , performs better too.None of us would use Javascript if we had a choice , but we do n't.You do , you either just do n't know about your options or you do n't like those languages as much as you like JavaScript .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but that's the de-facto standard ATM.JavaScript may be the de-facto standard runtime ATM, since that's what the browser vendors have implemented, but there's other options for the interface the developer deals with.
There's a bunch of things that have a different developer interface and yet compile down to JavaScript.
Heck, this library includes a compiler that compiles JavaScript down to JavaScript.For example, Google's other JavaScript library project, GWT, allows you to do almost anything you can do in straight JavaScript using Java instead.
You get all the advantages of programming in Java (mostly tooling) and yet your code runs in the browser and, IME, performs better too.None of us would use Javascript if we had a choice, but we don't.You do, you either just don't know about your options or you don't like those languages as much as you like JavaScript.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001678</id>
	<title>invented by Norville Barnes:</title>
	<author>Joe Snipe</author>
	<datestamp>1257425760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Try Closure!  It's open!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Try Closure !
It 's open !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try Closure!
It's open!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001812</id>
	<title>"The" NX server?  I don't think so.</title>
	<author>Lemming Mark</author>
	<datestamp>1257426840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The announcement comes a few months after Google released and open sourced the NX server."</p><p>That's a bit confused... it may just be a typo but it's resulted in a misleading statement.  Google released *their* NX server as open source.  Previously the FreeNX project had independently created an open source NX server, using libraries provided by NoMachine (inventor of the NX protocol) who provide all of the clever compression stuff from their server as open source libraries.</p><p>The summary makes it sound like Google were solely responsible for the existence of an open source NX server, whereas actually I'd say they're "standing on the shoulders of giants (NoMachine), next to some other dude who was already up there (FreeNX)"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The announcement comes a few months after Google released and open sourced the NX server .
" That 's a bit confused... it may just be a typo but it 's resulted in a misleading statement .
Google released * their * NX server as open source .
Previously the FreeNX project had independently created an open source NX server , using libraries provided by NoMachine ( inventor of the NX protocol ) who provide all of the clever compression stuff from their server as open source libraries.The summary makes it sound like Google were solely responsible for the existence of an open source NX server , whereas actually I 'd say they 're " standing on the shoulders of giants ( NoMachine ) , next to some other dude who was already up there ( FreeNX ) "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The announcement comes a few months after Google released and open sourced the NX server.
"That's a bit confused... it may just be a typo but it's resulted in a misleading statement.
Google released *their* NX server as open source.
Previously the FreeNX project had independently created an open source NX server, using libraries provided by NoMachine (inventor of the NX protocol) who provide all of the clever compression stuff from their server as open source libraries.The summary makes it sound like Google were solely responsible for the existence of an open source NX server, whereas actually I'd say they're "standing on the shoulders of giants (NoMachine), next to some other dude who was already up there (FreeNX)"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30006806</id>
	<title>Re:Closure/Clojure/closures</title>
	<author>richlv</author>
	<datestamp>1257530460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and later they named the linux version <a href="http://chromium-bsu.sourceforge.net/" title="sourceforge.net">chromium</a> [sourceforge.net]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and later they named the linux version chromium [ sourceforge.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and later they named the linux version chromium [sourceforge.net]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30002334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30005346</id>
	<title>Re:Lego-like</title>
	<author>Dragonslicer</author>
	<datestamp>1257520860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They're divided into short files, so that you can use just the parts you want and not have to download one big file.</p></div><p>The last time I used a JavaScript library like this (Ext), I discovered that this actually makes your pages slower. The overhead of each request quickly passes the time it would take to download an extra 100-200 KB. Also remember that the file can be cached, so the client only has to download the file once. Some libraries actually encourage you to source the JavaScript files from their servers instead of your own, so that browsers can cache a single copy of the files and use the cached versions on every site that uses that library.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're divided into short files , so that you can use just the parts you want and not have to download one big file.The last time I used a JavaScript library like this ( Ext ) , I discovered that this actually makes your pages slower .
The overhead of each request quickly passes the time it would take to download an extra 100-200 KB .
Also remember that the file can be cached , so the client only has to download the file once .
Some libraries actually encourage you to source the JavaScript files from their servers instead of your own , so that browsers can cache a single copy of the files and use the cached versions on every site that uses that library .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're divided into short files, so that you can use just the parts you want and not have to download one big file.The last time I used a JavaScript library like this (Ext), I discovered that this actually makes your pages slower.
The overhead of each request quickly passes the time it would take to download an extra 100-200 KB.
Also remember that the file can be cached, so the client only has to download the file once.
Some libraries actually encourage you to source the JavaScript files from their servers instead of your own, so that browsers can cache a single copy of the files and use the cached versions on every site that uses that library.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30002194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30006638</id>
	<title>Re:Unimpressive</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257529440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, does anyone else see this as a competitive move at John Resig? I mean he drops their Group service and makes a post about why it sucks, then a week or so later they open source their library.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , does anyone else see this as a competitive move at John Resig ?
I mean he drops their Group service and makes a post about why it sucks , then a week or so later they open source their library .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, does anyone else see this as a competitive move at John Resig?
I mean he drops their Group service and makes a post about why it sucks, then a week or so later they open source their library.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30002860</id>
	<title>Re:My gawd</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257438960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>None of us would use JavaScript if we had a choice, but we don't. So toolkits like JQuery or this release by Google are life savers.</p></div><p>I would suggest grabbing a copy of JavaScript the good parts. Contrary to popular belief JavaScript is a very good language. It is Lisp in C clothing and was designed that way for a reason. C is the most widely understood syntax while Lisp semantics remain one of the most flexible languages to date. JavaScript is one of the few languages that is truly what you make it. It can be purely functional, It can be OO (Inheritance) or (Mix-In, Interface), you get to decide. You can write deep AI with it, yet a beginner can pick it up as a first language in a few days. And (This is a big one) It has true lambda forms. There are only a hand full of serious flaws to JavaScript the worst being that everything by default is declared in global scope, but even with that the language is so flexible that you can write your own name-spacing scope. JavaScript was chosen (written) as the default language for the web for a reason and it is a shame that the DOM has done so much damage to the reputation of such a well designed language.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>None of us would use JavaScript if we had a choice , but we do n't .
So toolkits like JQuery or this release by Google are life savers.I would suggest grabbing a copy of JavaScript the good parts .
Contrary to popular belief JavaScript is a very good language .
It is Lisp in C clothing and was designed that way for a reason .
C is the most widely understood syntax while Lisp semantics remain one of the most flexible languages to date .
JavaScript is one of the few languages that is truly what you make it .
It can be purely functional , It can be OO ( Inheritance ) or ( Mix-In , Interface ) , you get to decide .
You can write deep AI with it , yet a beginner can pick it up as a first language in a few days .
And ( This is a big one ) It has true lambda forms .
There are only a hand full of serious flaws to JavaScript the worst being that everything by default is declared in global scope , but even with that the language is so flexible that you can write your own name-spacing scope .
JavaScript was chosen ( written ) as the default language for the web for a reason and it is a shame that the DOM has done so much damage to the reputation of such a well designed language .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>None of us would use JavaScript if we had a choice, but we don't.
So toolkits like JQuery or this release by Google are life savers.I would suggest grabbing a copy of JavaScript the good parts.
Contrary to popular belief JavaScript is a very good language.
It is Lisp in C clothing and was designed that way for a reason.
C is the most widely understood syntax while Lisp semantics remain one of the most flexible languages to date.
JavaScript is one of the few languages that is truly what you make it.
It can be purely functional, It can be OO (Inheritance) or (Mix-In, Interface), you get to decide.
You can write deep AI with it, yet a beginner can pick it up as a first language in a few days.
And (This is a big one) It has true lambda forms.
There are only a hand full of serious flaws to JavaScript the worst being that everything by default is declared in global scope, but even with that the language is so flexible that you can write your own name-spacing scope.
JavaScript was chosen (written) as the default language for the web for a reason and it is a shame that the DOM has done so much damage to the reputation of such a well designed language.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30004968</id>
	<title>Everybody needs Closure</title>
	<author>clickety6</author>
	<datestamp>1257518160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>err.. that's it really.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>err.. that 's it really .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>err.. that's it really.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001858</id>
	<title>Re:Embracing and extending</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1257427320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It also kills off older hardware that was perfectly fine for rendering server side processing, but will choke with this move back to client side ( which personally, i think is the wrong direction, but that is a different discussion )</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It also kills off older hardware that was perfectly fine for rendering server side processing , but will choke with this move back to client side ( which personally , i think is the wrong direction , but that is a different discussion )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It also kills off older hardware that was perfectly fine for rendering server side processing, but will choke with this move back to client side ( which personally, i think is the wrong direction, but that is a different discussion )</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30005138</id>
	<title>Re:My gawd</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1257519420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're looking at it from the wrong perspective. Javascript isn't there to make your life easier. It's there to provide a mechanism for you to do something while minimizing the attack surface of the browser.</p><p>They could have included a full scripting language with the browser, but they chose not to for security and efficiency reasons. Javascript vulnerabilities don't show up half as much as Flash vulnerabilities, and it's because the language is intentionally simplistic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're looking at it from the wrong perspective .
Javascript is n't there to make your life easier .
It 's there to provide a mechanism for you to do something while minimizing the attack surface of the browser.They could have included a full scripting language with the browser , but they chose not to for security and efficiency reasons .
Javascript vulnerabilities do n't show up half as much as Flash vulnerabilities , and it 's because the language is intentionally simplistic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're looking at it from the wrong perspective.
Javascript isn't there to make your life easier.
It's there to provide a mechanism for you to do something while minimizing the attack surface of the browser.They could have included a full scripting language with the browser, but they chose not to for security and efficiency reasons.
Javascript vulnerabilities don't show up half as much as Flash vulnerabilities, and it's because the language is intentionally simplistic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30009994</id>
	<title>Re:Nice...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257503100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The advanced compression *requires* you to code in a particular style to use it (read the effing manual).</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Let me guess, Google: it's a beta.</p></div><p>You missed the comments saying this is used on their major properties? Or is your web app more popular than gmail?</p><p>I am sure that 90\% of *your* code is cruft given how quick you are to dismiss something of real value.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The advanced compression * requires * you to code in a particular style to use it ( read the effing manual ) .Let me guess , Google : it 's a beta.You missed the comments saying this is used on their major properties ?
Or is your web app more popular than gmail ? I am sure that 90 \ % of * your * code is cruft given how quick you are to dismiss something of real value .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The advanced compression *requires* you to code in a particular style to use it (read the effing manual).Let me guess, Google: it's a beta.You missed the comments saying this is used on their major properties?
Or is your web app more popular than gmail?I am sure that 90\% of *your* code is cruft given how quick you are to dismiss something of real value.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001998</id>
	<title>Re:Embracing and extending</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257428640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google's v8 is open sourced, so there's no reason for a browser not to have a decent (at least as decent's as google's) javascript engine now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google 's v8 is open sourced , so there 's no reason for a browser not to have a decent ( at least as decent 's as google 's ) javascript engine now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google's v8 is open sourced, so there's no reason for a browser not to have a decent (at least as decent's as google's) javascript engine now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30004500</id>
	<title>wrong way?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257512520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google did nothing wrong here.</p><p>But it's the web moving the wrong way?! How am I gonna explain closures to my mom?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google did nothing wrong here.But it 's the web moving the wrong way ? !
How am I gon na explain closures to my mom ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google did nothing wrong here.But it's the web moving the wrong way?!
How am I gonna explain closures to my mom?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001566</id>
	<title>My gawd</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257424740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why are people investing so much in a fundamentally flawed scripting language that has almost no use at all outside the browser and that Palm Pre thing that is basically a browser in a plastic case?
<br> <br>
yeah, do everything from inside a browser because every day 'users' seem unable to deal with anything that doesn't behave like a Web based interface. JavaScript is so inefficient and so many hacks are required to do anything useful we will probably see computers with JavaScript co-processors and Intel Core 3's with extra instructions to help cut through the cruft.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are people investing so much in a fundamentally flawed scripting language that has almost no use at all outside the browser and that Palm Pre thing that is basically a browser in a plastic case ?
yeah , do everything from inside a browser because every day 'users ' seem unable to deal with anything that does n't behave like a Web based interface .
JavaScript is so inefficient and so many hacks are required to do anything useful we will probably see computers with JavaScript co-processors and Intel Core 3 's with extra instructions to help cut through the cruft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are people investing so much in a fundamentally flawed scripting language that has almost no use at all outside the browser and that Palm Pre thing that is basically a browser in a plastic case?
yeah, do everything from inside a browser because every day 'users' seem unable to deal with anything that doesn't behave like a Web based interface.
JavaScript is so inefficient and so many hacks are required to do anything useful we will probably see computers with JavaScript co-processors and Intel Core 3's with extra instructions to help cut through the cruft.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001946</id>
	<title>Re:Embracing and extending</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257427980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Speaking of Slashdot, DAMN do they need to use this on here!</p><p>As well as fix the numerous bugs that appear on each of the sub-domains, all seem to have their own unique quirks like some circle icons that nobody knows what the hell they are and where they came from, or the threshold bar glitching out, page failing to load some of the columns and the threshold bar ends up appearing over the article...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Speaking of Slashdot , DAMN do they need to use this on here ! As well as fix the numerous bugs that appear on each of the sub-domains , all seem to have their own unique quirks like some circle icons that nobody knows what the hell they are and where they came from , or the threshold bar glitching out , page failing to load some of the columns and the threshold bar ends up appearing over the article.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Speaking of Slashdot, DAMN do they need to use this on here!As well as fix the numerous bugs that appear on each of the sub-domains, all seem to have their own unique quirks like some circle icons that nobody knows what the hell they are and where they came from, or the threshold bar glitching out, page failing to load some of the columns and the threshold bar ends up appearing over the article...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001824</id>
	<title>Apache v2.0</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257426960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seams silly to mention that it's open source without giving the license. Btw It's not copyleft, allows linking from other licenses and is GPLv3 compatible</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seams silly to mention that it 's open source without giving the license .
Btw It 's not copyleft , allows linking from other licenses and is GPLv3 compatible</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seams silly to mention that it's open source without giving the license.
Btw It's not copyleft, allows linking from other licenses and is GPLv3 compatible</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001764</id>
	<title>Re:Embracing and extending</title>
	<author>Rylz</author>
	<datestamp>1257426540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>look a bit like a push towards Chrome.</p></div><p>Funny, I've also heard this argument the other way around. A lot of people seem to think that Chrome is actually meant simply to push every browser developer to build faster JavaScript support and to catalyze other technologies that will allow Google to develop better web applications.

Maybe this release is also a push towards those goals.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>look a bit like a push towards Chrome.Funny , I 've also heard this argument the other way around .
A lot of people seem to think that Chrome is actually meant simply to push every browser developer to build faster JavaScript support and to catalyze other technologies that will allow Google to develop better web applications .
Maybe this release is also a push towards those goals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>look a bit like a push towards Chrome.Funny, I've also heard this argument the other way around.
A lot of people seem to think that Chrome is actually meant simply to push every browser developer to build faster JavaScript support and to catalyze other technologies that will allow Google to develop better web applications.
Maybe this release is also a push towards those goals.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30003254</id>
	<title>Re:What we really want</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1257447120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's called WPF. And you can use IronPython/IronRuby for the code parts (those that cannot be shoved into the declarative model in any way).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's called WPF .
And you can use IronPython/IronRuby for the code parts ( those that can not be shoved into the declarative model in any way ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's called WPF.
And you can use IronPython/IronRuby for the code parts (those that cannot be shoved into the declarative model in any way).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30002232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30003816</id>
	<title>Not touching it yet</title>
	<author>kikito</author>
	<datestamp>1257500700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Needs more doc</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Needs more doc</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Needs more doc</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001740</id>
	<title>Re:Nice...</title>
	<author>amicusNYCL</author>
	<datestamp>1257426300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These results are very impressive.  I fed it a 445KB Javascript file for one of my applications and it was able to reduce that to only 9KB of code!  Who knew that 90\% of that code was just cruft?  It even had the added bonus of randomly inserting subtraction operators in the middle of my identifier names and constants.</p><p>closable:f-alse<br>suc-cess:function(){window.location.reload(true)}</p><p>I also gave it the URL of a 860KB JS file which it claimed was "unavailable", despite being able to load the 445KB file in the same directory.</p><p>Let me guess, Google: it's a beta.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These results are very impressive .
I fed it a 445KB Javascript file for one of my applications and it was able to reduce that to only 9KB of code !
Who knew that 90 \ % of that code was just cruft ?
It even had the added bonus of randomly inserting subtraction operators in the middle of my identifier names and constants.closable : f-alsesuc-cess : function ( ) { window.location.reload ( true ) } I also gave it the URL of a 860KB JS file which it claimed was " unavailable " , despite being able to load the 445KB file in the same directory.Let me guess , Google : it 's a beta .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These results are very impressive.
I fed it a 445KB Javascript file for one of my applications and it was able to reduce that to only 9KB of code!
Who knew that 90\% of that code was just cruft?
It even had the added bonus of randomly inserting subtraction operators in the middle of my identifier names and constants.closable:f-alsesuc-cess:function(){window.location.reload(true)}I also gave it the URL of a 860KB JS file which it claimed was "unavailable", despite being able to load the 445KB file in the same directory.Let me guess, Google: it's a beta.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30004906</id>
	<title>Re:My gawd</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257517620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Actually JavaScript is a rather good language in many ways, though it does have some flaws. Give "<a href="http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596517748/" title="oreilly.com" rel="nofollow">JavaScript, the Good Parts</a> [oreilly.com]" a quick read some time.</p></div><p>That's like reading a book titled <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris\_Marina" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Morris Marina: The Best Parts</a> [wikipedia.org] only to discover that the best parts are:</p><ul> <li>Because it's so slow, you'll never get a speeding ticket.</li><li>It can be used to educate the next generation on how not to build cars.</li><li>Other cars won't be made to feel jealous.</li><li>If your car breaks, just grab the nearest drill and a bunch of rusted scrap metal. Your careless and forceful patchwork will be better than the original build quality.</li><li>Loose fitting parts all around the car will help ensure that car doors, hinges and other moving parts never rust closed for eternity.</li><li>Brakes and other safety devices overcomplicate the design of the car and make it heavier and harder to use.</li><li>Guaranteed to be the worst car in the world no matter which country you're in, what the current year is or what colour it is.</li><li>It's easy to rebuild and design a similar car because you don't have to worry about looking up standards, papers, textbooks, equations or any other time consuming paperwork.</li></ul></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually JavaScript is a rather good language in many ways , though it does have some flaws .
Give " JavaScript , the Good Parts [ oreilly.com ] " a quick read some time.That 's like reading a book titled Morris Marina : The Best Parts [ wikipedia.org ] only to discover that the best parts are : Because it 's so slow , you 'll never get a speeding ticket.It can be used to educate the next generation on how not to build cars.Other cars wo n't be made to feel jealous.If your car breaks , just grab the nearest drill and a bunch of rusted scrap metal .
Your careless and forceful patchwork will be better than the original build quality.Loose fitting parts all around the car will help ensure that car doors , hinges and other moving parts never rust closed for eternity.Brakes and other safety devices overcomplicate the design of the car and make it heavier and harder to use.Guaranteed to be the worst car in the world no matter which country you 're in , what the current year is or what colour it is.It 's easy to rebuild and design a similar car because you do n't have to worry about looking up standards , papers , textbooks , equations or any other time consuming paperwork .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually JavaScript is a rather good language in many ways, though it does have some flaws.
Give "JavaScript, the Good Parts [oreilly.com]" a quick read some time.That's like reading a book titled Morris Marina: The Best Parts [wikipedia.org] only to discover that the best parts are: Because it's so slow, you'll never get a speeding ticket.It can be used to educate the next generation on how not to build cars.Other cars won't be made to feel jealous.If your car breaks, just grab the nearest drill and a bunch of rusted scrap metal.
Your careless and forceful patchwork will be better than the original build quality.Loose fitting parts all around the car will help ensure that car doors, hinges and other moving parts never rust closed for eternity.Brakes and other safety devices overcomplicate the design of the car and make it heavier and harder to use.Guaranteed to be the worst car in the world no matter which country you're in, what the current year is or what colour it is.It's easy to rebuild and design a similar car because you don't have to worry about looking up standards, papers, textbooks, equations or any other time consuming paperwork.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001768</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2311241_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30002084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2311241_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2311241_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2311241_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30011442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30005242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30003112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2311241_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30006806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30002334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2311241_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30004906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2311241_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30002948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2311241_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2311241_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30006638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2311241_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30002392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2311241_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2311241_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30002860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2311241_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30002582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2311241_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30002412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2311241_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2311241_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30002780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2311241_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30003792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2311241_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30002192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2311241_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30004636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2311241_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2311241_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2311241_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30004592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2311241_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30003830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2311241_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30004458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30002194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2311241_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30009240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2311241_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30002736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30002172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2311241_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30005842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30002194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2311241_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30005346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30002194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2311241_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30003254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30002232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2311241_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30009994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2311241_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30011580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30005242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30003112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2311241_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30003068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2311241_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30002326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30002240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2311241_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2311241_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30005138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_05_2311241_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_2311241.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30002232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30003254
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_2311241.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001752
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_2311241.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30006638
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_2311241.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001784
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30004592
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_2311241.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30002334
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30006806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30002412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30002948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30002192
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_2311241.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001812
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_2311241.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001758
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30002860
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30002582
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30002084
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30003792
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30002240
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30002326
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30009240
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30002392
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30002780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30005138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30004636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001768
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30003112
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30005242
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30011580
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30011442
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30003068
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30004906
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_2311241.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001678
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_2311241.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001740
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30003830
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30009994
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_2311241.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30001824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30002172
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30002736
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_05_2311241.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30002194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30004458
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30005346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_05_2311241.30005842
</commentlist>
</conversation>
