<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_08_193209</id>
	<title>Tired of Flash? HTML5 Viewer For YouTube</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1257708720000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"Instead of spending the next 10 years trying to find a Flash implementation for Linux or OS X that doesn't drain CPU cycles like there's no tomorrow, NeoSmart Technologies has made <a href="http://neosmart.net/blog/2009/watch-youtube-videos-in-html5/">an HTML5 viewer for YouTube videos</a>. It loads YouTube videos in an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Html5">HTML5</a> video container and streams (with skip/skim/pause/resume) against an MP4 resource, and an (optional) userscript file can update YouTube pages with the HTML5 viewer. The latest versions of Firefox, Chrome, and Safari are supported. Personally, I can't wait until the major video sites default to HTML5 and we can finally say goodbye to Flash."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " Instead of spending the next 10 years trying to find a Flash implementation for Linux or OS X that does n't drain CPU cycles like there 's no tomorrow , NeoSmart Technologies has made an HTML5 viewer for YouTube videos .
It loads YouTube videos in an HTML5 video container and streams ( with skip/skim/pause/resume ) against an MP4 resource , and an ( optional ) userscript file can update YouTube pages with the HTML5 viewer .
The latest versions of Firefox , Chrome , and Safari are supported .
Personally , I ca n't wait until the major video sites default to HTML5 and we can finally say goodbye to Flash .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "Instead of spending the next 10 years trying to find a Flash implementation for Linux or OS X that doesn't drain CPU cycles like there's no tomorrow, NeoSmart Technologies has made an HTML5 viewer for YouTube videos.
It loads YouTube videos in an HTML5 video container and streams (with skip/skim/pause/resume) against an MP4 resource, and an (optional) userscript file can update YouTube pages with the HTML5 viewer.
The latest versions of Firefox, Chrome, and Safari are supported.
Personally, I can't wait until the major video sites default to HTML5 and we can finally say goodbye to Flash.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024424</id>
	<title>Hardware acceleration</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257713580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now will we be able to get hardware video acceleration through VDPAU, etc so that I can play it on my Zotac ION media center or low power laptop?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now will we be able to get hardware video acceleration through VDPAU , etc so that I can play it on my Zotac ION media center or low power laptop ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now will we be able to get hardware video acceleration through VDPAU, etc so that I can play it on my Zotac ION media center or low power laptop?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30026658</id>
	<title>Re: vs.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257685080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>By all means, someone explain to me why the &lt;Video&gt; tag is in any way better than the &lt;Embed&gt; tag that's existed for 1.4.5 years now, and why it's going to rescue the world from Flash, which took over because people decided they didn't want to use &lt;Embed&gt; anymore...</p><p>I'll just hold my breath...</p></div><p>Because the embed tag is nonstandard. The standard for that would be "Object". And if the usage examples are decent, the video tag is simpler.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>By all means , someone explain to me why the tag is in any way better than the tag that 's existed for 1.4.5 years now , and why it 's going to rescue the world from Flash , which took over because people decided they did n't want to use anymore...I 'll just hold my breath...Because the embed tag is nonstandard .
The standard for that would be " Object " .
And if the usage examples are decent , the video tag is simpler .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By all means, someone explain to me why the  tag is in any way better than the  tag that's existed for 1.4.5 years now, and why it's going to rescue the world from Flash, which took over because people decided they didn't want to use  anymore...I'll just hold my breath...Because the embed tag is nonstandard.
The standard for that would be "Object".
And if the usage examples are decent, the video tag is simpler.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025656</id>
	<title>Re:Here's a hint</title>
	<author>Gothmolly</author>
	<datestamp>1257678600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look at the "editor".  'nuff said.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look at the " editor " .
'nuff said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look at the "editor".
'nuff said.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30027834</id>
	<title>Laches</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1257693240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So they have to both pay for H.264 which is definitely patented and run the risk of being sued over hidden Theora patents, that's not a good sales pitch.</p></div><p>As opposed to the risk of being sued over hidden H.264 patents? Theora's decoder has been frozen since 2004; any remaining patent claims are likely estopped by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches\_(equity)" title="wikipedia.org">laches</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So they have to both pay for H.264 which is definitely patented and run the risk of being sued over hidden Theora patents , that 's not a good sales pitch.As opposed to the risk of being sued over hidden H.264 patents ?
Theora 's decoder has been frozen since 2004 ; any remaining patent claims are likely estopped by laches [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So they have to both pay for H.264 which is definitely patented and run the risk of being sued over hidden Theora patents, that's not a good sales pitch.As opposed to the risk of being sued over hidden H.264 patents?
Theora's decoder has been frozen since 2004; any remaining patent claims are likely estopped by laches [wikipedia.org].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024386</id>
	<title>So what about pr0n?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257713280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does this mean easier, faster, higher quality pr0n?</p><p>That's what really drives innovation!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this mean easier , faster , higher quality pr0n ? That 's what really drives innovation !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this mean easier, faster, higher quality pr0n?That's what really drives innovation!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025986</id>
	<title>I would love nothing more</title>
	<author>TxRv</author>
	<datestamp>1257681000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>than to see a free, open replacement for Flash (okay, that might be an exaggeration).

This isn't even close though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>than to see a free , open replacement for Flash ( okay , that might be an exaggeration ) .
This is n't even close though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>than to see a free, open replacement for Flash (okay, that might be an exaggeration).
This isn't even close though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025220</id>
	<title>I'll stick with Flash for my laptop...</title>
	<author>dFaust</author>
	<datestamp>1257675600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Instead of spending the next 10 years trying to find a Flash implementation for Linux or OS X that doesn't drain CPU cycles like there's no tomorrow</p></div><p>I just did a purely unscientific comparison of CPU usage comparing the native YouTube page and NeoSmart's HTML5 viewer. I tested a couple of different videos and did each one multiple times. I'm running Safari 4.0.3 and Flash 10.0.32.18 on OSX 10.4.11. I was consistently seeing 15-20\% more CPU usage with the HTML5 viewer than with YouTube's Flash viewer.

</p><p>Of course, when I downloaded the MP4 and played it in Quicktime it was much nicer to my CPU (but obviously not nearly as convenient).

</p><p>What's even more problematic for all of those who want to see Flash die in a fire - Flash Player 10.1 should see performance improvements for playing video if I'm not mistaken (as well as in a number of other areas in regards to performance and resource usage). Meaning the HTML5 implementations will have that much more catching up to do from a performance perspective. (This has nothing to do with other concerns regarding Flash, like openness, security, etc. but the summary specifically called out performance)

</p><p>You mileage certainly may vary (and please feel free to chime in with your results), but being that my laptop is my main machine - for my battery's sake, I'll stick with watching videos via Flash for now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead of spending the next 10 years trying to find a Flash implementation for Linux or OS X that does n't drain CPU cycles like there 's no tomorrowI just did a purely unscientific comparison of CPU usage comparing the native YouTube page and NeoSmart 's HTML5 viewer .
I tested a couple of different videos and did each one multiple times .
I 'm running Safari 4.0.3 and Flash 10.0.32.18 on OSX 10.4.11 .
I was consistently seeing 15-20 \ % more CPU usage with the HTML5 viewer than with YouTube 's Flash viewer .
Of course , when I downloaded the MP4 and played it in Quicktime it was much nicer to my CPU ( but obviously not nearly as convenient ) .
What 's even more problematic for all of those who want to see Flash die in a fire - Flash Player 10.1 should see performance improvements for playing video if I 'm not mistaken ( as well as in a number of other areas in regards to performance and resource usage ) .
Meaning the HTML5 implementations will have that much more catching up to do from a performance perspective .
( This has nothing to do with other concerns regarding Flash , like openness , security , etc .
but the summary specifically called out performance ) You mileage certainly may vary ( and please feel free to chime in with your results ) , but being that my laptop is my main machine - for my battery 's sake , I 'll stick with watching videos via Flash for now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead of spending the next 10 years trying to find a Flash implementation for Linux or OS X that doesn't drain CPU cycles like there's no tomorrowI just did a purely unscientific comparison of CPU usage comparing the native YouTube page and NeoSmart's HTML5 viewer.
I tested a couple of different videos and did each one multiple times.
I'm running Safari 4.0.3 and Flash 10.0.32.18 on OSX 10.4.11.
I was consistently seeing 15-20\% more CPU usage with the HTML5 viewer than with YouTube's Flash viewer.
Of course, when I downloaded the MP4 and played it in Quicktime it was much nicer to my CPU (but obviously not nearly as convenient).
What's even more problematic for all of those who want to see Flash die in a fire - Flash Player 10.1 should see performance improvements for playing video if I'm not mistaken (as well as in a number of other areas in regards to performance and resource usage).
Meaning the HTML5 implementations will have that much more catching up to do from a performance perspective.
(This has nothing to do with other concerns regarding Flash, like openness, security, etc.
but the summary specifically called out performance)

You mileage certainly may vary (and please feel free to chime in with your results), but being that my laptop is my main machine - for my battery's sake, I'll stick with watching videos via Flash for now.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024282</id>
	<title>Only video sites?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257712500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, when video sites change, we can say goodbye to flash, because nobody uses Flash for navigation, casual online games, interactive information displays, or google maps street view...we have a long ways until we can say goodbye to Flash</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , when video sites change , we can say goodbye to flash , because nobody uses Flash for navigation , casual online games , interactive information displays , or google maps street view...we have a long ways until we can say goodbye to Flash</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, when video sites change, we can say goodbye to flash, because nobody uses Flash for navigation, casual online games, interactive information displays, or google maps street view...we have a long ways until we can say goodbye to Flash</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024790</id>
	<title>Re:Here's a hint</title>
	<author>mcrbids</author>
	<datestamp>1257672600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally, I find comments like yours annoying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I find comments like yours annoying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I find comments like yours annoying.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30033856</id>
	<title>Very nice...</title>
	<author>DaVince21</author>
	<datestamp>1257786600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...but it doesn't work. Video doesn't play and the link to the MP4 version of any video is broken. Is this the Slashdot effect? The site itself does work, just not the video...</p><p>And yes, I have chromium-codecs-ffmpeg-nonfree installed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...but it does n't work .
Video does n't play and the link to the MP4 version of any video is broken .
Is this the Slashdot effect ?
The site itself does work , just not the video...And yes , I have chromium-codecs-ffmpeg-nonfree installed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...but it doesn't work.
Video doesn't play and the link to the MP4 version of any video is broken.
Is this the Slashdot effect?
The site itself does work, just not the video...And yes, I have chromium-codecs-ffmpeg-nonfree installed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024876</id>
	<title>Why is Flash so bad?</title>
	<author>nashv</author>
	<datestamp>1257673200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is it just me or does the Neosmart website have a terrible time pulling the videos from YouTube. The player interface seems to load but no video.

A lot of people seem to have problems with Flash. I really don't understand what the issues are, and would like to know.
I've been using Flash on Firefox/Windows for years and it has done its job so well that I've forgotten its there - which is exactly what I expect from something like Flash.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it just me or does the Neosmart website have a terrible time pulling the videos from YouTube .
The player interface seems to load but no video .
A lot of people seem to have problems with Flash .
I really do n't understand what the issues are , and would like to know .
I 've been using Flash on Firefox/Windows for years and it has done its job so well that I 've forgotten its there - which is exactly what I expect from something like Flash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it just me or does the Neosmart website have a terrible time pulling the videos from YouTube.
The player interface seems to load but no video.
A lot of people seem to have problems with Flash.
I really don't understand what the issues are, and would like to know.
I've been using Flash on Firefox/Windows for years and it has done its job so well that I've forgotten its there - which is exactly what I expect from something like Flash.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30048286</id>
	<title>Re:I'm waiting for "HTML5VideoBlock"</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1257878640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Block the &lt;video&gt; element using AdBlock Plus.</p><p>Don't take my word for it... <a href="http://www.double.co.nz/video\_test/video.svg" title="double.co.nz">try it</a> [double.co.nz]. Once the page loads, add a #video element hiding rule and apply.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Block the element using AdBlock Plus.Do n't take my word for it... try it [ double.co.nz ] .
Once the page loads , add a # video element hiding rule and apply .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Block the  element using AdBlock Plus.Don't take my word for it... try it [double.co.nz].
Once the page loads, add a #video element hiding rule and apply.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025716</id>
	<title>Bookmarklet Goodness!</title>
	<author>pinchies</author>
	<datestamp>1257679200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here's a bookmarklet<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)
javascript:void(location.href=\%22http://neosmart.net/YouTube5/index.php?url=\%22+location.href)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a bookmarklet : - ) javascript : void ( location.href = \ % 22http : //neosmart.net/YouTube5/index.php ? url = \ % 22 + location.href )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a bookmarklet :-)
javascript:void(location.href=\%22http://neosmart.net/YouTube5/index.php?url=\%22+location.href)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30030680</id>
	<title>Re: vs.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257766320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well for starters  lets you fall back to Flash if no other codec is available.  So you stand at least some chance of decent performance where supported and where not you loose nothing (assuming you were encoding in h.265 anyway as Google/YouTube now does.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well for starters lets you fall back to Flash if no other codec is available .
So you stand at least some chance of decent performance where supported and where not you loose nothing ( assuming you were encoding in h.265 anyway as Google/YouTube now does .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well for starters  lets you fall back to Flash if no other codec is available.
So you stand at least some chance of decent performance where supported and where not you loose nothing (assuming you were encoding in h.265 anyway as Google/YouTube now does.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024534</id>
	<title>Re:I'm waiting for "HTML5VideoBlock"</title>
	<author>chonglibloodsport</author>
	<datestamp>1257671100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just use a style sheet. In HTML5 the video tag is no different from any other tag.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just use a style sheet .
In HTML5 the video tag is no different from any other tag .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just use a style sheet.
In HTML5 the video tag is no different from any other tag.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025374</id>
	<title>It works?</title>
	<author>MyFirstNameIsPaul</author>
	<datestamp>1257676740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't get it to work at all on my Vista Business laptop if FF or IE. Not even the Google Labs version works.  I'm more looking forward to the next version of Flash that I think is supposed to offload to GPU.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't get it to work at all on my Vista Business laptop if FF or IE .
Not even the Google Labs version works .
I 'm more looking forward to the next version of Flash that I think is supposed to offload to GPU .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't get it to work at all on my Vista Business laptop if FF or IE.
Not even the Google Labs version works.
I'm more looking forward to the next version of Flash that I think is supposed to offload to GPU.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30030994</id>
	<title>Re:Here's a hint</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1257770880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is it OK if I start them with "Honestly" instead?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it OK if I start them with " Honestly " instead ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it OK if I start them with "Honestly" instead?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024924</id>
	<title>Re:I'm waiting for "HTML5VideoBlock"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257673440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>IE?</htmltext>
<tokenext>IE ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IE?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30043882</id>
	<title>Can't wait to be able to say good riddance.</title>
	<author>Criton</author>
	<datestamp>1257854520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yah I'm sick of flash it seems Adobe's flash dev team only get worse at writing stable and efficient code over time.
The OSX flash plugin for both X86 and PPC is crap and the linux version a crashing boar.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yah I 'm sick of flash it seems Adobe 's flash dev team only get worse at writing stable and efficient code over time .
The OSX flash plugin for both X86 and PPC is crap and the linux version a crashing boar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yah I'm sick of flash it seems Adobe's flash dev team only get worse at writing stable and efficient code over time.
The OSX flash plugin for both X86 and PPC is crap and the linux version a crashing boar.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30026222</id>
	<title>This is a poor solution</title>
	<author>CSMatt</author>
	<datestamp>1257682500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The way to view the video is to use an external site (NeoSmart's site to be precise) to find the MP4 on Google's servers and display it using the video tag.  All the script does is add a link to the YouTube page that redirects you to NeoSmart's viewer.</p><p>A far better solution would be something like <a href="http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/50771" title="userscripts.org">YouTube Without Flash Auto</a> [userscripts.org] or <a href="http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/38074" title="userscripts.org">YouTube Perfect</a> [userscripts.org], both of which (among other features) locate the MP4 client-side and present the video right in the YouTube page using whatever plugin you assigned to play MP4 files.  If this can be pulled off without involving any external sites, I see no reason that a conversion to HTML5 video tags can't be done the same way.</p><p>Disclaimer: using those scripts to view YouTube outside of the Flash player violates the ToS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The way to view the video is to use an external site ( NeoSmart 's site to be precise ) to find the MP4 on Google 's servers and display it using the video tag .
All the script does is add a link to the YouTube page that redirects you to NeoSmart 's viewer.A far better solution would be something like YouTube Without Flash Auto [ userscripts.org ] or YouTube Perfect [ userscripts.org ] , both of which ( among other features ) locate the MP4 client-side and present the video right in the YouTube page using whatever plugin you assigned to play MP4 files .
If this can be pulled off without involving any external sites , I see no reason that a conversion to HTML5 video tags ca n't be done the same way.Disclaimer : using those scripts to view YouTube outside of the Flash player violates the ToS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The way to view the video is to use an external site (NeoSmart's site to be precise) to find the MP4 on Google's servers and display it using the video tag.
All the script does is add a link to the YouTube page that redirects you to NeoSmart's viewer.A far better solution would be something like YouTube Without Flash Auto [userscripts.org] or YouTube Perfect [userscripts.org], both of which (among other features) locate the MP4 client-side and present the video right in the YouTube page using whatever plugin you assigned to play MP4 files.
If this can be pulled off without involving any external sites, I see no reason that a conversion to HTML5 video tags can't be done the same way.Disclaimer: using those scripts to view YouTube outside of the Flash player violates the ToS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025280</id>
	<title>Re:A clever solution to a stupid problem</title>
	<author>petrus4</author>
	<datestamp>1257676080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why do we want to watch videos inside a web page? This is something I've never understood, and the first time I saw YouTube it looked like an extremely dumb idea.</p></div><p>Because it's convenient.  The world is a lot worse off in a lot of different ways, because of the craving for convenience.</p><p>If people didn't crave the convenience of GUIs, and operating systems could be CLI only, they'd be vastly more stable and secure than they are.  Why do you think Ubuntu is such a mess?</p><p>If people didn't crave the convenience of McDonald's, they'd probably be a lot healthier.  There'd also be far less environmental damage, due to land needing to be cleared for raising cattle.</p><p>If people didn't crave the convenience of mobile phones, we'd still have a lot more privacy.  We'd also be without one more source of cancer, not to mention one more reason for landfills and oceans to continue filling up with plastic junk that nobody will depolymerise or recycle, because the lack of profit doesn't justify the inconvenience.</p><p>If people didn't crave the convenience of cars, and their additional speed, we could have a scenario where electrical forms of transportation were a lot more prevalent, which could be a lot less polluting.</p><p>If people didn't crave the convenience of the Web, and no-brainer user interfaces, we could still have things like the old private DCC networks, which used the IRC nets as purely a jumping off point.  Those nets were lagless, completely private, and untraceable.  People could host whatever type of content within them that they wanted; warez and anything else, and not get caught.</p><p>If people didn't crave the convenience of the Web being a single interface to *everything,* we could have files of all kinds (including videos which we now use YouTube for) travelling via bit torrent, or the abovementioned dcc chat nets.  Because everything would be constantly distributed and decentralised, scenarios like the end of GeoCities would not result in massive data loss when static web hosting was shut down, as long as the system still had the rest of the network; so piracy would also be completely unstoppable.  People don't do that, however, because setting up bit torrent daemons or said dcc nets is more complicated, and a lot less...you guessed it...<b>convenient.</b></p><p>The world would be an unimaginably better place, if it wasn't for the craving for convenience.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do we want to watch videos inside a web page ?
This is something I 've never understood , and the first time I saw YouTube it looked like an extremely dumb idea.Because it 's convenient .
The world is a lot worse off in a lot of different ways , because of the craving for convenience.If people did n't crave the convenience of GUIs , and operating systems could be CLI only , they 'd be vastly more stable and secure than they are .
Why do you think Ubuntu is such a mess ? If people did n't crave the convenience of McDonald 's , they 'd probably be a lot healthier .
There 'd also be far less environmental damage , due to land needing to be cleared for raising cattle.If people did n't crave the convenience of mobile phones , we 'd still have a lot more privacy .
We 'd also be without one more source of cancer , not to mention one more reason for landfills and oceans to continue filling up with plastic junk that nobody will depolymerise or recycle , because the lack of profit does n't justify the inconvenience.If people did n't crave the convenience of cars , and their additional speed , we could have a scenario where electrical forms of transportation were a lot more prevalent , which could be a lot less polluting.If people did n't crave the convenience of the Web , and no-brainer user interfaces , we could still have things like the old private DCC networks , which used the IRC nets as purely a jumping off point .
Those nets were lagless , completely private , and untraceable .
People could host whatever type of content within them that they wanted ; warez and anything else , and not get caught.If people did n't crave the convenience of the Web being a single interface to * everything , * we could have files of all kinds ( including videos which we now use YouTube for ) travelling via bit torrent , or the abovementioned dcc chat nets .
Because everything would be constantly distributed and decentralised , scenarios like the end of GeoCities would not result in massive data loss when static web hosting was shut down , as long as the system still had the rest of the network ; so piracy would also be completely unstoppable .
People do n't do that , however , because setting up bit torrent daemons or said dcc nets is more complicated , and a lot less...you guessed it...convenient.The world would be an unimaginably better place , if it was n't for the craving for convenience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do we want to watch videos inside a web page?
This is something I've never understood, and the first time I saw YouTube it looked like an extremely dumb idea.Because it's convenient.
The world is a lot worse off in a lot of different ways, because of the craving for convenience.If people didn't crave the convenience of GUIs, and operating systems could be CLI only, they'd be vastly more stable and secure than they are.
Why do you think Ubuntu is such a mess?If people didn't crave the convenience of McDonald's, they'd probably be a lot healthier.
There'd also be far less environmental damage, due to land needing to be cleared for raising cattle.If people didn't crave the convenience of mobile phones, we'd still have a lot more privacy.
We'd also be without one more source of cancer, not to mention one more reason for landfills and oceans to continue filling up with plastic junk that nobody will depolymerise or recycle, because the lack of profit doesn't justify the inconvenience.If people didn't crave the convenience of cars, and their additional speed, we could have a scenario where electrical forms of transportation were a lot more prevalent, which could be a lot less polluting.If people didn't crave the convenience of the Web, and no-brainer user interfaces, we could still have things like the old private DCC networks, which used the IRC nets as purely a jumping off point.
Those nets were lagless, completely private, and untraceable.
People could host whatever type of content within them that they wanted; warez and anything else, and not get caught.If people didn't crave the convenience of the Web being a single interface to *everything,* we could have files of all kinds (including videos which we now use YouTube for) travelling via bit torrent, or the abovementioned dcc chat nets.
Because everything would be constantly distributed and decentralised, scenarios like the end of GeoCities would not result in massive data loss when static web hosting was shut down, as long as the system still had the rest of the network; so piracy would also be completely unstoppable.
People don't do that, however, because setting up bit torrent daemons or said dcc nets is more complicated, and a lot less...you guessed it...convenient.The world would be an unimaginably better place, if it wasn't for the craving for convenience.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30026610</id>
	<title>Re:Say goodbye to Flash?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257684840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There will always be bad implementations.  Take for example; buggy codecs (Windows has some fond memories there) or entirely nonexistent codecs (*nix, in all its variety, as well as less-common platforms).</p><p>FLV is a -container- format, much as Matroska or AVI.  The codecs it calls, on the other hand, are an entirely different bundle of joy.</p><p>VLC having a buggy implementation is quite likely attributed to the codec used in creating the file contents themselves (an entirely too common thing way back when).</p><p>OTOH, perhaps the day of movies on cheap cell phones isn't that far off with HTML5.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There will always be bad implementations .
Take for example ; buggy codecs ( Windows has some fond memories there ) or entirely nonexistent codecs ( * nix , in all its variety , as well as less-common platforms ) .FLV is a -container- format , much as Matroska or AVI .
The codecs it calls , on the other hand , are an entirely different bundle of joy.VLC having a buggy implementation is quite likely attributed to the codec used in creating the file contents themselves ( an entirely too common thing way back when ) .OTOH , perhaps the day of movies on cheap cell phones is n't that far off with HTML5 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There will always be bad implementations.
Take for example; buggy codecs (Windows has some fond memories there) or entirely nonexistent codecs (*nix, in all its variety, as well as less-common platforms).FLV is a -container- format, much as Matroska or AVI.
The codecs it calls, on the other hand, are an entirely different bundle of joy.VLC having a buggy implementation is quite likely attributed to the codec used in creating the file contents themselves (an entirely too common thing way back when).OTOH, perhaps the day of movies on cheap cell phones isn't that far off with HTML5.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30038186</id>
	<title>Down for good?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257761160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems Google doesn't like it when a third party site modifies its content without approval. By the current error message it seems YouTube returns a '402 Payment Required' status message rather than the requested page.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems Google does n't like it when a third party site modifies its content without approval .
By the current error message it seems YouTube returns a '402 Payment Required ' status message rather than the requested page .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems Google doesn't like it when a third party site modifies its content without approval.
By the current error message it seems YouTube returns a '402 Payment Required' status message rather than the requested page.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025256</id>
	<title>Re:A clever solution to a stupid problem</title>
	<author>Dachannien</author>
	<datestamp>1257675960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Same here.  I use Unplug (Firefox plugin) to download the video, and then I use VLC to watch it.</p><p>Unplug doesn't work with some of the less popular video sites, but it does work with YouTube.  If somebody thinks they're being clever by letting someone other than YouTube host their video, then I probably didn't want to watch it anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Same here .
I use Unplug ( Firefox plugin ) to download the video , and then I use VLC to watch it.Unplug does n't work with some of the less popular video sites , but it does work with YouTube .
If somebody thinks they 're being clever by letting someone other than YouTube host their video , then I probably did n't want to watch it anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same here.
I use Unplug (Firefox plugin) to download the video, and then I use VLC to watch it.Unplug doesn't work with some of the less popular video sites, but it does work with YouTube.
If somebody thinks they're being clever by letting someone other than YouTube host their video, then I probably didn't want to watch it anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024306</id>
	<title>I'm waiting for "HTML5VideoBlock"</title>
	<author>asdf7890</author>
	<datestamp>1257712740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm waiting for "HTML5VideoBlock" to go along with FlashBlock, because it won't take long for irritating adverts to start using the option. To be honest, I'm surprised it hasn't started already...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm waiting for " HTML5VideoBlock " to go along with FlashBlock , because it wo n't take long for irritating adverts to start using the option .
To be honest , I 'm surprised it has n't started already.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm waiting for "HTML5VideoBlock" to go along with FlashBlock, because it won't take long for irritating adverts to start using the option.
To be honest, I'm surprised it hasn't started already...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025442</id>
	<title>Adobe should be open / life sucks for X</title>
	<author>Derpnooner</author>
	<datestamp>1257677280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Flash runs for sh*t on linux and OSX because Adobe's code is NOT accelerated for anything other than Windows DirectX APIs.  Flash uses OpenGL libs and doesn't provide full screen acceleration with desktop compositing software.  ie:  If I run flash video under linux, and have compiz or beryl enabled, flash vids are terrible in full-screen, but after disabling compiz/beryl, full-screen works much better, though, it still isn't perfect.

(deadbeefcafe) hooked me up with the following info:  Problem is Firefox, has been fixed in latest builds (not yet officially released). It's fixed in 3.5.3 apparently, there's a patch you can apply to the source on the bugzilla somewhere. There's a workaround in the meantime, if you want to wait for the fix to make it to the stable releases, you need to set the environment variable LD\_PRELOAD to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/lib/libGL.so.1

There's a few ways to do this, I put "export LD\_PRELOAD=/usr/lib/libGL.so.1" into my<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.bashrc as a quick hack; prior to that (because I couldn't be bothered restarting X) I modified the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.desktop file so that it ran "env LD\_PRELOAD=/usr/libGL.so.1 firefox \%s" instead of "firefox \%s".

The reason you're getting slowness is because you've disabled hardware acceleration as part of your troubleshooting.


I followed this bit of info, and BAM! my flash videos work well in full screen.
I don't have a solution for OSX, but this may help Linux'ers. lol</htmltext>
<tokenext>Flash runs for sh * t on linux and OSX because Adobe 's code is NOT accelerated for anything other than Windows DirectX APIs .
Flash uses OpenGL libs and does n't provide full screen acceleration with desktop compositing software .
ie : If I run flash video under linux , and have compiz or beryl enabled , flash vids are terrible in full-screen , but after disabling compiz/beryl , full-screen works much better , though , it still is n't perfect .
( deadbeefcafe ) hooked me up with the following info : Problem is Firefox , has been fixed in latest builds ( not yet officially released ) .
It 's fixed in 3.5.3 apparently , there 's a patch you can apply to the source on the bugzilla somewhere .
There 's a workaround in the meantime , if you want to wait for the fix to make it to the stable releases , you need to set the environment variable LD \ _PRELOAD to /usr/lib/libGL.so.1 There 's a few ways to do this , I put " export LD \ _PRELOAD = /usr/lib/libGL.so.1 " into my .bashrc as a quick hack ; prior to that ( because I could n't be bothered restarting X ) I modified the .desktop file so that it ran " env LD \ _PRELOAD = /usr/libGL.so.1 firefox \ % s " instead of " firefox \ % s " .
The reason you 're getting slowness is because you 've disabled hardware acceleration as part of your troubleshooting .
I followed this bit of info , and BAM !
my flash videos work well in full screen .
I do n't have a solution for OSX , but this may help Linux'ers .
lol</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flash runs for sh*t on linux and OSX because Adobe's code is NOT accelerated for anything other than Windows DirectX APIs.
Flash uses OpenGL libs and doesn't provide full screen acceleration with desktop compositing software.
ie:  If I run flash video under linux, and have compiz or beryl enabled, flash vids are terrible in full-screen, but after disabling compiz/beryl, full-screen works much better, though, it still isn't perfect.
(deadbeefcafe) hooked me up with the following info:  Problem is Firefox, has been fixed in latest builds (not yet officially released).
It's fixed in 3.5.3 apparently, there's a patch you can apply to the source on the bugzilla somewhere.
There's a workaround in the meantime, if you want to wait for the fix to make it to the stable releases, you need to set the environment variable LD\_PRELOAD to /usr/lib/libGL.so.1

There's a few ways to do this, I put "export LD\_PRELOAD=/usr/lib/libGL.so.1" into my .bashrc as a quick hack; prior to that (because I couldn't be bothered restarting X) I modified the .desktop file so that it ran "env LD\_PRELOAD=/usr/libGL.so.1 firefox \%s" instead of "firefox \%s".
The reason you're getting slowness is because you've disabled hardware acceleration as part of your troubleshooting.
I followed this bit of info, and BAM!
my flash videos work well in full screen.
I don't have a solution for OSX, but this may help Linux'ers.
lol</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024478</id>
	<title>Re:Only video sites?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257713940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What we need is a tool to convert SWF into HTML. Now we have SVG and a much faster JavaScript in all the good browsers, I think HTML is now as fully capable as Flash. All we need is a tool to convert them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What we need is a tool to convert SWF into HTML .
Now we have SVG and a much faster JavaScript in all the good browsers , I think HTML is now as fully capable as Flash .
All we need is a tool to convert them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What we need is a tool to convert SWF into HTML.
Now we have SVG and a much faster JavaScript in all the good browsers, I think HTML is now as fully capable as Flash.
All we need is a tool to convert them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30035322</id>
	<title>Re: vs.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257792240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because it was supposed to include a universally-supported set of baseline codecs. Which Nokia sh[uoa]t down,  and IE never planned on supporting it anyway, so yeah.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because it was supposed to include a universally-supported set of baseline codecs .
Which Nokia sh [ uoa ] t down , and IE never planned on supporting it anyway , so yeah .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because it was supposed to include a universally-supported set of baseline codecs.
Which Nokia sh[uoa]t down,  and IE never planned on supporting it anyway, so yeah.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30027642</id>
	<title>Re:Say goodbye to Flash?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257691740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On Mac OS X, Quicktime is far superior to Flash.</p><p>Flash uses all the CPU time available (causing overheating and short battery life on a Macbook). It only reliably starts 70\% of the time (some Flash-based video players simply do not work on Mac OS X). It has a tendancy to crash when you enter a page containing a Flash animation, leave a page containing a Flash animation, or switch between videos. Seeking doesn't work most of the time - it only works at all in Youtube's player, but doesn't work in anyone else's. Full screen video is a slideshow.</p><p>And this is on an Intel Mac. I'm led to believe that it's even worse on a PPC Mac. It's certainly worse on Linux.</p><p>The system video plugins have none of these problems. Nor does the HTML5 video tag in Safari.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On Mac OS X , Quicktime is far superior to Flash.Flash uses all the CPU time available ( causing overheating and short battery life on a Macbook ) .
It only reliably starts 70 \ % of the time ( some Flash-based video players simply do not work on Mac OS X ) .
It has a tendancy to crash when you enter a page containing a Flash animation , leave a page containing a Flash animation , or switch between videos .
Seeking does n't work most of the time - it only works at all in Youtube 's player , but does n't work in anyone else 's .
Full screen video is a slideshow.And this is on an Intel Mac .
I 'm led to believe that it 's even worse on a PPC Mac .
It 's certainly worse on Linux.The system video plugins have none of these problems .
Nor does the HTML5 video tag in Safari .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On Mac OS X, Quicktime is far superior to Flash.Flash uses all the CPU time available (causing overheating and short battery life on a Macbook).
It only reliably starts 70\% of the time (some Flash-based video players simply do not work on Mac OS X).
It has a tendancy to crash when you enter a page containing a Flash animation, leave a page containing a Flash animation, or switch between videos.
Seeking doesn't work most of the time - it only works at all in Youtube's player, but doesn't work in anyone else's.
Full screen video is a slideshow.And this is on an Intel Mac.
I'm led to believe that it's even worse on a PPC Mac.
It's certainly worse on Linux.The system video plugins have none of these problems.
Nor does the HTML5 video tag in Safari.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30027424</id>
	<title>This WILL NOT get rid of flash</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257690120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're kidding yourself to think replacing video players with html 5 is going to kill flash. All it may do is kill flash for streaming video. It doesn't stop the high end media and graphical usage. Canvas is not sophisticated enough to do high end media stuff that can be done with flash or silverlight.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're kidding yourself to think replacing video players with html 5 is going to kill flash .
All it may do is kill flash for streaming video .
It does n't stop the high end media and graphical usage .
Canvas is not sophisticated enough to do high end media stuff that can be done with flash or silverlight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're kidding yourself to think replacing video players with html 5 is going to kill flash.
All it may do is kill flash for streaming video.
It doesn't stop the high end media and graphical usage.
Canvas is not sophisticated enough to do high end media stuff that can be done with flash or silverlight.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024444</id>
	<title>Say goodbye to Flash?</title>
	<author>anomnomnomymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257713700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As some of the above posters mentioned: There is still a lot of Flash use on stuff besides videos on the Net.<br> <br>
Also, I think that Adobe is definitely going to give Google a call one of these days (if they haven't already), and offer something to keep the default to Flash for some time being: I would not believe that they will let this one slide so easily.<br> <br>
Other than that, I can't really understand the hate for Flash(players), besides maybe OS incompatibilities.<br>
I'm on WinXP myself, so I would not know anything about that, but for me Flashplayers are one of the better alternatives around for playing video content on the web: Quicktime, Realplayer and Windows Media plugins all suck monkeyballs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As some of the above posters mentioned : There is still a lot of Flash use on stuff besides videos on the Net .
Also , I think that Adobe is definitely going to give Google a call one of these days ( if they have n't already ) , and offer something to keep the default to Flash for some time being : I would not believe that they will let this one slide so easily .
Other than that , I ca n't really understand the hate for Flash ( players ) , besides maybe OS incompatibilities .
I 'm on WinXP myself , so I would not know anything about that , but for me Flashplayers are one of the better alternatives around for playing video content on the web : Quicktime , Realplayer and Windows Media plugins all suck monkeyballs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As some of the above posters mentioned: There is still a lot of Flash use on stuff besides videos on the Net.
Also, I think that Adobe is definitely going to give Google a call one of these days (if they haven't already), and offer something to keep the default to Flash for some time being: I would not believe that they will let this one slide so easily.
Other than that, I can't really understand the hate for Flash(players), besides maybe OS incompatibilities.
I'm on WinXP myself, so I would not know anything about that, but for me Flashplayers are one of the better alternatives around for playing video content on the web: Quicktime, Realplayer and Windows Media plugins all suck monkeyballs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025316</id>
	<title>&lt;Video&gt; vs. &lt;Embed&gt;</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1257676380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By all means, someone explain to me why the &lt;Video&gt; tag is in any way better than the &lt;Embed&gt; tag that's existed for 1.4.5 years now, and why it's going to rescue the world from Flash, which took over because people decided they didn't want to use &lt;Embed&gt; anymore...</p><p>I'll just hold my breath...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By all means , someone explain to me why the tag is in any way better than the tag that 's existed for 1.4.5 years now , and why it 's going to rescue the world from Flash , which took over because people decided they did n't want to use anymore...I 'll just hold my breath.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By all means, someone explain to me why the  tag is in any way better than the  tag that's existed for 1.4.5 years now, and why it's going to rescue the world from Flash, which took over because people decided they didn't want to use  anymore...I'll just hold my breath...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30027862</id>
	<title>Video is video. Embed is a blob</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257693540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Video is video. Embed is a blob. A blob that could be whatever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Video is video .
Embed is a blob .
A blob that could be whatever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Video is video.
Embed is a blob.
A blob that could be whatever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30026644</id>
	<title>Re: vs.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257685020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because as things are now you need 1 particular binary blob from 1 particular company to have a full feature internet experience.<br>It's buggy, it's crashy and if there is an exploit everyone is vulnerable.<br>You can chose not to run Windows, you can chose not to use IE but you can not chose not to to have Flash. How is is this not a bad thing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because as things are now you need 1 particular binary blob from 1 particular company to have a full feature internet experience.It 's buggy , it 's crashy and if there is an exploit everyone is vulnerable.You can chose not to run Windows , you can chose not to use IE but you can not chose not to to have Flash .
How is is this not a bad thing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because as things are now you need 1 particular binary blob from 1 particular company to have a full feature internet experience.It's buggy, it's crashy and if there is an exploit everyone is vulnerable.You can chose not to run Windows, you can chose not to use IE but you can not chose not to to have Flash.
How is is this not a bad thing?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30026434</id>
	<title>Sell your shares of Adobe</title>
	<author>cm613</author>
	<datestamp>1257683820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>With video specs in HTML5 and banishment from iPhone, Adobe is fighting an uphill battle to stay in the mix.</htmltext>
<tokenext>With video specs in HTML5 and banishment from iPhone , Adobe is fighting an uphill battle to stay in the mix .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With video specs in HTML5 and banishment from iPhone, Adobe is fighting an uphill battle to stay in the mix.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30026794</id>
	<title>OpenBSD</title>
	<author>CrAlt</author>
	<datestamp>1257686040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Could this mean someday I might be able to watch youtube on my OpenBSD system? IIRC there is no native FLASH support on any *BSD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could this mean someday I might be able to watch youtube on my OpenBSD system ?
IIRC there is no native FLASH support on any * BSD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could this mean someday I might be able to watch youtube on my OpenBSD system?
IIRC there is no native FLASH support on any *BSD.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30027442</id>
	<title>IE and how to work around it</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1257690240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>dynamic, animated HTML looks amazing in the latest versions of webkit.</p></div><p>And even if you anticipate a lot of traffic from users of Internet Explorer, which has tended to lag severely in its implementation of web technologies, you can always have your users open the site in a <a href="http://code.google.com/chrome/chromeframe/" title="google.com">Chrome Frame</a> [google.com].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>dynamic , animated HTML looks amazing in the latest versions of webkit.And even if you anticipate a lot of traffic from users of Internet Explorer , which has tended to lag severely in its implementation of web technologies , you can always have your users open the site in a Chrome Frame [ google.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>dynamic, animated HTML looks amazing in the latest versions of webkit.And even if you anticipate a lot of traffic from users of Internet Explorer, which has tended to lag severely in its implementation of web technologies, you can always have your users open the site in a Chrome Frame [google.com].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025680</id>
	<title>Almost Where We Should Have Been</title>
	<author>RAMMS+EIN</author>
	<datestamp>1257678840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>``I can't wait until the major video sites default to HTML5 and we can finally say goodbye to Flash.''</p><p>and then we will finally be where we could have been, had people just used HTML4's <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/objects.html#h-13.3" title="w3.org">object</a> [w3.org] element.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>` ` I ca n't wait until the major video sites default to HTML5 and we can finally say goodbye to Flash .
''and then we will finally be where we could have been , had people just used HTML4 's object [ w3.org ] element .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>``I can't wait until the major video sites default to HTML5 and we can finally say goodbye to Flash.
''and then we will finally be where we could have been, had people just used HTML4's object [w3.org] element.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024376</id>
	<title>Re:Only video sites?</title>
	<author>1s44c</author>
	<datestamp>1257713220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yes, when video sites change, we can say goodbye to flash, because nobody uses Flash for navigation, casual online games, interactive information displays, or google maps street view...we have a long ways until we can say goodbye to Flash</p></div><p>Flash is a security nightmare and anything that reduces the amount of flash in the world can only be a good thing. Flash badly needs to be replaced with a good open standard and wiped out. But if that's not going to happen the next best thing is to reduce the amount of flash in the world.</p><p>Less of a bad thing is still an improvement.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , when video sites change , we can say goodbye to flash , because nobody uses Flash for navigation , casual online games , interactive information displays , or google maps street view...we have a long ways until we can say goodbye to FlashFlash is a security nightmare and anything that reduces the amount of flash in the world can only be a good thing .
Flash badly needs to be replaced with a good open standard and wiped out .
But if that 's not going to happen the next best thing is to reduce the amount of flash in the world.Less of a bad thing is still an improvement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, when video sites change, we can say goodbye to flash, because nobody uses Flash for navigation, casual online games, interactive information displays, or google maps street view...we have a long ways until we can say goodbye to FlashFlash is a security nightmare and anything that reduces the amount of flash in the world can only be a good thing.
Flash badly needs to be replaced with a good open standard and wiped out.
But if that's not going to happen the next best thing is to reduce the amount of flash in the world.Less of a bad thing is still an improvement.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024944</id>
	<title>alternatives</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257673560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>or use any of the many apps that can search and play youtube videos, totem, moovida, miro, maemo youtube, canola<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>or use any of the many apps that can search and play youtube videos , totem , moovida , miro , maemo youtube , canola .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or use any of the many apps that can search and play youtube videos, totem, moovida, miro, maemo youtube, canola ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30027736</id>
	<title>Re: vs.</title>
	<author>BZ</author>
	<datestamp>1257692460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Given that most of the time Flash \_is\_ embedded using  (typically inside an IE-only ), I can't figure our what the second part of your question is asking.</p><p>The  tag is better than  for video purposes because it gives both the website author and the browser more flexibility (telling the browser this is a video, allowing the author to easily provide the video in multiple codecs, etc).  All of this \_could\_ be done via  and a sufficiently good video-playing plug-in, but that just brings us back to Flash.</p><p>Note that Flash has lower platform penetration (in the sense of platforms that it's available on) than -supporting browsers do, last I checked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Given that most of the time Flash \ _is \ _ embedded using ( typically inside an IE-only ) , I ca n't figure our what the second part of your question is asking.The tag is better than for video purposes because it gives both the website author and the browser more flexibility ( telling the browser this is a video , allowing the author to easily provide the video in multiple codecs , etc ) .
All of this \ _could \ _ be done via and a sufficiently good video-playing plug-in , but that just brings us back to Flash.Note that Flash has lower platform penetration ( in the sense of platforms that it 's available on ) than -supporting browsers do , last I checked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given that most of the time Flash \_is\_ embedded using  (typically inside an IE-only ), I can't figure our what the second part of your question is asking.The  tag is better than  for video purposes because it gives both the website author and the browser more flexibility (telling the browser this is a video, allowing the author to easily provide the video in multiple codecs, etc).
All of this \_could\_ be done via  and a sufficiently good video-playing plug-in, but that just brings us back to Flash.Note that Flash has lower platform penetration (in the sense of platforms that it's available on) than -supporting browsers do, last I checked.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024466</id>
	<title>Re:HTML5 video</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257713820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, but the way I understand, you can use content-negotiation to supply more than one format using the same video tag.</p><p>This would allow you to easily support multiple browsers by providing two or three different formats.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but the way I understand , you can use content-negotiation to supply more than one format using the same video tag.This would allow you to easily support multiple browsers by providing two or three different formats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but the way I understand, you can use content-negotiation to supply more than one format using the same video tag.This would allow you to easily support multiple browsers by providing two or three different formats.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025142</id>
	<title>RTFP...as it says Firefox doesn't support mp4</title>
	<author>MoFoQ</author>
	<datestamp>1257675000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the page itself says that firefox doesn't support mp4 videos in HTML5 due to some license restrictions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the page itself says that firefox does n't support mp4 videos in HTML5 due to some license restrictions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the page itself says that firefox doesn't support mp4 videos in HTML5 due to some license restrictions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025814</id>
	<title>agreed.</title>
	<author>Ralph Spoilsport</author>
	<datestamp>1257679860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i> Personally, I can't wait until the major video sites default to HTML5 and we can finally say goodbye to Flash."</i>
<p>
Same here. I hate Flash. It's pointless. Between AJAX, PHP, and CSS, there's very little Flash offers beyond video provision.
</p><p>
Yes, Flash does animation. As long as it does animation, Fine. When they began expanding ActionScript because all the Lingo programmers needed a home, that's when it went off the rails, and that was a long time ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I ca n't wait until the major video sites default to HTML5 and we can finally say goodbye to Flash .
" Same here .
I hate Flash .
It 's pointless .
Between AJAX , PHP , and CSS , there 's very little Flash offers beyond video provision .
Yes , Flash does animation .
As long as it does animation , Fine .
When they began expanding ActionScript because all the Lingo programmers needed a home , that 's when it went off the rails , and that was a long time ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Personally, I can't wait until the major video sites default to HTML5 and we can finally say goodbye to Flash.
"

Same here.
I hate Flash.
It's pointless.
Between AJAX, PHP, and CSS, there's very little Flash offers beyond video provision.
Yes, Flash does animation.
As long as it does animation, Fine.
When they began expanding ActionScript because all the Lingo programmers needed a home, that's when it went off the rails, and that was a long time ago.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025496</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257677580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LMAO!! So the entire web should change for your combined global user base of 7\% of market share cause flash does not work on your platform? Um think about that for a sec....  Seeing as the rest of us 93\% user base has no complaints.. time for you to take a page out of your own advertising and make a switch to a platform that is useful, yes I know, no shiny  shinny but works like a freakin charm!</p><p>And hey on the plus side you won't have to worry about paying 30$ to have deleted data from a user account. Get so tired of crapple users bashing flash when the only reason they has such a small market share is music. I know its gotta hurt seeing as almost ever band uses flash for there web site!! LOL! Deal with reality much?!! Hahahaa</p><p>Anyone else starting to notice how crapple fans are the new republicans? heres a break down for you.<br>They blindly follow what ever the talking points are! Regardless of the reality!<br>They can only advertise on attack add's and not there own os's merits!<br>They live in a constant state of denial of the reality's of computing, i.e osx is no safer than any other os connected to a network!<br>They are just the party of hate these days. Why is it when reading a article on windows a crapple fan has to chime in on a subject that has nothing to do with them? its a sign of insecurity! And makes people hate you even more that they already do.<br>And the main reason you will never win more converts than you have.... Arrogance! As a windows user and programmer you have no clue who to base your complaints against. i.e. most of us win users are quite happy with what we have and most have no problem yet arrogant crapple users alway love to tell windows users how bad there systems are, when they, don't even use the same os or have a clue what they are talking aobut! I don't know a single person who has had a blue screen of death after service pack 2 for xp!<br>Reading crapple fan's comments are akin to reading a Pallin speech, its entertaining for a min cause the sheer audacity then it just become sad.... sad... sad... Yup just like the GOP! And global warming is just a myth! lol!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LMAO ! !
So the entire web should change for your combined global user base of 7 \ % of market share cause flash does not work on your platform ?
Um think about that for a sec.... Seeing as the rest of us 93 \ % user base has no complaints.. time for you to take a page out of your own advertising and make a switch to a platform that is useful , yes I know , no shiny shinny but works like a freakin charm ! And hey on the plus side you wo n't have to worry about paying 30 $ to have deleted data from a user account .
Get so tired of crapple users bashing flash when the only reason they has such a small market share is music .
I know its got ta hurt seeing as almost ever band uses flash for there web site ! !
LOL ! Deal with reality much ? ! !
HahahaaAnyone else starting to notice how crapple fans are the new republicans ?
heres a break down for you.They blindly follow what ever the talking points are !
Regardless of the reality ! They can only advertise on attack add 's and not there own os 's merits ! They live in a constant state of denial of the reality 's of computing , i.e osx is no safer than any other os connected to a network ! They are just the party of hate these days .
Why is it when reading a article on windows a crapple fan has to chime in on a subject that has nothing to do with them ?
its a sign of insecurity !
And makes people hate you even more that they already do.And the main reason you will never win more converts than you have.... Arrogance ! As a windows user and programmer you have no clue who to base your complaints against .
i.e. most of us win users are quite happy with what we have and most have no problem yet arrogant crapple users alway love to tell windows users how bad there systems are , when they , do n't even use the same os or have a clue what they are talking aobut !
I do n't know a single person who has had a blue screen of death after service pack 2 for xp ! Reading crapple fan 's comments are akin to reading a Pallin speech , its entertaining for a min cause the sheer audacity then it just become sad.... sad... sad... Yup just like the GOP !
And global warming is just a myth !
lol ! ! !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LMAO!!
So the entire web should change for your combined global user base of 7\% of market share cause flash does not work on your platform?
Um think about that for a sec....  Seeing as the rest of us 93\% user base has no complaints.. time for you to take a page out of your own advertising and make a switch to a platform that is useful, yes I know, no shiny  shinny but works like a freakin charm!And hey on the plus side you won't have to worry about paying 30$ to have deleted data from a user account.
Get so tired of crapple users bashing flash when the only reason they has such a small market share is music.
I know its gotta hurt seeing as almost ever band uses flash for there web site!!
LOL! Deal with reality much?!!
HahahaaAnyone else starting to notice how crapple fans are the new republicans?
heres a break down for you.They blindly follow what ever the talking points are!
Regardless of the reality!They can only advertise on attack add's and not there own os's merits!They live in a constant state of denial of the reality's of computing, i.e osx is no safer than any other os connected to a network!They are just the party of hate these days.
Why is it when reading a article on windows a crapple fan has to chime in on a subject that has nothing to do with them?
its a sign of insecurity!
And makes people hate you even more that they already do.And the main reason you will never win more converts than you have.... Arrogance! As a windows user and programmer you have no clue who to base your complaints against.
i.e. most of us win users are quite happy with what we have and most have no problem yet arrogant crapple users alway love to tell windows users how bad there systems are, when they, don't even use the same os or have a clue what they are talking aobut!
I don't know a single person who has had a blue screen of death after service pack 2 for xp!Reading crapple fan's comments are akin to reading a Pallin speech, its entertaining for a min cause the sheer audacity then it just become sad.... sad... sad... Yup just like the GOP!
And global warming is just a myth!
lol!!!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024910</id>
	<title>A clever solution to a stupid problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257673380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Why do we want to watch videos inside a web page? This is something I've never understood, and the first time I saw YouTube it looked like an extremely dumb idea. There must be better ways of distributing video on the Internet. I always use clive when somebody sends me a youtube/vimeo link, but I'd much rather get a link to the actual file.
</p><p>
I'm probably just an old-fashioned geek, but I like to focus on whatever I'm doing. When I'm watching a video, I'd rather not watch any extraneous crap around it. It's an issue of both screen real estate and <a href="http://www.hs.fi/fingerpori/1135250316182" title="www.hs.fi">attention</a> [www.hs.fi]. Now get off my lawn!
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do we want to watch videos inside a web page ?
This is something I 've never understood , and the first time I saw YouTube it looked like an extremely dumb idea .
There must be better ways of distributing video on the Internet .
I always use clive when somebody sends me a youtube/vimeo link , but I 'd much rather get a link to the actual file .
I 'm probably just an old-fashioned geek , but I like to focus on whatever I 'm doing .
When I 'm watching a video , I 'd rather not watch any extraneous crap around it .
It 's an issue of both screen real estate and attention [ www.hs.fi ] .
Now get off my lawn !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Why do we want to watch videos inside a web page?
This is something I've never understood, and the first time I saw YouTube it looked like an extremely dumb idea.
There must be better ways of distributing video on the Internet.
I always use clive when somebody sends me a youtube/vimeo link, but I'd much rather get a link to the actual file.
I'm probably just an old-fashioned geek, but I like to focus on whatever I'm doing.
When I'm watching a video, I'd rather not watch any extraneous crap around it.
It's an issue of both screen real estate and attention [www.hs.fi].
Now get off my lawn!
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30035748</id>
	<title>Re:agreed.</title>
	<author>Tanaric</author>
	<datestamp>1257793860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Except that Flash can't handle animation. Toss a few animated clips on the stage, move 'em around a little bit, and watch your performance tank. The biggest deal since Flash 8 (for anybody who cares about performance, anyway) is that it allows you direct access to underlying bitmap data, so those who apply some programmatic effort can get around Flash player's shitty vector implementation and make something that performs reasonably well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that Flash ca n't handle animation .
Toss a few animated clips on the stage , move 'em around a little bit , and watch your performance tank .
The biggest deal since Flash 8 ( for anybody who cares about performance , anyway ) is that it allows you direct access to underlying bitmap data , so those who apply some programmatic effort can get around Flash player 's shitty vector implementation and make something that performs reasonably well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that Flash can't handle animation.
Toss a few animated clips on the stage, move 'em around a little bit, and watch your performance tank.
The biggest deal since Flash 8 (for anybody who cares about performance, anyway) is that it allows you direct access to underlying bitmap data, so those who apply some programmatic effort can get around Flash player's shitty vector implementation and make something that performs reasonably well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025472</id>
	<title>Re:HTML5 video</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1257677400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, because the big hosting providers with deep pockets that would risk being sued are so much less afraid of patent lawsuits than the big client providers with deep pockets.</p><p>Wait, no they're not. So they have to both pay for H.264 which is definitely patented <b>and</b> run the risk of being sued over hidden Theora patents, that's not a good sales pitch.</p><p>Honestly, I would prefer the browser to not be the media player. Just use whatever backend is available on the client, be it DirectShow, Quicktime, GStreamer, xine or whatever else. That way you can choose to use things like multithreading, hardware acceleration on dedicated units or shaders or any other settings which will work equally in all applications. I think the only one I've seen trying is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonon\_(KDE)" title="wikipedia.org">Phonon</a> [wikipedia.org]. I'm hoping there'll eventually be a phonon-plugin and this whole "what can we include in firefox/safari/whatever discussion will become meaningless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , because the big hosting providers with deep pockets that would risk being sued are so much less afraid of patent lawsuits than the big client providers with deep pockets.Wait , no they 're not .
So they have to both pay for H.264 which is definitely patented and run the risk of being sued over hidden Theora patents , that 's not a good sales pitch.Honestly , I would prefer the browser to not be the media player .
Just use whatever backend is available on the client , be it DirectShow , Quicktime , GStreamer , xine or whatever else .
That way you can choose to use things like multithreading , hardware acceleration on dedicated units or shaders or any other settings which will work equally in all applications .
I think the only one I 've seen trying is Phonon [ wikipedia.org ] .
I 'm hoping there 'll eventually be a phonon-plugin and this whole " what can we include in firefox/safari/whatever discussion will become meaningless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, because the big hosting providers with deep pockets that would risk being sued are so much less afraid of patent lawsuits than the big client providers with deep pockets.Wait, no they're not.
So they have to both pay for H.264 which is definitely patented and run the risk of being sued over hidden Theora patents, that's not a good sales pitch.Honestly, I would prefer the browser to not be the media player.
Just use whatever backend is available on the client, be it DirectShow, Quicktime, GStreamer, xine or whatever else.
That way you can choose to use things like multithreading, hardware acceleration on dedicated units or shaders or any other settings which will work equally in all applications.
I think the only one I've seen trying is Phonon [wikipedia.org].
I'm hoping there'll eventually be a phonon-plugin and this whole "what can we include in firefox/safari/whatever discussion will become meaningless.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024326</id>
	<title>Re:Only video sites?</title>
	<author>Vyse of Arcadia</author>
	<datestamp>1257712920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If nothing else, corporations will always be using it for uselessly flashy websites. That alone ensures we'll be dealing with flash for a while to come.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If nothing else , corporations will always be using it for uselessly flashy websites .
That alone ensures we 'll be dealing with flash for a while to come .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If nothing else, corporations will always be using it for uselessly flashy websites.
That alone ensures we'll be dealing with flash for a while to come.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30035576</id>
	<title>Re: vs.</title>
	<author>skeeto</author>
	<datestamp>1257793200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's useful for the same reasons we have an &lt;img&gt; tag instead of &lt;embed&gt; for images.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's useful for the same reasons we have an tag instead of for images .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's useful for the same reasons we have an  tag instead of  for images.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30027790</id>
	<title>SWEEET</title>
	<author>JimboFBX</author>
	<datestamp>1257692880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>works on my iphone, high quality video finally.</htmltext>
<tokenext>works on my iphone , high quality video finally .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>works on my iphone, high quality video finally.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024316</id>
	<title>Re:Only video sites?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257712860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>because nobody uses Flash for navigation</p></div><p>Well, nobody with any sense, anyway.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>because nobody uses Flash for navigationWell , nobody with any sense , anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>because nobody uses Flash for navigationWell, nobody with any sense, anyway.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30037610</id>
	<title>in Chromium...</title>
	<author>karlzt</author>
	<datestamp>1257758700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>in Chromium Kubuntu Karmic I get this:

PHP Warning:  file\_get\_contents(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgt\_WDjbO0o) [<a href="function.file-get-contents" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">function.file-get-contents</a> [slashdot.org]]: failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.0 402 Payment Required
 in C:\Inetpub\wwwroot\neosmart.net\YouTube5\youtube-core.php on line 8</htmltext>
<tokenext>in Chromium Kubuntu Karmic I get this : PHP Warning : file \ _get \ _contents ( http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = xgt \ _WDjbO0o ) [ function.file-get-contents [ slashdot.org ] ] : failed to open stream : HTTP request failed !
HTTP/1.0 402 Payment Required in C : \ Inetpub \ wwwroot \ neosmart.net \ YouTube5 \ youtube-core.php on line 8</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in Chromium Kubuntu Karmic I get this:

PHP Warning:  file\_get\_contents(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgt\_WDjbO0o) [function.file-get-contents [slashdot.org]]: failed to open stream: HTTP request failed!
HTTP/1.0 402 Payment Required
 in C:\Inetpub\wwwroot\neosmart.net\YouTube5\youtube-core.php on line 8</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30029576</id>
	<title>Re:A clever solution to a stupid problem</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1257797040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"If people didn't crave the convenience of GUIs, and operating systems could be CLI only, they'd be vastly more stable and secure than they are."</p><p>There's nothing about a CLI interface that makes an OS more stable or secure than a GUI-based one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" If people did n't crave the convenience of GUIs , and operating systems could be CLI only , they 'd be vastly more stable and secure than they are .
" There 's nothing about a CLI interface that makes an OS more stable or secure than a GUI-based one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If people didn't crave the convenience of GUIs, and operating systems could be CLI only, they'd be vastly more stable and secure than they are.
"There's nothing about a CLI interface that makes an OS more stable or secure than a GUI-based one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024722</id>
	<title>Re:Only video sites?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257672240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yep. Most of the advantages Flash previously had (animation, real client-side programming) for making rich navigation interfaces are now possible in a more open way with Javascript. The libraries are still a bit of a mess and browser support is always iffy, but dynamic, animated HTML looks amazing in the latest versions of webkit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep .
Most of the advantages Flash previously had ( animation , real client-side programming ) for making rich navigation interfaces are now possible in a more open way with Javascript .
The libraries are still a bit of a mess and browser support is always iffy , but dynamic , animated HTML looks amazing in the latest versions of webkit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep.
Most of the advantages Flash previously had (animation, real client-side programming) for making rich navigation interfaces are now possible in a more open way with Javascript.
The libraries are still a bit of a mess and browser support is always iffy, but dynamic, animated HTML looks amazing in the latest versions of webkit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30026684</id>
	<title>Re:HTML5 video</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257685260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>another problem is that browsers don't currently support full screen with the video tag, which is the main reason I won't bu using this to watch youtube</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>another problem is that browsers do n't currently support full screen with the video tag , which is the main reason I wo n't bu using this to watch youtube</tokentext>
<sentencetext>another problem is that browsers don't currently support full screen with the video tag, which is the main reason I won't bu using this to watch youtube</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024440</id>
	<title>Re:HTML5 video</title>
	<author>xaxa</author>
	<datestamp>1257713700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The biggest problem isn't support for &lt;video&gt;, but common support for major video formats. Seems there's no codec supported by all browsers anytime soon.</p></div><p>That's not a huge problem -- the video element supports having multiple source elements, each can use different codecs.</p><p>For instance, I found <a href="http://moblin.org/documentation/moblin-overview/moblin-intro-video" title="moblin.org">this video</a> [moblin.org] earlier. It's available as OGG or MP4, and the browser will choose automatically.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The biggest problem is n't support for , but common support for major video formats .
Seems there 's no codec supported by all browsers anytime soon.That 's not a huge problem -- the video element supports having multiple source elements , each can use different codecs.For instance , I found this video [ moblin.org ] earlier .
It 's available as OGG or MP4 , and the browser will choose automatically .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The biggest problem isn't support for , but common support for major video formats.
Seems there's no codec supported by all browsers anytime soon.That's not a huge problem -- the video element supports having multiple source elements, each can use different codecs.For instance, I found this video [moblin.org] earlier.
It's available as OGG or MP4, and the browser will choose automatically.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025260</id>
	<title>Works great on iPhone</title>
	<author>shellac</author>
	<datestamp>1257676020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are a good number of youtube videos that fail to load on the iphone, saying something like the format is not supported. I tested this script on some of these videos, and they all work.</p><p>This script definitely earns a link on my home screen. Now if they would only write similar scripts for the other video sharing sites.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are a good number of youtube videos that fail to load on the iphone , saying something like the format is not supported .
I tested this script on some of these videos , and they all work.This script definitely earns a link on my home screen .
Now if they would only write similar scripts for the other video sharing sites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are a good number of youtube videos that fail to load on the iphone, saying something like the format is not supported.
I tested this script on some of these videos, and they all work.This script definitely earns a link on my home screen.
Now if they would only write similar scripts for the other video sharing sites.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30026386</id>
	<title>Re: vs.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257683580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Originally as proposed  included a baseline royalty-free format. So unlike embed, you could actually expect video to work for people.</p><p>Since that was removed all that remains is a uniform control API, which includes capability sniffing so you can detect support and response correctly using JS. Still a far cry from what it could have been, and a far cry from competing with flash.  Everyone knows flash sucks but everyone uses it for video because you know it will work almost 100\% of the time.</p><p>Without a baseline format HTML5 simply can't compete.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Originally as proposed included a baseline royalty-free format .
So unlike embed , you could actually expect video to work for people.Since that was removed all that remains is a uniform control API , which includes capability sniffing so you can detect support and response correctly using JS .
Still a far cry from what it could have been , and a far cry from competing with flash .
Everyone knows flash sucks but everyone uses it for video because you know it will work almost 100 \ % of the time.Without a baseline format HTML5 simply ca n't compete .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Originally as proposed  included a baseline royalty-free format.
So unlike embed, you could actually expect video to work for people.Since that was removed all that remains is a uniform control API, which includes capability sniffing so you can detect support and response correctly using JS.
Still a far cry from what it could have been, and a far cry from competing with flash.
Everyone knows flash sucks but everyone uses it for video because you know it will work almost 100\% of the time.Without a baseline format HTML5 simply can't compete.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024324</id>
	<title>Window Mobile Please?</title>
	<author>Fizzol</author>
	<datestamp>1257712860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd love to see this added to the Opera browser on my TP2. The included YouTube app works okay, but having support in the browser would be terrific.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd love to see this added to the Opera browser on my TP2 .
The included YouTube app works okay , but having support in the browser would be terrific .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd love to see this added to the Opera browser on my TP2.
The included YouTube app works okay, but having support in the browser would be terrific.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30031330</id>
	<title>I don't get it, fanboys...</title>
	<author>uuddlrlrab</author>
	<datestamp>1257774600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sorry, I just don't. I know there were flamewars when the stories hit the front page about security issues in Adobe's myriad softwares, including Flash. I'm sure some tried to defend them. But no one can deny that even if they are making a valiant, and quite possibly successful, effort to wipe out the bugs and vulnerabilities, there were flaws in the software. Why should there be a big hullabaloo about a html5 alt for this that would alleviate the problems some people are obviously having? If it's a standard built on sound design and it, as some are fond of saying in order to put Flash on pedestal, <i>just works</i>, it's not like it's going to be mandatory under threat of arrest and prosecution... "As per Intarwebs Content Statute BS-666,  sec. 867, para. 5309-blah-blah-blah, <b>'NO FLASH CONTENT IS ALLOWED. VIOLATORS WILL BE EXECUTED SUMMARY TO ARREST AND TRIAL; ALL HARDWARE AND DIGITAL CONTENT THEREON BECOMES PROPERTY OF THE STATE...etc...'</b>"... Grow up. If there's a site that makes a unilateral decision to go solely one way or the other, and this renders it unusable for you, your beef is with that site. Get over it. Competition is good; who knows, perhaps Adobe might work even harder to make Flash the optimum choice, thereby improving user experience across the board.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry , I just do n't .
I know there were flamewars when the stories hit the front page about security issues in Adobe 's myriad softwares , including Flash .
I 'm sure some tried to defend them .
But no one can deny that even if they are making a valiant , and quite possibly successful , effort to wipe out the bugs and vulnerabilities , there were flaws in the software .
Why should there be a big hullabaloo about a html5 alt for this that would alleviate the problems some people are obviously having ?
If it 's a standard built on sound design and it , as some are fond of saying in order to put Flash on pedestal , just works , it 's not like it 's going to be mandatory under threat of arrest and prosecution... " As per Intarwebs Content Statute BS-666 , sec .
867 , para .
5309-blah-blah-blah , 'NO FLASH CONTENT IS ALLOWED .
VIOLATORS WILL BE EXECUTED SUMMARY TO ARREST AND TRIAL ; ALL HARDWARE AND DIGITAL CONTENT THEREON BECOMES PROPERTY OF THE STATE...etc... ' " ... Grow up .
If there 's a site that makes a unilateral decision to go solely one way or the other , and this renders it unusable for you , your beef is with that site .
Get over it .
Competition is good ; who knows , perhaps Adobe might work even harder to make Flash the optimum choice , thereby improving user experience across the board .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry, I just don't.
I know there were flamewars when the stories hit the front page about security issues in Adobe's myriad softwares, including Flash.
I'm sure some tried to defend them.
But no one can deny that even if they are making a valiant, and quite possibly successful, effort to wipe out the bugs and vulnerabilities, there were flaws in the software.
Why should there be a big hullabaloo about a html5 alt for this that would alleviate the problems some people are obviously having?
If it's a standard built on sound design and it, as some are fond of saying in order to put Flash on pedestal, just works, it's not like it's going to be mandatory under threat of arrest and prosecution... "As per Intarwebs Content Statute BS-666,  sec.
867, para.
5309-blah-blah-blah, 'NO FLASH CONTENT IS ALLOWED.
VIOLATORS WILL BE EXECUTED SUMMARY TO ARREST AND TRIAL; ALL HARDWARE AND DIGITAL CONTENT THEREON BECOMES PROPERTY OF THE STATE...etc...'"... Grow up.
If there's a site that makes a unilateral decision to go solely one way or the other, and this renders it unusable for you, your beef is with that site.
Get over it.
Competition is good; who knows, perhaps Adobe might work even harder to make Flash the optimum choice, thereby improving user experience across the board.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30026272</id>
	<title>Re: vs.</title>
	<author>Spy Hunter</author>
	<datestamp>1257682860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You asked for it...</p><p>Playing video in an embed tag requires the user to have a platform-specific plugin installed.  The user interface you get depends on the specific plugin used and can only be customized in a plugin-specific way.  The Javascript API offered by the player is also plugin-specific and probably not as useful as the standard API provided by the video tag.  Loading the plugin will often freeze the user's browser for several seconds and/or cause crashes.  Plugins don't play nice with CSS opacity and z-order and are often buggy with respect to positioning, resizing, full-page zoom, and DOM manipulation.  New advanced CSS features like transforms and animation are not likely to play nice with plugins either.</p><p>Flash took over from embed because it provided a customizable UI, consistent API, workable fullscreen mode, and reliable codec support.  The video tag has the first two of these and is likely to get fullscreen support soon.  Unfortunately codec support is a sticking point...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You asked for it...Playing video in an embed tag requires the user to have a platform-specific plugin installed .
The user interface you get depends on the specific plugin used and can only be customized in a plugin-specific way .
The Javascript API offered by the player is also plugin-specific and probably not as useful as the standard API provided by the video tag .
Loading the plugin will often freeze the user 's browser for several seconds and/or cause crashes .
Plugins do n't play nice with CSS opacity and z-order and are often buggy with respect to positioning , resizing , full-page zoom , and DOM manipulation .
New advanced CSS features like transforms and animation are not likely to play nice with plugins either.Flash took over from embed because it provided a customizable UI , consistent API , workable fullscreen mode , and reliable codec support .
The video tag has the first two of these and is likely to get fullscreen support soon .
Unfortunately codec support is a sticking point.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You asked for it...Playing video in an embed tag requires the user to have a platform-specific plugin installed.
The user interface you get depends on the specific plugin used and can only be customized in a plugin-specific way.
The Javascript API offered by the player is also plugin-specific and probably not as useful as the standard API provided by the video tag.
Loading the plugin will often freeze the user's browser for several seconds and/or cause crashes.
Plugins don't play nice with CSS opacity and z-order and are often buggy with respect to positioning, resizing, full-page zoom, and DOM manipulation.
New advanced CSS features like transforms and animation are not likely to play nice with plugins either.Flash took over from embed because it provided a customizable UI, consistent API, workable fullscreen mode, and reliable codec support.
The video tag has the first two of these and is likely to get fullscreen support soon.
Unfortunately codec support is a sticking point...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30032824</id>
	<title>Re:A clever solution to a stupid problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257782340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The world would be an unimaginably better place, if it wasn't for the craving for convenience.</p></div><p>WRONG! If it wasn't for the "craving for convenience" we would all still be living in caves. Lazy-ness is the driving force behind innovation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The world would be an unimaginably better place , if it was n't for the craving for convenience.WRONG !
If it was n't for the " craving for convenience " we would all still be living in caves .
Lazy-ness is the driving force behind innovation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The world would be an unimaginably better place, if it wasn't for the craving for convenience.WRONG!
If it wasn't for the "craving for convenience" we would all still be living in caves.
Lazy-ness is the driving force behind innovation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30031046</id>
	<title>semi-OT: convert video2CD</title>
	<author>muckracer</author>
	<datestamp>1257771660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The SO happens to love Youtube for finding songs she can use with her music students. So she downloads them and then converts/burns the audio tracks to CD. So far only on Windows with some Youtube video downloader&amp;converter program. Anyone have suggestions how she can do this process under Linux (Ubuntu)? Difficulty: It should preferably be a GUI-solution...she's willing to try, but not that technically inclined. I'll help her get set up though if needed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The SO happens to love Youtube for finding songs she can use with her music students .
So she downloads them and then converts/burns the audio tracks to CD .
So far only on Windows with some Youtube video downloader&amp;converter program .
Anyone have suggestions how she can do this process under Linux ( Ubuntu ) ?
Difficulty : It should preferably be a GUI-solution...she 's willing to try , but not that technically inclined .
I 'll help her get set up though if needed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The SO happens to love Youtube for finding songs she can use with her music students.
So she downloads them and then converts/burns the audio tracks to CD.
So far only on Windows with some Youtube video downloader&amp;converter program.
Anyone have suggestions how she can do this process under Linux (Ubuntu)?
Difficulty: It should preferably be a GUI-solution...she's willing to try, but not that technically inclined.
I'll help her get set up though if needed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024426</id>
	<title>Re:Only video sites?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257713580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Flash for video streaming could go away in the near future. But RIAs are so much better to develop and in flash then HTML/JS/AJAX. Real object oriented development and consistent presentation VS a hack of inconsistent browser dependent primitive technologies and software langues is what will keep flash like a 1 vitamin a day Flinstone's kid, strong and growing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Flash for video streaming could go away in the near future .
But RIAs are so much better to develop and in flash then HTML/JS/AJAX .
Real object oriented development and consistent presentation VS a hack of inconsistent browser dependent primitive technologies and software langues is what will keep flash like a 1 vitamin a day Flinstone 's kid , strong and growing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flash for video streaming could go away in the near future.
But RIAs are so much better to develop and in flash then HTML/JS/AJAX.
Real object oriented development and consistent presentation VS a hack of inconsistent browser dependent primitive technologies and software langues is what will keep flash like a 1 vitamin a day Flinstone's kid, strong and growing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025834</id>
	<title>Re:HTML5 video</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257679980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Having to transcode everything is not a huge problem?? Are you aware that transcoding is not lossless and takes a long time? I know there are online services for transcoding but you can't take them for granted, and you still have to upload and store everything twice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having to transcode everything is not a huge problem ? ?
Are you aware that transcoding is not lossless and takes a long time ?
I know there are online services for transcoding but you ca n't take them for granted , and you still have to upload and store everything twice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having to transcode everything is not a huge problem??
Are you aware that transcoding is not lossless and takes a long time?
I know there are online services for transcoding but you can't take them for granted, and you still have to upload and store everything twice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024294</id>
	<title>HTML5 video</title>
	<author>KangKong</author>
	<datestamp>1257712680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The biggest problem isn't support for &lt;video&gt;, but common support for major video formats. Seems there's no codec supported by all browsers anytime soon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The biggest problem is n't support for , but common support for major video formats .
Seems there 's no codec supported by all browsers anytime soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The biggest problem isn't support for , but common support for major video formats.
Seems there's no codec supported by all browsers anytime soon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30032912</id>
	<title>Re:Only video sites?</title>
	<author>DaVince21</author>
	<datestamp>1257782700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've seen uselessly (and sometimes usefully) flashy websites made in JavaScript a bit more, lately. By which I mean flashy effects when mousing over things, or going through one of those rotation-picture-viewer things. JavaScript can definitely replace Flash when it comes to flashiness, especially because it's getting faster in modern browsers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've seen uselessly ( and sometimes usefully ) flashy websites made in JavaScript a bit more , lately .
By which I mean flashy effects when mousing over things , or going through one of those rotation-picture-viewer things .
JavaScript can definitely replace Flash when it comes to flashiness , especially because it 's getting faster in modern browsers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've seen uselessly (and sometimes usefully) flashy websites made in JavaScript a bit more, lately.
By which I mean flashy effects when mousing over things, or going through one of those rotation-picture-viewer things.
JavaScript can definitely replace Flash when it comes to flashiness, especially because it's getting faster in modern browsers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025110</id>
	<title>Re:A clever solution to a stupid problem</title>
	<author>Aldenissin</author>
	<datestamp>1257674760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why do we want to watch videos inside a web page?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Now get off my lawn!</p></div><p>I don't think that many of us actually "want" to watch video in a browser. I think many of us would agree with you. While Youtube (as far as I am aware) still loses lots of money everyday, it is a vehicle to distribute content to the masses. The pros just can't be denied. Over time I think that we will begin to watch video in different ways as other options become viable and popular.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do we want to watch videos inside a web page ?
... Now get off my lawn ! I do n't think that many of us actually " want " to watch video in a browser .
I think many of us would agree with you .
While Youtube ( as far as I am aware ) still loses lots of money everyday , it is a vehicle to distribute content to the masses .
The pros just ca n't be denied .
Over time I think that we will begin to watch video in different ways as other options become viable and popular .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do we want to watch videos inside a web page?
... Now get off my lawn!I don't think that many of us actually "want" to watch video in a browser.
I think many of us would agree with you.
While Youtube (as far as I am aware) still loses lots of money everyday, it is a vehicle to distribute content to the masses.
The pros just can't be denied.
Over time I think that we will begin to watch video in different ways as other options become viable and popular.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30031204</id>
	<title>Re:Say goodbye to Flash?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257773700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree re using VLC. It is much more enjoyable, with better quality all round, to rip the video with Video Downloader, or fish<br>for it in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/tmp if using Linux, than to watch it in a browser. Firefox especially seems to go into spasms if I (say) pause a Flash video for<br>a while (say an hour), or if the browser has been up for several hours. I end up having to restart Firefox. Cache-clearing seems not to help.<br>Something really weird seems to happen with Firefox memory usage in general when viewing Flash video; so far no suggestions I've seen help.</p><p>I'm willing to believe this is Flash's fault. Flash video in general is a disgusting format- crappy cueing, random player crashes, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree re using VLC .
It is much more enjoyable , with better quality all round , to rip the video with Video Downloader , or fishfor it in /tmp if using Linux , than to watch it in a browser .
Firefox especially seems to go into spasms if I ( say ) pause a Flash video fora while ( say an hour ) , or if the browser has been up for several hours .
I end up having to restart Firefox .
Cache-clearing seems not to help.Something really weird seems to happen with Firefox memory usage in general when viewing Flash video ; so far no suggestions I 've seen help.I 'm willing to believe this is Flash 's fault .
Flash video in general is a disgusting format- crappy cueing , random player crashes , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree re using VLC.
It is much more enjoyable, with better quality all round, to rip the video with Video Downloader, or fishfor it in /tmp if using Linux, than to watch it in a browser.
Firefox especially seems to go into spasms if I (say) pause a Flash video fora while (say an hour), or if the browser has been up for several hours.
I end up having to restart Firefox.
Cache-clearing seems not to help.Something really weird seems to happen with Firefox memory usage in general when viewing Flash video; so far no suggestions I've seen help.I'm willing to believe this is Flash's fault.
Flash video in general is a disgusting format- crappy cueing, random player crashes, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30053164</id>
	<title>Re:Say goodbye to Flash?</title>
	<author>NeoStrider\_BZK</author>
	<datestamp>1257855300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've actually never seen full-blown Flash on other OS than Linux, for ARM , as an example. The device is the Nokia N770 (running Maemo) and it is actually a somewhat slow device, so I guess Flash isnt the culprit here</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've actually never seen full-blown Flash on other OS than Linux , for ARM , as an example .
The device is the Nokia N770 ( running Maemo ) and it is actually a somewhat slow device , so I guess Flash isnt the culprit here</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've actually never seen full-blown Flash on other OS than Linux, for ARM , as an example.
The device is the Nokia N770 (running Maemo) and it is actually a somewhat slow device, so I guess Flash isnt the culprit here</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024406</id>
	<title>Here's a hint</title>
	<author>Improv</author>
	<datestamp>1257713400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anytime you submit a story and one of your sentences starts with "Personally,", leave it out. We don't care.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anytime you submit a story and one of your sentences starts with " Personally , " , leave it out .
We do n't care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anytime you submit a story and one of your sentences starts with "Personally,", leave it out.
We don't care.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024546</id>
	<title>Re:Here's a hint</title>
	<author>rolfwind</author>
	<datestamp>1257671220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Personally" is a redundant word anyway and such useless clutter infects most writing today, usually in direct proportion to the person's education level, unfortunately.</p><p><a href="http://www.cla.wayne.edu/polisci/kdk/general/sources/zinsser.htm" title="wayne.edu">http://www.cla.wayne.edu/polisci/kdk/general/sources/zinsser.htm</a> [wayne.edu]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Personally " is a redundant word anyway and such useless clutter infects most writing today , usually in direct proportion to the person 's education level , unfortunately.http : //www.cla.wayne.edu/polisci/kdk/general/sources/zinsser.htm [ wayne.edu ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Personally" is a redundant word anyway and such useless clutter infects most writing today, usually in direct proportion to the person's education level, unfortunately.http://www.cla.wayne.edu/polisci/kdk/general/sources/zinsser.htm [wayne.edu]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30026064</id>
	<title>Hmmm</title>
	<author>delta419</author>
	<datestamp>1257681420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Looks vaguely similar to <a href="http://www.youtube.com/html5" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/html5</a> [youtube.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks vaguely similar to http : //www.youtube.com/html5 [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks vaguely similar to http://www.youtube.com/html5 [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30029142</id>
	<title>youtube.com/html5</title>
	<author>Celestialwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1257704700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Pasting "http://www.youtube.com/html5" in the HTML5 Viewer gave me the message "Unauthorized URL!" ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pasting " http : //www.youtube.com/html5 " in the HTML5 Viewer gave me the message " Unauthorized URL !
" ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pasting "http://www.youtube.com/html5" in the HTML5 Viewer gave me the message "Unauthorized URL!
" ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30030870</id>
	<title>No problem with Mac OS X and Flash</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257768900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've never had a problem with Flash on my Mac.  It's the damn Windows XP machine that locks up when I try to view Flash videos.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've never had a problem with Flash on my Mac .
It 's the damn Windows XP machine that locks up when I try to view Flash videos .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've never had a problem with Flash on my Mac.
It's the damn Windows XP machine that locks up when I try to view Flash videos.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30074258</id>
	<title>Re:Sell your shares of Adobe</title>
	<author>True Grit</author>
	<datestamp>1258048140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>With video specs in HTML5</p></div><p>But the codec to be used isn't in the spec since the main players couldn't agree on a default/baseline codec, so the actual usefulness of HTML5 is unfortunately still questionable, and without the ability to 'just work' for nearly everyone, everywhere, its chances of actually 'killing' Flash are, for the moment at least, nonexistent.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>banishment from iPhone</p></div><p>Outside of the US the iphone is not significant (Apple is only a bit player in the global cell phone market).  I doubt that they (nor anyone else) who is operating on a global scale is really that concerned about the iphone.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Adobe is fighting an uphill battle to stay in the mix.</p></div><p>I don't have a horse in this race, but I'd say its HTML5 that has the uphill battle, not Adobe.  Flash is here now, its real &amp; ubiquitous, whereas HTML5 is, for the moment, just a promise... and without a common/default codec, it will probably always just be a promise/wish/hope, rather than a reality.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>With video specs in HTML5But the codec to be used is n't in the spec since the main players could n't agree on a default/baseline codec , so the actual usefulness of HTML5 is unfortunately still questionable , and without the ability to 'just work ' for nearly everyone , everywhere , its chances of actually 'killing ' Flash are , for the moment at least , nonexistent.banishment from iPhoneOutside of the US the iphone is not significant ( Apple is only a bit player in the global cell phone market ) .
I doubt that they ( nor anyone else ) who is operating on a global scale is really that concerned about the iphone.Adobe is fighting an uphill battle to stay in the mix.I do n't have a horse in this race , but I 'd say its HTML5 that has the uphill battle , not Adobe .
Flash is here now , its real &amp; ubiquitous , whereas HTML5 is , for the moment , just a promise... and without a common/default codec , it will probably always just be a promise/wish/hope , rather than a reality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With video specs in HTML5But the codec to be used isn't in the spec since the main players couldn't agree on a default/baseline codec, so the actual usefulness of HTML5 is unfortunately still questionable, and without the ability to 'just work' for nearly everyone, everywhere, its chances of actually 'killing' Flash are, for the moment at least, nonexistent.banishment from iPhoneOutside of the US the iphone is not significant (Apple is only a bit player in the global cell phone market).
I doubt that they (nor anyone else) who is operating on a global scale is really that concerned about the iphone.Adobe is fighting an uphill battle to stay in the mix.I don't have a horse in this race, but I'd say its HTML5 that has the uphill battle, not Adobe.
Flash is here now, its real &amp; ubiquitous, whereas HTML5 is, for the moment, just a promise... and without a common/default codec, it will probably always just be a promise/wish/hope, rather than a reality.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30026434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024634</id>
	<title>Re:Say goodbye to Flash?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257671700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Other than that, I can't really understand the hate for Flash(players), besides maybe OS incompatibilities.</p><p>I'm on WinXP myself, so I would not know anything about that</p></div><p>eheh. were you aiming for the funny mod ?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)<br>of course, if you are not affected by the problems, you would not understand them.</p><p>i could come up with many analogies, referencing historical atrocities, but i'll leave that to badanalogyguy.<br>no, wait, i'll try one, and it's even car related !</p><p>"i don't understand why all the hype about toyotas accelerating on their own, well, maybe for some increase in crash possibility.</p><p>not that i own or have owned a toyota ever. i haven't even ever been near public roads they drive on !"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Other than that , I ca n't really understand the hate for Flash ( players ) , besides maybe OS incompatibilities.I 'm on WinXP myself , so I would not know anything about thateheh .
were you aiming for the funny mod ?
: ) of course , if you are not affected by the problems , you would not understand them.i could come up with many analogies , referencing historical atrocities , but i 'll leave that to badanalogyguy.no , wait , i 'll try one , and it 's even car related !
" i do n't understand why all the hype about toyotas accelerating on their own , well , maybe for some increase in crash possibility.not that i own or have owned a toyota ever .
i have n't even ever been near public roads they drive on !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Other than that, I can't really understand the hate for Flash(players), besides maybe OS incompatibilities.I'm on WinXP myself, so I would not know anything about thateheh.
were you aiming for the funny mod ?
:)of course, if you are not affected by the problems, you would not understand them.i could come up with many analogies, referencing historical atrocities, but i'll leave that to badanalogyguy.no, wait, i'll try one, and it's even car related !
"i don't understand why all the hype about toyotas accelerating on their own, well, maybe for some increase in crash possibility.not that i own or have owned a toyota ever.
i haven't even ever been near public roads they drive on !
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30047400</id>
	<title>Re: vs.</title>
	<author>Mr. Picklesworth</author>
	<datestamp>1257875700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Simple! The Video tag knows it is holding video content, which can be cleverly accessed via Javascript, CSS and the like.</p><p>This should tell the rest of the story:<br><a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/openvideodemo" title="dailymotion.com">http://www.dailymotion.com/openvideodemo</a> [dailymotion.com]</p><p>(And there are many others).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Simple !
The Video tag knows it is holding video content , which can be cleverly accessed via Javascript , CSS and the like.This should tell the rest of the story : http : //www.dailymotion.com/openvideodemo [ dailymotion.com ] ( And there are many others ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simple!
The Video tag knows it is holding video content, which can be cleverly accessed via Javascript, CSS and the like.This should tell the rest of the story:http://www.dailymotion.com/openvideodemo [dailymotion.com](And there are many others).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30034332</id>
	<title>Re:agreed.</title>
	<author>foniksonik</author>
	<datestamp>1257788400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My big love for Flash is sockets. I can push data to the client. Comet is okay but still not as easy to implement. What is your answer to this?</p><p>My other big love is being able attach sound objects to visual objects and have visual object properties (like x/y/z coordinates) impact sound object properties (like volume per channel, the waveform's amplitude ie: distorting the sound, etc.</p><p>Any idea on whether HTML 5 is going to offer this level of integration between audio and video/animation?</p><p>Finally the fact that Actionscript is dynamic object oriented makes it a pure joy to program in - need a new attribute, just create a new child object and add your key/value pair... makes creating Object Factories dirt simple and that allows for a lovely MVC pattern even when developing games or anything else that needs dynamically generated objects born with builtin behaviors... ie: particle engines, interactive painting simulation, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My big love for Flash is sockets .
I can push data to the client .
Comet is okay but still not as easy to implement .
What is your answer to this ? My other big love is being able attach sound objects to visual objects and have visual object properties ( like x/y/z coordinates ) impact sound object properties ( like volume per channel , the waveform 's amplitude ie : distorting the sound , etc.Any idea on whether HTML 5 is going to offer this level of integration between audio and video/animation ? Finally the fact that Actionscript is dynamic object oriented makes it a pure joy to program in - need a new attribute , just create a new child object and add your key/value pair... makes creating Object Factories dirt simple and that allows for a lovely MVC pattern even when developing games or anything else that needs dynamically generated objects born with builtin behaviors... ie : particle engines , interactive painting simulation , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My big love for Flash is sockets.
I can push data to the client.
Comet is okay but still not as easy to implement.
What is your answer to this?My other big love is being able attach sound objects to visual objects and have visual object properties (like x/y/z coordinates) impact sound object properties (like volume per channel, the waveform's amplitude ie: distorting the sound, etc.Any idea on whether HTML 5 is going to offer this level of integration between audio and video/animation?Finally the fact that Actionscript is dynamic object oriented makes it a pure joy to program in - need a new attribute, just create a new child object and add your key/value pair... makes creating Object Factories dirt simple and that allows for a lovely MVC pattern even when developing games or anything else that needs dynamically generated objects born with builtin behaviors... ie: particle engines, interactive painting simulation, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024610</id>
	<title>Re:Say goodbye to Flash?</title>
	<author>moosesocks</author>
	<datestamp>1257671580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not so much the incompatibilities (although support for non x86-32 platforms has always been very poor on Linux), but the inefficiencies.  There's *no* reason for a 320x240 web video to bring a modern system to its knees (GPU acceleration or not).</p><p>Even VLC's somewhat buggy FLV implementation plays flash videos with 1/10 the CPU cycles that the flash player does.</p><p>Flash's performance is borderline acceptable on Windows, although the mac version (PPC especially!) is appallingly bad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not so much the incompatibilities ( although support for non x86-32 platforms has always been very poor on Linux ) , but the inefficiencies .
There 's * no * reason for a 320x240 web video to bring a modern system to its knees ( GPU acceleration or not ) .Even VLC 's somewhat buggy FLV implementation plays flash videos with 1/10 the CPU cycles that the flash player does.Flash 's performance is borderline acceptable on Windows , although the mac version ( PPC especially !
) is appallingly bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not so much the incompatibilities (although support for non x86-32 platforms has always been very poor on Linux), but the inefficiencies.
There's *no* reason for a 320x240 web video to bring a modern system to its knees (GPU acceleration or not).Even VLC's somewhat buggy FLV implementation plays flash videos with 1/10 the CPU cycles that the flash player does.Flash's performance is borderline acceptable on Windows, although the mac version (PPC especially!
) is appallingly bad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025138</id>
	<title>Re:Why is Flash so bad?</title>
	<author>dingen</author>
	<datestamp>1257675000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I really don't understand what the issues are, and would like to know.</p></div><p>A good web page holds two important properties: it uses open standards and it provides semantic information about itself. Flash provides neither.</p><p>The first one is pretty straight forward. Flash is not open. The content of a Flash file is known only by Adobe. Only Adobe can reliably produce an application to write and play Flash files. This is in contrast with the openness of the web. This is important to ensure that web content will work on every platform. Flash content will not work on platforms not supported by Adobe, instead of not supported by any community. A good example of how bad this is, is that most Flash objects won't play on mobile devices, since Adobe has yet to produce proper Flash plugins for those platforms.</p><p>Secondly, the semantics. Instead of neatly fitting into the DOM and providing sementaic information about it's content like every other proper element, a Flash object is simply a blob of binary data. It's impossible for an automated system to find out what the object is about, thus providing difficulties with indexability, making it hard to find out information about the object using search engines.</p><p>That is why Flash is bad.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really do n't understand what the issues are , and would like to know.A good web page holds two important properties : it uses open standards and it provides semantic information about itself .
Flash provides neither.The first one is pretty straight forward .
Flash is not open .
The content of a Flash file is known only by Adobe .
Only Adobe can reliably produce an application to write and play Flash files .
This is in contrast with the openness of the web .
This is important to ensure that web content will work on every platform .
Flash content will not work on platforms not supported by Adobe , instead of not supported by any community .
A good example of how bad this is , is that most Flash objects wo n't play on mobile devices , since Adobe has yet to produce proper Flash plugins for those platforms.Secondly , the semantics .
Instead of neatly fitting into the DOM and providing sementaic information about it 's content like every other proper element , a Flash object is simply a blob of binary data .
It 's impossible for an automated system to find out what the object is about , thus providing difficulties with indexability , making it hard to find out information about the object using search engines.That is why Flash is bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really don't understand what the issues are, and would like to know.A good web page holds two important properties: it uses open standards and it provides semantic information about itself.
Flash provides neither.The first one is pretty straight forward.
Flash is not open.
The content of a Flash file is known only by Adobe.
Only Adobe can reliably produce an application to write and play Flash files.
This is in contrast with the openness of the web.
This is important to ensure that web content will work on every platform.
Flash content will not work on platforms not supported by Adobe, instead of not supported by any community.
A good example of how bad this is, is that most Flash objects won't play on mobile devices, since Adobe has yet to produce proper Flash plugins for those platforms.Secondly, the semantics.
Instead of neatly fitting into the DOM and providing sementaic information about it's content like every other proper element, a Flash object is simply a blob of binary data.
It's impossible for an automated system to find out what the object is about, thus providing difficulties with indexability, making it hard to find out information about the object using search engines.That is why Flash is bad.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024876</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_193209_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_193209_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_193209_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_193209_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_193209_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30030994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_193209_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30034332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_193209_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_193209_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_193209_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30027442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_193209_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_193209_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30026610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_193209_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30027736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_193209_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30026272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_193209_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30035748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_193209_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30026644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_193209_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30032912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_193209_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30030680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_193209_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_193209_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30047400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_193209_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_193209_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30026386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_193209_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_193209_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30026658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_193209_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_193209_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30035322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_193209_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30035576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_193209_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30074258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30026434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_193209_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30027834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_193209_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30048286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_193209_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30027862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_193209_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30031204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_193209_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30029576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_193209_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30053164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_193209_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30027642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_193209_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30032824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_193209_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30026684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_193209_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_193209_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_193209_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_193209_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30027424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_193209.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30034332
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30035748
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_193209.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30026794
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_193209.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024424
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_193209.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024634
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30027642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024610
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30031204
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30053164
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30026610
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_193209.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024282
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024316
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024722
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30027442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024326
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30032912
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_193209.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30026684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024440
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025472
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30027834
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025834
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_193209.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30047400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30027862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30030680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30035322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30027736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30026386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30026658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30027424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30026272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30035576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30026644
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_193209.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30031046
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_193209.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025256
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025280
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30032824
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30029576
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_193209.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025680
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_193209.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30026434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30074258
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_193209.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024386
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_193209.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025138
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_193209.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024546
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30030994
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_193209.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30048286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30024534
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_193209.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_193209.30025986
</commentlist>
</conversation>
