<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_09_168233</id>
	<title>Happy 5th Birthday To Firefox</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1257783120000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>halfEvilTech writes <i>"Five years ago today, <a href="http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/11/firefox-turns-five-half-a-decade-of-web-liberation.ars">Mozilla released Firefox 1.0</a>. Ars celebrates the occasion by taking a trip back in time to revisit our classic coverage of the original release."</i>  For fun, we dug up the oldest Slashdot Firefox story, which was <a href="https://slashdot.org/story/04/02/09/1123231">a Firebird story</a> proclaiming yet another name change from Feb '04.  At least this name change stuck.</htmltext>
<tokenext>halfEvilTech writes " Five years ago today , Mozilla released Firefox 1.0 .
Ars celebrates the occasion by taking a trip back in time to revisit our classic coverage of the original release .
" For fun , we dug up the oldest Slashdot Firefox story , which was a Firebird story proclaiming yet another name change from Feb '04 .
At least this name change stuck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>halfEvilTech writes "Five years ago today, Mozilla released Firefox 1.0.
Ars celebrates the occasion by taking a trip back in time to revisit our classic coverage of the original release.
"  For fun, we dug up the oldest Slashdot Firefox story, which was a Firebird story proclaiming yet another name change from Feb '04.
At least this name change stuck.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30036618</id>
	<title>Re:The addons deserve the real praise</title>
	<author>seanthenerd</author>
	<datestamp>1257797700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And for web devs, the Web Developer Toolbar and Firebug people.  Those guys are total heroes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And for web devs , the Web Developer Toolbar and Firebug people .
Those guys are total heroes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And for web devs, the Web Developer Toolbar and Firebug people.
Those guys are total heroes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30035538</id>
	<title>Re:A cake is in order</title>
	<author>pariahdecss</author>
	<datestamp>1257793140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Cake is a lie &#174;</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Cake is a lie  </tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Cake is a lie ®</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30033912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034234</id>
	<title>Re:A cake is in order</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257788040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't fall for it, Mozilla! The cake is a lie!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't fall for it , Mozilla !
The cake is a lie !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't fall for it, Mozilla!
The cake is a lie!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30033912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30037298</id>
	<title>And look how far it's come.</title>
	<author>TxRv</author>
	<datestamp>1257757500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Started as a side project to combat feature creep and bloating, now it has ~ 24\% usage share and countless useful addons (those kind of bring back feature creep, but at least it's voluntary). It's really the community and the addon creators who have made it what it is today.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Started as a side project to combat feature creep and bloating , now it has ~ 24 \ % usage share and countless useful addons ( those kind of bring back feature creep , but at least it 's voluntary ) .
It 's really the community and the addon creators who have made it what it is today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Started as a side project to combat feature creep and bloating, now it has ~ 24\% usage share and countless useful addons (those kind of bring back feature creep, but at least it's voluntary).
It's really the community and the addon creators who have made it what it is today.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034840</id>
	<title>With Firefox it is ALWAYS time to party!</title>
	<author>linebackn</author>
	<datestamp>1257790380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In a continuation of the Open Source Mozilla party started in January 1998, the ongoing Firefox party has now reached it's five year mark. Mozilla.org announced their intention to keep the party going indefinitely.</p><p>The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy describes the  Mozilla / Firefox party as follows:</p><p>The longest and most destructive party ever held is now into its fourth generation, and still no one shows any signs of leaving. Somebody did once look at his watch, but that was eleven years ago, and there has been no follow-up. The mess is extraordinary, and has to be seen to be believed, but if you don't have any particular need to believe it, then don't go and look, because you won't enjoy it. There have recently been some bangs and flashes up in the clouds, and there is one theory that this is a battle being fought between the fleets of several rival carpet-cleaning companies who are hovering over the thing like vultures, but you shouldn't believe anything you hear at parties, and particularly not anything you hear at this one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In a continuation of the Open Source Mozilla party started in January 1998 , the ongoing Firefox party has now reached it 's five year mark .
Mozilla.org announced their intention to keep the party going indefinitely.The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy describes the Mozilla / Firefox party as follows : The longest and most destructive party ever held is now into its fourth generation , and still no one shows any signs of leaving .
Somebody did once look at his watch , but that was eleven years ago , and there has been no follow-up .
The mess is extraordinary , and has to be seen to be believed , but if you do n't have any particular need to believe it , then do n't go and look , because you wo n't enjoy it .
There have recently been some bangs and flashes up in the clouds , and there is one theory that this is a battle being fought between the fleets of several rival carpet-cleaning companies who are hovering over the thing like vultures , but you should n't believe anything you hear at parties , and particularly not anything you hear at this one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a continuation of the Open Source Mozilla party started in January 1998, the ongoing Firefox party has now reached it's five year mark.
Mozilla.org announced their intention to keep the party going indefinitely.The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy describes the  Mozilla / Firefox party as follows:The longest and most destructive party ever held is now into its fourth generation, and still no one shows any signs of leaving.
Somebody did once look at his watch, but that was eleven years ago, and there has been no follow-up.
The mess is extraordinary, and has to be seen to be believed, but if you don't have any particular need to believe it, then don't go and look, because you won't enjoy it.
There have recently been some bangs and flashes up in the clouds, and there is one theory that this is a battle being fought between the fleets of several rival carpet-cleaning companies who are hovering over the thing like vultures, but you shouldn't believe anything you hear at parties, and particularly not anything you hear at this one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30048570</id>
	<title>Re:Original Firefox goals forgotten...</title>
	<author>yoden</author>
	<datestamp>1257879480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agreed.  The concept of creating bookmarks and trying to organize them into some hierarchy is just... archaic.
<br> <br>
This is the future.  Index everything, let me search it, and give me the best (most used) results first.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
The concept of creating bookmarks and trying to organize them into some hierarchy is just... archaic . This is the future .
Index everything , let me search it , and give me the best ( most used ) results first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
The concept of creating bookmarks and trying to organize them into some hierarchy is just... archaic.
 
This is the future.
Index everything, let me search it, and give me the best (most used) results first.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30037116</id>
	<title>Re:Original Firefox goals forgotten...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257799800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Which piece of bloat would you remove first?</p></div><p>XULRunner dependencies. I'd build light shells around XUL-less Gecko engine, using the native widgets for each targeted OS.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which piece of bloat would you remove first ? XULRunner dependencies .
I 'd build light shells around XUL-less Gecko engine , using the native widgets for each targeted OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which piece of bloat would you remove first?XULRunner dependencies.
I'd build light shells around XUL-less Gecko engine, using the native widgets for each targeted OS.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034486</id>
	<title>Comments about bloat</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257788880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>While it is fun to say that Firefox is all bloated now in comparison to when it started (and many comments above seem to say that) this misses four points: 1) Software naturally becomes larger with more features over time. 2) Many of the features added are very good and very helpful 3) We live in an era where memory is not a precious commodity. It isn't like you are going to have a problem if you can't fit your web browsing program on your floppy disk or can't run it on 64K of memory. The real issue with Firefox is much more limited: There are memory leaking and stability issues that should have been better handled by now. Instead of adding all the features that have been added (some of which are very nice) many people would likely simply prefer to have just the really commonly used features and have it not crash so frequently.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While it is fun to say that Firefox is all bloated now in comparison to when it started ( and many comments above seem to say that ) this misses four points : 1 ) Software naturally becomes larger with more features over time .
2 ) Many of the features added are very good and very helpful 3 ) We live in an era where memory is not a precious commodity .
It is n't like you are going to have a problem if you ca n't fit your web browsing program on your floppy disk or ca n't run it on 64K of memory .
The real issue with Firefox is much more limited : There are memory leaking and stability issues that should have been better handled by now .
Instead of adding all the features that have been added ( some of which are very nice ) many people would likely simply prefer to have just the really commonly used features and have it not crash so frequently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While it is fun to say that Firefox is all bloated now in comparison to when it started (and many comments above seem to say that) this misses four points: 1) Software naturally becomes larger with more features over time.
2) Many of the features added are very good and very helpful 3) We live in an era where memory is not a precious commodity.
It isn't like you are going to have a problem if you can't fit your web browsing program on your floppy disk or can't run it on 64K of memory.
The real issue with Firefox is much more limited: There are memory leaking and stability issues that should have been better handled by now.
Instead of adding all the features that have been added (some of which are very nice) many people would likely simply prefer to have just the really commonly used features and have it not crash so frequently.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30035108</id>
	<title>Clint Eastwood</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257791460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They still haven't got the thought controlled interface working - even in Russian...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They still have n't got the thought controlled interface working - even in Russian.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They still haven't got the thought controlled interface working - even in Russian...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30040194</id>
	<title>Re:Original Firefox goals forgotten...</title>
	<author>hairyfeet</author>
	<datestamp>1257770580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you still want small and fast (and are on Windows) then you should be looking at <a href="http://kmeleon.sourceforge.net/" title="sourceforge.net">Kmeleon</a> [sourceforge.net] or <a href="http://kmeleon.blogspot.com/" title="blogspot.com">Kmeleon CCF ME</a> [blogspot.com] instead. Both are made using the gecko engine, but are then stripped down to make them both lightning fast.</p><p>I would recommend standard Kemelon if you are running an older machine with 128Mb or less of RAM, as its footprint is tiny and it'll run on anything Win95 on up, and CCF ME if you have over 128Mb or need a portable browser as it comes with a nicer UI and built in ABP, as well as playing quite nicely with flash drives. Just unzip and go.</p><p>

That is one of the nice things about FOSS to me, in that if you don't like a piece of software for one reason or another odds are somebody has made a nice fork to fix the very thing you hate. Just look at how many things are built on top of gecko-Firefox,SeaMonkey,Flock,Songbird,Kmeleon/CCF ME, I think there are a few others but I can't remember them off the top of me head. So happy BDay FF, and as someone who remembers when it was Netscape(suck) VS IE(crap) it sure is nice to have lots of choices. Thanks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you still want small and fast ( and are on Windows ) then you should be looking at Kmeleon [ sourceforge.net ] or Kmeleon CCF ME [ blogspot.com ] instead .
Both are made using the gecko engine , but are then stripped down to make them both lightning fast.I would recommend standard Kemelon if you are running an older machine with 128Mb or less of RAM , as its footprint is tiny and it 'll run on anything Win95 on up , and CCF ME if you have over 128Mb or need a portable browser as it comes with a nicer UI and built in ABP , as well as playing quite nicely with flash drives .
Just unzip and go .
That is one of the nice things about FOSS to me , in that if you do n't like a piece of software for one reason or another odds are somebody has made a nice fork to fix the very thing you hate .
Just look at how many things are built on top of gecko-Firefox,SeaMonkey,Flock,Songbird,Kmeleon/CCF ME , I think there are a few others but I ca n't remember them off the top of me head .
So happy BDay FF , and as someone who remembers when it was Netscape ( suck ) VS IE ( crap ) it sure is nice to have lots of choices .
Thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you still want small and fast (and are on Windows) then you should be looking at Kmeleon [sourceforge.net] or Kmeleon CCF ME [blogspot.com] instead.
Both are made using the gecko engine, but are then stripped down to make them both lightning fast.I would recommend standard Kemelon if you are running an older machine with 128Mb or less of RAM, as its footprint is tiny and it'll run on anything Win95 on up, and CCF ME if you have over 128Mb or need a portable browser as it comes with a nicer UI and built in ABP, as well as playing quite nicely with flash drives.
Just unzip and go.
That is one of the nice things about FOSS to me, in that if you don't like a piece of software for one reason or another odds are somebody has made a nice fork to fix the very thing you hate.
Just look at how many things are built on top of gecko-Firefox,SeaMonkey,Flock,Songbird,Kmeleon/CCF ME, I think there are a few others but I can't remember them off the top of me head.
So happy BDay FF, and as someone who remembers when it was Netscape(suck) VS IE(crap) it sure is nice to have lots of choices.
Thanks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30033962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30033962</id>
	<title>Original Firefox goals forgotten...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257786960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> Instead of being a small, simple browser that just did one thing well; Firefox has become way too bloated and indeed the plans for the future seem to impart it with a ribbon-like interface and more nonsensical things. Doesn't sound too good for a nice well-loved product.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead of being a small , simple browser that just did one thing well ; Firefox has become way too bloated and indeed the plans for the future seem to impart it with a ribbon-like interface and more nonsensical things .
Does n't sound too good for a nice well-loved product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Instead of being a small, simple browser that just did one thing well; Firefox has become way too bloated and indeed the plans for the future seem to impart it with a ribbon-like interface and more nonsensical things.
Doesn't sound too good for a nice well-loved product.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30038066</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone using Lynx?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257760620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gosh, elinks, how bloated. Tabbed browsing? Tables? I'll stick with lynx, thanks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gosh , elinks , how bloated .
Tabbed browsing ?
Tables ? I 'll stick with lynx , thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gosh, elinks, how bloated.
Tabbed browsing?
Tables? I'll stick with lynx, thanks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30036726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30036726</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone using Lynx?</title>
	<author>JeffSchwab</author>
	<datestamp>1257798180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure why this got modded "funny."  A lot of my Linux interaction is command-line only, and elinks is a life-saver.  On occasion, e.g. when the only documentation for a package is in HTML, the console-mode browser is almost indispensable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure why this got modded " funny .
" A lot of my Linux interaction is command-line only , and elinks is a life-saver .
On occasion , e.g .
when the only documentation for a package is in HTML , the console-mode browser is almost indispensable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure why this got modded "funny.
"  A lot of my Linux interaction is command-line only, and elinks is a life-saver.
On occasion, e.g.
when the only documentation for a package is in HTML, the console-mode browser is almost indispensable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30035004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30036208</id>
	<title>Re:Original Firefox goals forgotten...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257795660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How hard would it have been to make all of the extraneous features (awfulbar, spell checking, history, bookmarks) extensions and have the windows installer auto-install them? This keeps to the spirit of FF (small and fast) and still allows idiots to have the functionality you think they need. Hell, make the installer also install adblock+ (easylist) and weboftrust by default.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How hard would it have been to make all of the extraneous features ( awfulbar , spell checking , history , bookmarks ) extensions and have the windows installer auto-install them ?
This keeps to the spirit of FF ( small and fast ) and still allows idiots to have the functionality you think they need .
Hell , make the installer also install adblock + ( easylist ) and weboftrust by default .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How hard would it have been to make all of the extraneous features (awfulbar, spell checking, history, bookmarks) extensions and have the windows installer auto-install them?
This keeps to the spirit of FF (small and fast) and still allows idiots to have the functionality you think they need.
Hell, make the installer also install adblock+ (easylist) and weboftrust by default.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30038284</id>
	<title>Re:Original Firefox goals forgotten...</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1257761520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Instead of being a small, simple browser that just did one thing well; Firefox has become way too bloated and indeed the plans for the future seem to impart it with a ribbon-like interface and more nonsensical things.</p></div></blockquote><p>Firefox was a lie from the very beginning...</p><p>It got massively popular as the smaller, lighter, faster browser.  It went viral and overtook the Mozilla suite.  Problem was, it was NEVER smaller, faster, or lighter, in either CPU time or memory footprint.  The difference was absolutely trivial.</p><p>So, complaining that it's no longer something that it never was, isn't very damming.</p><p>Note:  Firefox and Mozilla suck.  It really should be 1/10th the size, and render pages about 100X faster.  We were well on our way, but the conversion to CSS left all the lightweight browsers ineffective.  Links used to be great, but now it renders no better than lynx, whether in text or GUI mode, so nobody bothers...  Too bad, since the keyboard UI was the best ever conceived, and now appears dead.  Konq-Embedded now requires much of KDE, QT is not longer good enough, and the UI wasn't ever that good to being with.  Of the old fast &amp; light browsers, it looks like only Dillo has a chance of being brought into modern times.  Just few more features and page rendering improvements, and I'll take the hit and use it as my primary browser, non-standard websites be-dammed!</p><p>Don't bother mentioning Opera...  Much like Firefox, Opera was all hype, and very little in the way of improved performance.  Not to mention the UI has always been god-awful...  the biggest thing Firefox has in it's favor (a far cry from Links, though).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead of being a small , simple browser that just did one thing well ; Firefox has become way too bloated and indeed the plans for the future seem to impart it with a ribbon-like interface and more nonsensical things.Firefox was a lie from the very beginning...It got massively popular as the smaller , lighter , faster browser .
It went viral and overtook the Mozilla suite .
Problem was , it was NEVER smaller , faster , or lighter , in either CPU time or memory footprint .
The difference was absolutely trivial.So , complaining that it 's no longer something that it never was , is n't very damming.Note : Firefox and Mozilla suck .
It really should be 1/10th the size , and render pages about 100X faster .
We were well on our way , but the conversion to CSS left all the lightweight browsers ineffective .
Links used to be great , but now it renders no better than lynx , whether in text or GUI mode , so nobody bothers... Too bad , since the keyboard UI was the best ever conceived , and now appears dead .
Konq-Embedded now requires much of KDE , QT is not longer good enough , and the UI was n't ever that good to being with .
Of the old fast &amp; light browsers , it looks like only Dillo has a chance of being brought into modern times .
Just few more features and page rendering improvements , and I 'll take the hit and use it as my primary browser , non-standard websites be-dammed ! Do n't bother mentioning Opera... Much like Firefox , Opera was all hype , and very little in the way of improved performance .
Not to mention the UI has always been god-awful... the biggest thing Firefox has in it 's favor ( a far cry from Links , though ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead of being a small, simple browser that just did one thing well; Firefox has become way too bloated and indeed the plans for the future seem to impart it with a ribbon-like interface and more nonsensical things.Firefox was a lie from the very beginning...It got massively popular as the smaller, lighter, faster browser.
It went viral and overtook the Mozilla suite.
Problem was, it was NEVER smaller, faster, or lighter, in either CPU time or memory footprint.
The difference was absolutely trivial.So, complaining that it's no longer something that it never was, isn't very damming.Note:  Firefox and Mozilla suck.
It really should be 1/10th the size, and render pages about 100X faster.
We were well on our way, but the conversion to CSS left all the lightweight browsers ineffective.
Links used to be great, but now it renders no better than lynx, whether in text or GUI mode, so nobody bothers...  Too bad, since the keyboard UI was the best ever conceived, and now appears dead.
Konq-Embedded now requires much of KDE, QT is not longer good enough, and the UI wasn't ever that good to being with.
Of the old fast &amp; light browsers, it looks like only Dillo has a chance of being brought into modern times.
Just few more features and page rendering improvements, and I'll take the hit and use it as my primary browser, non-standard websites be-dammed!Don't bother mentioning Opera...  Much like Firefox, Opera was all hype, and very little in the way of improved performance.
Not to mention the UI has always been god-awful...  the biggest thing Firefox has in it's favor (a far cry from Links, though).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30033962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034688</id>
	<title>Re:A cake is in order</title>
	<author>WED Fan</author>
	<datestamp>1257789720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>A big, ever bloating cake that is all flavors to everyone, that allows you to extend it with pie and ice cream and allows you to skin it so it looks like a steak.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A big , ever bloating cake that is all flavors to everyone , that allows you to extend it with pie and ice cream and allows you to skin it so it looks like a steak .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A big, ever bloating cake that is all flavors to everyone, that allows you to extend it with pie and ice cream and allows you to skin it so it looks like a steak.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30033912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30039350</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone using Lynx?</title>
	<author>pbhj</author>
	<datestamp>1257765960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Links2 is about as stripped down as I'll go for a browser.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Links2 is about as stripped down as I 'll go for a browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Links2 is about as stripped down as I'll go for a browser.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30036726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034886</id>
	<title>Re:Original Firefox goals forgotten...</title>
	<author>Chunky Kibbles</author>
	<datestamp>1257790620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The [not] "awesome bar".</p><p>Somehow it always makes it harder to find what I want, not easier [eg, for some reason, it appears to have decided that penny-arcade.com is the correct url when I type in "facebook"]</p><p>And no; "just turn it off" studiously avoids the OP's complaint - which was that things like this shouldn't have needed to be added in the first place. How soon we forget - the name "phoenix" didn't even appeared in the news post [although it is in TFA].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The [ not ] " awesome bar " .Somehow it always makes it harder to find what I want , not easier [ eg , for some reason , it appears to have decided that penny-arcade.com is the correct url when I type in " facebook " ] And no ; " just turn it off " studiously avoids the OP 's complaint - which was that things like this should n't have needed to be added in the first place .
How soon we forget - the name " phoenix " did n't even appeared in the news post [ although it is in TFA ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The [not] "awesome bar".Somehow it always makes it harder to find what I want, not easier [eg, for some reason, it appears to have decided that penny-arcade.com is the correct url when I type in "facebook"]And no; "just turn it off" studiously avoids the OP's complaint - which was that things like this shouldn't have needed to be added in the first place.
How soon we forget - the name "phoenix" didn't even appeared in the news post [although it is in TFA].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034922</id>
	<title>Re:Original Firefox goals forgotten...</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1257790740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;Hang on, did I say I wanted a Firefox upgrade? No, it just happens.</p><p>Then turn it off.  Firefox 3 is constantly telling me to upgrade, so I just click "no" and it loads instantly without any hassle.</p><p>As for bloat, I don't think it's so bad.  Right now I have 11 tabs open and only 155 meg Mem usage and 152 meg VM usage.   That's not bad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; Hang on , did I say I wanted a Firefox upgrade ?
No , it just happens.Then turn it off .
Firefox 3 is constantly telling me to upgrade , so I just click " no " and it loads instantly without any hassle.As for bloat , I do n't think it 's so bad .
Right now I have 11 tabs open and only 155 meg Mem usage and 152 meg VM usage .
That 's not bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;Hang on, did I say I wanted a Firefox upgrade?
No, it just happens.Then turn it off.
Firefox 3 is constantly telling me to upgrade, so I just click "no" and it loads instantly without any hassle.As for bloat, I don't think it's so bad.
Right now I have 11 tabs open and only 155 meg Mem usage and 152 meg VM usage.
That's not bad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30049152</id>
	<title>That's not the first article by a long ways</title>
	<author>csb</author>
	<datestamp>1257881580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From what I can tell, the first Slashdot article about Phoenix (now Firefox) is from September 2002:</p><p><a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/02/09/24/1215252/Mozilla-Jumps-on-Lean-Browser-Bandwagon" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://tech.slashdot.org/story/02/09/24/1215252/Mozilla-Jumps-on-Lean-Browser-Bandwagon</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>I learned about it here, and have been happily using Firefox since Phoenix 0.3.  Thank you Slashdot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From what I can tell , the first Slashdot article about Phoenix ( now Firefox ) is from September 2002 : http : //tech.slashdot.org/story/02/09/24/1215252/Mozilla-Jumps-on-Lean-Browser-Bandwagon [ slashdot.org ] I learned about it here , and have been happily using Firefox since Phoenix 0.3 .
Thank you Slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From what I can tell, the first Slashdot article about Phoenix (now Firefox) is from September 2002:http://tech.slashdot.org/story/02/09/24/1215252/Mozilla-Jumps-on-Lean-Browser-Bandwagon [slashdot.org]I learned about it here, and have been happily using Firefox since Phoenix 0.3.
Thank you Slashdot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30044768</id>
	<title>Re:A cake is in order</title>
	<author>Coopjust</author>
	<datestamp>1257864180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why not?
<br> <br>
The IE team was basically cannibalized after IE6 came out, firings, moving to other divisions, etc.
<br> <br>
Then, FF comes and they get their jobs back again.
<br> <br>
Why do you think the IE team sends a cake to the FF developers for each major release (and why said cakes have lacked poision<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;) )</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not ?
The IE team was basically cannibalized after IE6 came out , firings , moving to other divisions , etc .
Then , FF comes and they get their jobs back again .
Why do you think the IE team sends a cake to the FF developers for each major release ( and why said cakes have lacked poision ; ) )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not?
The IE team was basically cannibalized after IE6 came out, firings, moving to other divisions, etc.
Then, FF comes and they get their jobs back again.
Why do you think the IE team sends a cake to the FF developers for each major release (and why said cakes have lacked poision ;) )</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30033912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30036256</id>
	<title>Re:Comments about bloat</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257795960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There are memory leaking and <b>stability issues</b> that should have been better handled by now.</p></div><p>(emphasis mine)</p><p>The leaks sure do exist but there is no problem with stability. Free hint: Nobody forces you to install <b>the shitty 3rd party flash plugin</b>, you know...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are memory leaking and stability issues that should have been better handled by now .
( emphasis mine ) The leaks sure do exist but there is no problem with stability .
Free hint : Nobody forces you to install the shitty 3rd party flash plugin , you know.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are memory leaking and stability issues that should have been better handled by now.
(emphasis mine)The leaks sure do exist but there is no problem with stability.
Free hint: Nobody forces you to install the shitty 3rd party flash plugin, you know...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034284</id>
	<title>Re:cookies are delicious delicacies</title>
	<author>donaggie03</author>
	<datestamp>1257788280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You may have jumped the gun a bit there.  While I'm sure there's bound to be a few posts complaining about bloat, as of right now, there is only one serious one in this disucssion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You may have jumped the gun a bit there .
While I 'm sure there 's bound to be a few posts complaining about bloat , as of right now , there is only one serious one in this disucssion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You may have jumped the gun a bit there.
While I'm sure there's bound to be a few posts complaining about bloat, as of right now, there is only one serious one in this disucssion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30037856</id>
	<title>Haha!</title>
	<author>Das Auge</author>
	<datestamp>1257759720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Re:1.0 right now (Score:5, Informative)<br>
by metricmusic (766303) Alter Relationship on Tuesday November 09 2004, @08:14AM (#10764927)
<b>Its great! I downloaded it from here: <a href="http://mozilla.ussg.indiana.edu/pub/mozilla.org/fi" title="indiana.edu">http://mozilla.ussg.indiana.edu/pub/mozilla.org/fi</a> [indiana.edu] refox/releases/1.0/win32/en-US/Firefox\%201.0.zip Don't think slashdot will be able to bring down an edu. Go firefox!</b> <br>
<br>
<br>
Re:1.0 right now (Score:5, Funny)<br>
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 09 2004, @08:26AM (#10765036)<br>
<b>[Vader]I find your lack of faith distrubing[/Vader]...</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>Re : 1.0 right now ( Score : 5 , Informative ) by metricmusic ( 766303 ) Alter Relationship on Tuesday November 09 2004 , @ 08 : 14AM ( # 10764927 ) Its great !
I downloaded it from here : http : //mozilla.ussg.indiana.edu/pub/mozilla.org/fi [ indiana.edu ] refox/releases/1.0/win32/en-US/Firefox \ % 201.0.zip Do n't think slashdot will be able to bring down an edu .
Go firefox !
Re : 1.0 right now ( Score : 5 , Funny ) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 09 2004 , @ 08 : 26AM ( # 10765036 ) [ Vader ] I find your lack of faith distrubing [ /Vader ] .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Re:1.0 right now (Score:5, Informative)
by metricmusic (766303) Alter Relationship on Tuesday November 09 2004, @08:14AM (#10764927)
Its great!
I downloaded it from here: http://mozilla.ussg.indiana.edu/pub/mozilla.org/fi [indiana.edu] refox/releases/1.0/win32/en-US/Firefox\%201.0.zip Don't think slashdot will be able to bring down an edu.
Go firefox!
Re:1.0 right now (Score:5, Funny)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 09 2004, @08:26AM (#10765036)
[Vader]I find your lack of faith distrubing[/Vader]...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30039534</id>
	<title>Re:Original Firefox goals forgotten...</title>
	<author>Adm.Wiggin</author>
	<datestamp>1257766980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From how annoying and hard to use bookmarks are in Chrome, but how well their "awesome bar" does at figuring things out (including dynamically detecting searchable sites and letting you search them just by typing a few characters of their name and being prompted to hit Tab), I can only conclude that this is exactly what Google was going for in their design.<br> <br>Competition is fun because we see so many different ways to complete the same task.</htmltext>
<tokenext>From how annoying and hard to use bookmarks are in Chrome , but how well their " awesome bar " does at figuring things out ( including dynamically detecting searchable sites and letting you search them just by typing a few characters of their name and being prompted to hit Tab ) , I can only conclude that this is exactly what Google was going for in their design .
Competition is fun because we see so many different ways to complete the same task .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From how annoying and hard to use bookmarks are in Chrome, but how well their "awesome bar" does at figuring things out (including dynamically detecting searchable sites and letting you search them just by typing a few characters of their name and being prompted to hit Tab), I can only conclude that this is exactly what Google was going for in their design.
Competition is fun because we see so many different ways to complete the same task.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034298</id>
	<title>The addons deserve the real praise</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257788280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Firefox is great. But it's all the amazing addons that make it really shine. So kudos to Mozilla, but even more kudos to all the hard-working code monkeys who gave us addons like NoScript, Adblock, and (appropriate for this forum) Slashdotter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox is great .
But it 's all the amazing addons that make it really shine .
So kudos to Mozilla , but even more kudos to all the hard-working code monkeys who gave us addons like NoScript , Adblock , and ( appropriate for this forum ) Slashdotter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox is great.
But it's all the amazing addons that make it really shine.
So kudos to Mozilla, but even more kudos to all the hard-working code monkeys who gave us addons like NoScript, Adblock, and (appropriate for this forum) Slashdotter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034260</id>
	<title>Re:A cake is in order</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257788100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They did this for v 2.0: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jollyjake/278562314/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They did this for v 2.0 : http : //www.flickr.com/photos/jollyjake/278562314/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They did this for v 2.0: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jollyjake/278562314/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30033912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30037668</id>
	<title>It *is* bloated</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257758880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I installed Firefox on this machine via pacman, I had to download over 100 Mb of dependencies as well as the browser itself.</p><p>I wish there was a way that I could compile it without the mime types package and all the other garbage, and shell out to something like lftp or wget for when I wanted to download files, the way dillo does.  If it wasn't for the fact that the forums I use, require redirection support that dillo doesn't have, I wouldn't use Firefox much at all any more, except maybe for YouTube.</p><p>I've got to ask; is writing a simple HTML renderer really so difficult?  I wouldn't necessarily want to support every single tag in existence.  HTML 3.2/4.0 without CSS/DOM would be fine.  Most of DOM is just the usual spam implemented by corporations anywayz; if you know how to write decent HTML, you don't need it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I installed Firefox on this machine via pacman , I had to download over 100 Mb of dependencies as well as the browser itself.I wish there was a way that I could compile it without the mime types package and all the other garbage , and shell out to something like lftp or wget for when I wanted to download files , the way dillo does .
If it was n't for the fact that the forums I use , require redirection support that dillo does n't have , I would n't use Firefox much at all any more , except maybe for YouTube.I 've got to ask ; is writing a simple HTML renderer really so difficult ?
I would n't necessarily want to support every single tag in existence .
HTML 3.2/4.0 without CSS/DOM would be fine .
Most of DOM is just the usual spam implemented by corporations anywayz ; if you know how to write decent HTML , you do n't need it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I installed Firefox on this machine via pacman, I had to download over 100 Mb of dependencies as well as the browser itself.I wish there was a way that I could compile it without the mime types package and all the other garbage, and shell out to something like lftp or wget for when I wanted to download files, the way dillo does.
If it wasn't for the fact that the forums I use, require redirection support that dillo doesn't have, I wouldn't use Firefox much at all any more, except maybe for YouTube.I've got to ask; is writing a simple HTML renderer really so difficult?
I wouldn't necessarily want to support every single tag in existence.
HTML 3.2/4.0 without CSS/DOM would be fine.
Most of DOM is just the usual spam implemented by corporations anywayz; if you know how to write decent HTML, you don't need it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30044558</id>
	<title>Article gets the dates wrong</title>
	<author>ircharlie</author>
	<datestamp>1257862440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The article contains major factual errors. I remember firefox coming out in 1982.

<a href="http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0083943/" title="imdb.com" rel="nofollow">http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0083943/</a> [imdb.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article contains major factual errors .
I remember firefox coming out in 1982 . http : //uk.imdb.com/title/tt0083943/ [ imdb.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article contains major factual errors.
I remember firefox coming out in 1982.

http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0083943/ [imdb.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30038030</id>
	<title>Re:Original Firefox goals forgotten...</title>
	<author>BenoitRen</author>
	<datestamp>1257760440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>a small, simple browser that just did one thing well</p></div> </blockquote><p>That that was the goal is a myth. These were the real goals of Firefox:</p><blockquote><div><p>Beginning with the core Mozilla code, unnecessary UI was removed, existing UI were refined and new UI added with the goal of providing efficient (speedy, easy to use, useful) web access. The goal was, and is not to have more or less features than any other client (Mozilla included) but to have the <em>right set of features</em> to let people get their jobs done.</p></div> </blockquote><p>From the <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20040211042203/www.mozilla.org/projects/firefox/charter.html" title="archive.org" rel="nofollow">Mozilla Firefox Development Charter</a> [archive.org].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>a small , simple browser that just did one thing well That that was the goal is a myth .
These were the real goals of Firefox : Beginning with the core Mozilla code , unnecessary UI was removed , existing UI were refined and new UI added with the goal of providing efficient ( speedy , easy to use , useful ) web access .
The goal was , and is not to have more or less features than any other client ( Mozilla included ) but to have the right set of features to let people get their jobs done .
From the Mozilla Firefox Development Charter [ archive.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a small, simple browser that just did one thing well That that was the goal is a myth.
These were the real goals of Firefox:Beginning with the core Mozilla code, unnecessary UI was removed, existing UI were refined and new UI added with the goal of providing efficient (speedy, easy to use, useful) web access.
The goal was, and is not to have more or less features than any other client (Mozilla included) but to have the right set of features to let people get their jobs done.
From the Mozilla Firefox Development Charter [archive.org].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30033962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30036172</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone using Lynx?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257795480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use links so i can check my google accounts without X.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use links so i can check my google accounts without X .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use links so i can check my google accounts without X.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30035004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30035788</id>
	<title>Re:Original Firefox goals forgotten...</title>
	<author>Jugalator</author>
	<datestamp>1257793920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Instead of being a small, simple browser that just did one thing well; Firefox has become way too bloated and indeed the plans for the future seem to impart it with a ribbon-like interface and more nonsensical things. Doesn't sound too good for a nice well-loved product.</p></div><p>The original goal was to make a browser that was just a browser, not a suite of browsing, mail, newsgroups...</p><p>Firefox is still that. This is why the Thunderbird project was started, and is still going, for that matter.</p><p>It was intented to be a project that did a browser, and did a browser well. It wasn't about making minimalist barebones features everywhere. There are other browsers for even leaner feature sets.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead of being a small , simple browser that just did one thing well ; Firefox has become way too bloated and indeed the plans for the future seem to impart it with a ribbon-like interface and more nonsensical things .
Does n't sound too good for a nice well-loved product.The original goal was to make a browser that was just a browser , not a suite of browsing , mail , newsgroups...Firefox is still that .
This is why the Thunderbird project was started , and is still going , for that matter.It was intented to be a project that did a browser , and did a browser well .
It was n't about making minimalist barebones features everywhere .
There are other browsers for even leaner feature sets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead of being a small, simple browser that just did one thing well; Firefox has become way too bloated and indeed the plans for the future seem to impart it with a ribbon-like interface and more nonsensical things.
Doesn't sound too good for a nice well-loved product.The original goal was to make a browser that was just a browser, not a suite of browsing, mail, newsgroups...Firefox is still that.
This is why the Thunderbird project was started, and is still going, for that matter.It was intented to be a project that did a browser, and did a browser well.
It wasn't about making minimalist barebones features everywhere.
There are other browsers for even leaner feature sets.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30033962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034556</id>
	<title>5 years old and still crashes daily</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257789180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, please fix the crash bugs and memory leaks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , please fix the crash bugs and memory leaks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, please fix the crash bugs and memory leaks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30037520</id>
	<title>Re:Original Firefox goals forgotten...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257758340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I second this!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I second this !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I second this!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30038470</id>
	<title>Re:A cake is in order</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257762240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are 20 Universities of the Fall of the Berlin Wall?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are 20 Universities of the Fall of the Berlin Wall ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are 20 Universities of the Fall of the Berlin Wall?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30035990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034604</id>
	<title>Re:A cake is in order</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257789420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A poster joked: The cake is a lie!<br>And everyone thought: This joke is so gay.<br>So he was modded,<br>down to minus one.<br>And his posting rights where forever gone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A poster joked : The cake is a lie ! And everyone thought : This joke is so gay.So he was modded,down to minus one.And his posting rights where forever gone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A poster joked: The cake is a lie!And everyone thought: This joke is so gay.So he was modded,down to minus one.And his posting rights where forever gone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30036362</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone using Lynx?</title>
	<author>Nimey</author>
	<datestamp>1257796500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like ELinks in console mode, but I still fire up lynx now and again for kicks.  Back in '99 to '02 I used lynx exclusively and had it open images in zgv, so I could still read webcomics and see what weather was on the radar, and yet not wait ages for pages to load on the dorm's overloaded connection.</p><p>Did you know that lynx has a very basic Usenet client built in?  That's what I used before I settled on slrn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like ELinks in console mode , but I still fire up lynx now and again for kicks .
Back in '99 to '02 I used lynx exclusively and had it open images in zgv , so I could still read webcomics and see what weather was on the radar , and yet not wait ages for pages to load on the dorm 's overloaded connection.Did you know that lynx has a very basic Usenet client built in ?
That 's what I used before I settled on slrn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like ELinks in console mode, but I still fire up lynx now and again for kicks.
Back in '99 to '02 I used lynx exclusively and had it open images in zgv, so I could still read webcomics and see what weather was on the radar, and yet not wait ages for pages to load on the dorm's overloaded connection.Did you know that lynx has a very basic Usenet client built in?
That's what I used before I settled on slrn.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30035004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30037006</id>
	<title>Re:Original Firefox goals forgotten...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257799260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good god, i never expected to see this here.<br>Thank you so much.</p><p>Firefox died years ago.  It is now Mozilla Playground version 3.</p><p>Mozilla really need to stop adding so much crap to the browser and focus on keeping addons in check.<br>Addons have too many freedoms, the quality of most of them are pretty damn poor to put it nicely, memory leaks, etc.</p><p>Also, if they actually add the Ribbon interface, Mozilla are officially dead to me.  No zombie Mozilla is ever going to win my heart back if they add that nonsense.<br>I have decent vision, i don't have problems remembering where things are, MOST PEOPLE DON'T EVEN USE THE MENUS.<br>Stop throwing crap on to huge buttons just for the sake of accessibility when most people couldn't give a shit about half the stuff.<br>Adding it there would actually be an insult to me.</p><p>I used to love Mozilla, but now they are just another Microsoft. (not in the "lets stagnate our engine".. well actually, disregard that, the most recent fell behind in recent testing, who knows, give it 4 years)<br>Mozilla don't need to keep updating the browser with stupid crap, just release bug fixes and more optimized code.<br>What is it with the sudden fetish of trying to please everyone?  Last i checked, that was the point of the addons.<br>Firefox was meant to be clay, not a mansion created from the imaginations of everyone on the planet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good god , i never expected to see this here.Thank you so much.Firefox died years ago .
It is now Mozilla Playground version 3.Mozilla really need to stop adding so much crap to the browser and focus on keeping addons in check.Addons have too many freedoms , the quality of most of them are pretty damn poor to put it nicely , memory leaks , etc.Also , if they actually add the Ribbon interface , Mozilla are officially dead to me .
No zombie Mozilla is ever going to win my heart back if they add that nonsense.I have decent vision , i do n't have problems remembering where things are , MOST PEOPLE DO N'T EVEN USE THE MENUS.Stop throwing crap on to huge buttons just for the sake of accessibility when most people could n't give a shit about half the stuff.Adding it there would actually be an insult to me.I used to love Mozilla , but now they are just another Microsoft .
( not in the " lets stagnate our engine " .. well actually , disregard that , the most recent fell behind in recent testing , who knows , give it 4 years ) Mozilla do n't need to keep updating the browser with stupid crap , just release bug fixes and more optimized code.What is it with the sudden fetish of trying to please everyone ?
Last i checked , that was the point of the addons.Firefox was meant to be clay , not a mansion created from the imaginations of everyone on the planet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good god, i never expected to see this here.Thank you so much.Firefox died years ago.
It is now Mozilla Playground version 3.Mozilla really need to stop adding so much crap to the browser and focus on keeping addons in check.Addons have too many freedoms, the quality of most of them are pretty damn poor to put it nicely, memory leaks, etc.Also, if they actually add the Ribbon interface, Mozilla are officially dead to me.
No zombie Mozilla is ever going to win my heart back if they add that nonsense.I have decent vision, i don't have problems remembering where things are, MOST PEOPLE DON'T EVEN USE THE MENUS.Stop throwing crap on to huge buttons just for the sake of accessibility when most people couldn't give a shit about half the stuff.Adding it there would actually be an insult to me.I used to love Mozilla, but now they are just another Microsoft.
(not in the "lets stagnate our engine".. well actually, disregard that, the most recent fell behind in recent testing, who knows, give it 4 years)Mozilla don't need to keep updating the browser with stupid crap, just release bug fixes and more optimized code.What is it with the sudden fetish of trying to please everyone?
Last i checked, that was the point of the addons.Firefox was meant to be clay, not a mansion created from the imaginations of everyone on the planet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30033962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30036298</id>
	<title>Re:Original Firefox goals forgotten...</title>
	<author>kaiser423</author>
	<datestamp>1257796140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I absolutely love the awesome bar, and use it every time I am doing anything.
<br> <br>
Instead of remembering the subdomain of some url, I can just type something in the title.  It's great and wonderful.  Seriously, stop typing "facebook" and then selecting Penny Arcade and it will work better for you<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)  Or clear its cache and try again.
<br> <br>
Seriously, the awesomebar is the biggest browsing improvement that I've seen since tabbed browsing (yes, even bigger than adblock).  It is just that useful to me.  Sure, there was a bit of a learning curve, as with anything, but once I got the hang of how it works, it has really really improved my browsing experience.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I absolutely love the awesome bar , and use it every time I am doing anything .
Instead of remembering the subdomain of some url , I can just type something in the title .
It 's great and wonderful .
Seriously , stop typing " facebook " and then selecting Penny Arcade and it will work better for you : ) Or clear its cache and try again .
Seriously , the awesomebar is the biggest browsing improvement that I 've seen since tabbed browsing ( yes , even bigger than adblock ) .
It is just that useful to me .
Sure , there was a bit of a learning curve , as with anything , but once I got the hang of how it works , it has really really improved my browsing experience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I absolutely love the awesome bar, and use it every time I am doing anything.
Instead of remembering the subdomain of some url, I can just type something in the title.
It's great and wonderful.
Seriously, stop typing "facebook" and then selecting Penny Arcade and it will work better for you :)  Or clear its cache and try again.
Seriously, the awesomebar is the biggest browsing improvement that I've seen since tabbed browsing (yes, even bigger than adblock).
It is just that useful to me.
Sure, there was a bit of a learning curve, as with anything, but once I got the hang of how it works, it has really really improved my browsing experience.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30036460</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone using Lynx?</title>
	<author>skeeto</author>
	<datestamp>1257796920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I use Lynx for the occasion when a program has an http configuration which is binded only to the loopback device, and I want to give it a quick check over ssh.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I use Lynx for the occasion when a program has an http configuration which is binded only to the loopback device , and I want to give it a quick check over ssh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use Lynx for the occasion when a program has an http configuration which is binded only to the loopback device, and I want to give it a quick check over ssh.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30035004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034996</id>
	<title>NY Times Ad</title>
	<author>bucklesl</author>
	<datestamp>1257790980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't believe it will have been 5 years in December since supporters chipped in to <a href="http://www-archive.mozilla.org/press/mozilla-2004-12-15.html" title="mozilla.org">place an ad in the NY Times</a> [mozilla.org].  I'd definitely help place another one if only to get my name in the paper again!  I hear the NY Times needs the revenue (*cough* adblock *cough*).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't believe it will have been 5 years in December since supporters chipped in to place an ad in the NY Times [ mozilla.org ] .
I 'd definitely help place another one if only to get my name in the paper again !
I hear the NY Times needs the revenue ( * cough * adblock * cough * ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't believe it will have been 5 years in December since supporters chipped in to place an ad in the NY Times [mozilla.org].
I'd definitely help place another one if only to get my name in the paper again!
I hear the NY Times needs the revenue (*cough* adblock *cough*).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30035974</id>
	<title>Firefox returned healthy competition to the web...</title>
	<author>Pecisk</author>
	<datestamp>1257794700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and I think it is major win for all of us. Without Firefox it would be harder for Opera, Chrome, Safari to shine. Firefox pushed compatibility level of writing web pages, so for last years usually when you have done with FF, page worked for rest of bunch too (ok, except JS which is still major PITA). Yes, our mighty fox have experienced several shortcomings time after time, but overall, it have been smooth ride.</p><p>Ohh, and it has been excellent study case and example that with clever crowd marketing, art team and testing open source products also can be "simply cool" [tm].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and I think it is major win for all of us .
Without Firefox it would be harder for Opera , Chrome , Safari to shine .
Firefox pushed compatibility level of writing web pages , so for last years usually when you have done with FF , page worked for rest of bunch too ( ok , except JS which is still major PITA ) .
Yes , our mighty fox have experienced several shortcomings time after time , but overall , it have been smooth ride.Ohh , and it has been excellent study case and example that with clever crowd marketing , art team and testing open source products also can be " simply cool " [ tm ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and I think it is major win for all of us.
Without Firefox it would be harder for Opera, Chrome, Safari to shine.
Firefox pushed compatibility level of writing web pages, so for last years usually when you have done with FF, page worked for rest of bunch too (ok, except JS which is still major PITA).
Yes, our mighty fox have experienced several shortcomings time after time, but overall, it have been smooth ride.Ohh, and it has been excellent study case and example that with clever crowd marketing, art team and testing open source products also can be "simply cool" [tm].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034004</id>
	<title>Obligitory memory joke</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257787140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>5 years old? It's getting on a bit and I imagine its memory is starting to suffer a bit. You could almost go as far as to say that it's memory might start leaking soon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>5 years old ?
It 's getting on a bit and I imagine its memory is starting to suffer a bit .
You could almost go as far as to say that it 's memory might start leaking soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>5 years old?
It's getting on a bit and I imagine its memory is starting to suffer a bit.
You could almost go as far as to say that it's memory might start leaking soon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30035004</id>
	<title>Anyone using Lynx?</title>
	<author>rmcd</author>
	<datestamp>1257791040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just curious to know if I'm alone. As the web has gotten more bloated (not just firefox), I find I use lynx more for quick, routine checking of websites. And you can script it.</p><p>I like firefox a lot, but sometimes Lynx is better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just curious to know if I 'm alone .
As the web has gotten more bloated ( not just firefox ) , I find I use lynx more for quick , routine checking of websites .
And you can script it.I like firefox a lot , but sometimes Lynx is better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just curious to know if I'm alone.
As the web has gotten more bloated (not just firefox), I find I use lynx more for quick, routine checking of websites.
And you can script it.I like firefox a lot, but sometimes Lynx is better.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30035530</id>
	<title>fuck a GNaa</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257793020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">won't vote in the project to used to@.  SHIT ON Percent of the *BSD sales and so on, Wasn't on Steve's if I remain</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>wo n't vote in the project to used to @ .
SHIT ON Percent of the * BSD sales and so on , Was n't on Steve 's if I remain [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>won't vote in the project to used to@.
SHIT ON Percent of the *BSD sales and so on, Wasn't on Steve's if I remain [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30036114</id>
	<title>Re:Original Firefox goals forgotten...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257795240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it needs to learn, after some not-so-long time it will suggest you pages you want. It will push frequently accessed pages up in the suggestion list. In my case i need 2-3 chars tops to get what i want in #1 spot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it needs to learn , after some not-so-long time it will suggest you pages you want .
It will push frequently accessed pages up in the suggestion list .
In my case i need 2-3 chars tops to get what i want in # 1 spot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it needs to learn, after some not-so-long time it will suggest you pages you want.
It will push frequently accessed pages up in the suggestion list.
In my case i need 2-3 chars tops to get what i want in #1 spot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30035598</id>
	<title>Re:A cake is in order</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257793320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>These comments remind me of this video (where Mac and PC get poisoned with a cake):</p><p> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mg6wrYCT9Q" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mg6wrYCT9Q</a> [youtube.com] </p></div><p>Well that was an interesting change of music from <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob\_UlXtJnek" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">what I was listening to</a> [youtube.com]...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>These comments remind me of this video ( where Mac and PC get poisoned with a cake ) : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = 9mg6wrYCT9Q [ youtube.com ] Well that was an interesting change of music from what I was listening to [ youtube.com ] .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These comments remind me of this video (where Mac and PC get poisoned with a cake): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mg6wrYCT9Q [youtube.com] Well that was an interesting change of music from what I was listening to [youtube.com]...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034544</id>
	<title>Re:Original Firefox goals forgotten...</title>
	<author>dvorakkeyboardrules</author>
	<datestamp>1257789180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Instead of being a small, simple browser that just did one thing well; Firefox has become way too bloated and indeed the plans for the future seem to impart it with a ribbon-like interface and more nonsensical things. Doesn't sound too good for a nice well-loved product.</p></div><p>
I agree. I've been victimized by the "upgrades" to a once-fast browser. Just one day I will open it and it will be upgrading itself. Wait, wait, must restart, etc. Now some ad-ons don't work anymore, gotta go look manually for up them, and so on. Hang on, did I say I wanted a Firefox upgrade? No, it just happens.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead of being a small , simple browser that just did one thing well ; Firefox has become way too bloated and indeed the plans for the future seem to impart it with a ribbon-like interface and more nonsensical things .
Does n't sound too good for a nice well-loved product .
I agree .
I 've been victimized by the " upgrades " to a once-fast browser .
Just one day I will open it and it will be upgrading itself .
Wait , wait , must restart , etc .
Now some ad-ons do n't work anymore , got ta go look manually for up them , and so on .
Hang on , did I say I wanted a Firefox upgrade ?
No , it just happens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Instead of being a small, simple browser that just did one thing well; Firefox has become way too bloated and indeed the plans for the future seem to impart it with a ribbon-like interface and more nonsensical things.
Doesn't sound too good for a nice well-loved product.
I agree.
I've been victimized by the "upgrades" to a once-fast browser.
Just one day I will open it and it will be upgrading itself.
Wait, wait, must restart, etc.
Now some ad-ons don't work anymore, gotta go look manually for up them, and so on.
Hang on, did I say I wanted a Firefox upgrade?
No, it just happens.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30033962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30039250</id>
	<title>Re:It *is* bloated</title>
	<author>Microlith</author>
	<datestamp>1257765600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>When I installed Firefox on this machine via pacman, I had to download over 100 Mb of dependencies as well as the browser itself.</p></div></blockquote><p>Hey look, an Arch user! If Firefox is too bloated for you, grab the Gecko renderer and write your own front-end.</p><blockquote><div><p>shell out to something like lftp or wget for when I wanted to download files, the way dillo does.</p></div></blockquote><p>Again, write your own front-end. Your "solution" isn't wanted by everyone and won't work on things like Windows.</p><blockquote><div><p>I've got to ask; is writing a simple HTML renderer really so difficult?</p></div></blockquote><p>Yes? There's a reason than Gecko, Trident, and WebKit get a ton of mileage these days.</p><blockquote><div><p>I wouldn't necessarily want to support every single tag in existence. HTML 3.2/4.0 without CSS/DOM would be fine. Most of DOM is just the usual spam implemented by corporations anywayz; if you know how to write decent HTML, you don't need it.</p></div></blockquote><p>What on earth... go back to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/g/ please.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I installed Firefox on this machine via pacman , I had to download over 100 Mb of dependencies as well as the browser itself.Hey look , an Arch user !
If Firefox is too bloated for you , grab the Gecko renderer and write your own front-end.shell out to something like lftp or wget for when I wanted to download files , the way dillo does.Again , write your own front-end .
Your " solution " is n't wanted by everyone and wo n't work on things like Windows.I 've got to ask ; is writing a simple HTML renderer really so difficult ? Yes ?
There 's a reason than Gecko , Trident , and WebKit get a ton of mileage these days.I would n't necessarily want to support every single tag in existence .
HTML 3.2/4.0 without CSS/DOM would be fine .
Most of DOM is just the usual spam implemented by corporations anywayz ; if you know how to write decent HTML , you do n't need it.What on earth... go back to /g/ please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I installed Firefox on this machine via pacman, I had to download over 100 Mb of dependencies as well as the browser itself.Hey look, an Arch user!
If Firefox is too bloated for you, grab the Gecko renderer and write your own front-end.shell out to something like lftp or wget for when I wanted to download files, the way dillo does.Again, write your own front-end.
Your "solution" isn't wanted by everyone and won't work on things like Windows.I've got to ask; is writing a simple HTML renderer really so difficult?Yes?
There's a reason than Gecko, Trident, and WebKit get a ton of mileage these days.I wouldn't necessarily want to support every single tag in existence.
HTML 3.2/4.0 without CSS/DOM would be fine.
Most of DOM is just the usual spam implemented by corporations anywayz; if you know how to write decent HTML, you don't need it.What on earth... go back to /g/ please.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30037668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034616</id>
	<title>Re:Original Firefox goals forgotten...</title>
	<author>y5</author>
	<datestamp>1257789420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't believe I'm making this point, but here goes...</p><p>As a web developer I actually appreciate the bloat. The average user does not have patience to look for extensions that fill in the core features that other browsers offer.  Without the "bloat", those users would have likely stayed with IE, Microsoft would have no motivation to improve, and we'd likely be stuck developing for something much closer to IE6... ugh...</p><p>So for me, bloat is forgivable -- I'm just happy we're finally at a spot where web standards are taking hold.  It's hard for Microsoft to embrace and extend they're losing so much ground.</p><p>Happy Birthday, Firefox =)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't believe I 'm making this point , but here goes...As a web developer I actually appreciate the bloat .
The average user does not have patience to look for extensions that fill in the core features that other browsers offer .
Without the " bloat " , those users would have likely stayed with IE , Microsoft would have no motivation to improve , and we 'd likely be stuck developing for something much closer to IE6... ugh...So for me , bloat is forgivable -- I 'm just happy we 're finally at a spot where web standards are taking hold .
It 's hard for Microsoft to embrace and extend they 're losing so much ground.Happy Birthday , Firefox = )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't believe I'm making this point, but here goes...As a web developer I actually appreciate the bloat.
The average user does not have patience to look for extensions that fill in the core features that other browsers offer.
Without the "bloat", those users would have likely stayed with IE, Microsoft would have no motivation to improve, and we'd likely be stuck developing for something much closer to IE6... ugh...So for me, bloat is forgivable -- I'm just happy we're finally at a spot where web standards are taking hold.
It's hard for Microsoft to embrace and extend they're losing so much ground.Happy Birthday, Firefox =)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30033962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30038038</id>
	<title>Screenshots</title>
	<author>Jim Hall</author>
	<datestamp>1257760440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If anyone is interested, you can see screenshots of early Mozilla versions, including Mozilla 1.0 and 1.1, at <a href="http://www.andrew-turnbull.net/mozilla/history3.html" title="andrew-turnbull.net">this archive.</a> [andrew-turnbull.net]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If anyone is interested , you can see screenshots of early Mozilla versions , including Mozilla 1.0 and 1.1 , at this archive .
[ andrew-turnbull.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If anyone is interested, you can see screenshots of early Mozilla versions, including Mozilla 1.0 and 1.1, at this archive.
[andrew-turnbull.net]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034158</id>
	<title>Re:Original Firefox goals forgotten...</title>
	<author>FooBarWidget</author>
	<datestamp>1257787680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe bloated by your standards, but I use almost all of Firefox's features on a daily basis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe bloated by your standards , but I use almost all of Firefox 's features on a daily basis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe bloated by your standards, but I use almost all of Firefox's features on a daily basis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30033962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30035012</id>
	<title>Re:Original Firefox goals forgotten...</title>
	<author>Lordrashmi</author>
	<datestamp>1257791160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Disable automatic upgrades then.</p><p>Tools &gt; Options &gt; Upgrades: Uncheck "Automatically check for upgrades".</p><p>Not so hard, but less fun then whining.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Disable automatic upgrades then.Tools &gt; Options &gt; Upgrades : Uncheck " Automatically check for upgrades " .Not so hard , but less fun then whining .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disable automatic upgrades then.Tools &gt; Options &gt; Upgrades: Uncheck "Automatically check for upgrades".Not so hard, but less fun then whining.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034802</id>
	<title>A cake is ON order</title>
	<author>RotateLeftByte</author>
	<datestamp>1257790200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Probably laced with Arsenic/Belladona etc etc etc</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably laced with Arsenic/Belladona etc etc etc</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably laced with Arsenic/Belladona etc etc etc</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30033912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30035602</id>
	<title>It's become slow...</title>
	<author>beru777</author>
	<datestamp>1257793320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And I don't exactly know why. Launching can take up to one minute (bug in 3.5). Typing a single character in the address bar can freeze the whole browser for 30 seconds or more... etc... I switched to Chrome as my main browser last week.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And I do n't exactly know why .
Launching can take up to one minute ( bug in 3.5 ) .
Typing a single character in the address bar can freeze the whole browser for 30 seconds or more... etc... I switched to Chrome as my main browser last week .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I don't exactly know why.
Launching can take up to one minute (bug in 3.5).
Typing a single character in the address bar can freeze the whole browser for 30 seconds or more... etc... I switched to Chrome as my main browser last week.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30033912</id>
	<title>A cake is in order</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257786840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think Microsoft should send them a cake to celebrate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Microsoft should send them a cake to celebrate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think Microsoft should send them a cake to celebrate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30037354</id>
	<title>Booo Firefox!  Praise Seamonkey</title>
	<author>lanner</author>
	<datestamp>1257757740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is there anyone who used the old Mozilla browser and mail suite who doesn't hate Firefox/Thunderbird?  I don't understand how anyone can like the dumbed-down Firefux and Thunderturd apps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there anyone who used the old Mozilla browser and mail suite who does n't hate Firefox/Thunderbird ?
I do n't understand how anyone can like the dumbed-down Firefux and Thunderturd apps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there anyone who used the old Mozilla browser and mail suite who doesn't hate Firefox/Thunderbird?
I don't understand how anyone can like the dumbed-down Firefux and Thunderturd apps.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30035406</id>
	<title>5 years since 1.0 isn't necessarily 5 years old?</title>
	<author>Rich Klein</author>
	<datestamp>1257792600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Weren't many of us using (at least trying) Firefox well before the 1.0 release?  I thought I remembered using 0.8 or something.  So isn't Firefox older than 5 years?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Were n't many of us using ( at least trying ) Firefox well before the 1.0 release ?
I thought I remembered using 0.8 or something .
So is n't Firefox older than 5 years ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Weren't many of us using (at least trying) Firefox well before the 1.0 release?
I thought I remembered using 0.8 or something.
So isn't Firefox older than 5 years?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30041738</id>
	<title>Re:Original Firefox goals forgotten...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257781800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not really bloat, but I fear the day when they will remove the ability to disable the useless tab close buttons or the tab black hole from about:config. What's wrong with a button that doesn't move here and there and doesn't have me remembering a gazillion different set of shortcuts for a gazillion applications?</p><p>Firefox stopped innovating(or at least copying well at 1.5) since then it has been 2.0(IE7) 3.0(Safari) 3.5(IE8) 3.6/4.0(Chrome) I don't think that any of these GUIs can even compare to FF1.5 in usability.</p><p>At some point, UI designers stopped getting their inspiration from superior designs such as MacOS classic or even Windows 95, and started using their retarded siblings and their LSD trips.</p><p>I call it the K-X boundary, set in 2001. Firefox was among the last to fall victim of the cataclysm having managed to scavenge a bit of common sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not really bloat , but I fear the day when they will remove the ability to disable the useless tab close buttons or the tab black hole from about : config .
What 's wrong with a button that does n't move here and there and does n't have me remembering a gazillion different set of shortcuts for a gazillion applications ? Firefox stopped innovating ( or at least copying well at 1.5 ) since then it has been 2.0 ( IE7 ) 3.0 ( Safari ) 3.5 ( IE8 ) 3.6/4.0 ( Chrome ) I do n't think that any of these GUIs can even compare to FF1.5 in usability.At some point , UI designers stopped getting their inspiration from superior designs such as MacOS classic or even Windows 95 , and started using their retarded siblings and their LSD trips.I call it the K-X boundary , set in 2001 .
Firefox was among the last to fall victim of the cataclysm having managed to scavenge a bit of common sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not really bloat, but I fear the day when they will remove the ability to disable the useless tab close buttons or the tab black hole from about:config.
What's wrong with a button that doesn't move here and there and doesn't have me remembering a gazillion different set of shortcuts for a gazillion applications?Firefox stopped innovating(or at least copying well at 1.5) since then it has been 2.0(IE7) 3.0(Safari) 3.5(IE8) 3.6/4.0(Chrome) I don't think that any of these GUIs can even compare to FF1.5 in usability.At some point, UI designers stopped getting their inspiration from superior designs such as MacOS classic or even Windows 95, and started using their retarded siblings and their LSD trips.I call it the K-X boundary, set in 2001.
Firefox was among the last to fall victim of the cataclysm having managed to scavenge a bit of common sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034114</id>
	<title>cookies are delicious delicacies</title>
	<author>syrinx</author>
	<datestamp>1257787500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Been using it since one of the early Phoenix versions (0.4 probably) in late 2002. It has come a long way, certainly, though not everything is good, as everyone's posts about "bloat" show. Still, I much prefer it over any other browser.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Been using it since one of the early Phoenix versions ( 0.4 probably ) in late 2002 .
It has come a long way , certainly , though not everything is good , as everyone 's posts about " bloat " show .
Still , I much prefer it over any other browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Been using it since one of the early Phoenix versions (0.4 probably) in late 2002.
It has come a long way, certainly, though not everything is good, as everyone's posts about "bloat" show.
Still, I much prefer it over any other browser.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034624</id>
	<title>5 Years</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257789480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here's the Slashdot story from 5 years ago: <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/09/132219" title="slashdot.org">Slashdot | Firefox 1.0 Released</a> [slashdot.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's the Slashdot story from 5 years ago : Slashdot | Firefox 1.0 Released [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's the Slashdot story from 5 years ago: Slashdot | Firefox 1.0 Released [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034904</id>
	<title>Re:Original Firefox goals forgotten...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257790680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Which piece of bloat would you remove first?</p></div><p>I am sure that many will say "the awesome bar". I don't. In fact, I use it so much that I think that I could now live without <b>bookmarks</b>. </p><p>YMMV, of course.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which piece of bloat would you remove first ? I am sure that many will say " the awesome bar " .
I do n't .
In fact , I use it so much that I think that I could now live without bookmarks .
YMMV , of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which piece of bloat would you remove first?I am sure that many will say "the awesome bar".
I don't.
In fact, I use it so much that I think that I could now live without bookmarks.
YMMV, of course.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034868</id>
	<title>Suzaku</title>
	<author>Requiem18th</author>
	<datestamp>1257790500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I *still* think they should have renamed it "Suzaku".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I * still * think they should have renamed it " Suzaku " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I *still* think they should have renamed it "Suzaku".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30036526</id>
	<title>Oldest Firefox (then Phoenix) story on Slashdot</title>
	<author>loren</author>
	<datestamp>1257797280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmm... This is the initial announcement I found from Sept 24, 2002... Back before the project was renamed Firebird, then FireFox</p><p>
&nbsp; Enjoy: <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/09/24/1215252" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/09/24/1215252</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm... This is the initial announcement I found from Sept 24 , 2002... Back before the project was renamed Firebird , then FireFox   Enjoy : http : //tech.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 02/09/24/1215252 [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm... This is the initial announcement I found from Sept 24, 2002... Back before the project was renamed Firebird, then FireFox
  Enjoy: http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/09/24/1215252 [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30036494</id>
	<title>Re:A cake is in order</title>
	<author>arelas</author>
	<datestamp>1257797160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>They would know the cake is a lie!</htmltext>
<tokenext>They would know the cake is a lie !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They would know the cake is a lie!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30033912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30052716</id>
	<title>Re:Original Firefox goals forgotten...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257852780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It didn't do it that well back in the day.</p><p>It used to be more resource hungry. The interface was less customizable.</p><p>And the last, and the most powerful reason: If it was getting worse with every release, there would be LESS people using it, rather than MORE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It did n't do it that well back in the day.It used to be more resource hungry .
The interface was less customizable.And the last , and the most powerful reason : If it was getting worse with every release , there would be LESS people using it , rather than MORE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It didn't do it that well back in the day.It used to be more resource hungry.
The interface was less customizable.And the last, and the most powerful reason: If it was getting worse with every release, there would be LESS people using it, rather than MORE.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30033962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30035268</id>
	<title>5 years now? Seems longer...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257792060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been using Firefox since Phoenix 0.5 (December 2002 iirc, almost seven years now) and I have to say, the community process and the extensions make Firefox what it is.</p><p>Yes, these days there's another open source browser on the block (Chrome) and it too is very good. But it's great to have Mozilla and Firefox around because you can be sure that Mozilla will look after users' interests far more than Google or Microsoft will. If nothing else, it keeps the others honest.</p><p>So congratulations Firefox, and here's to five more years!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been using Firefox since Phoenix 0.5 ( December 2002 iirc , almost seven years now ) and I have to say , the community process and the extensions make Firefox what it is.Yes , these days there 's another open source browser on the block ( Chrome ) and it too is very good .
But it 's great to have Mozilla and Firefox around because you can be sure that Mozilla will look after users ' interests far more than Google or Microsoft will .
If nothing else , it keeps the others honest.So congratulations Firefox , and here 's to five more years !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been using Firefox since Phoenix 0.5 (December 2002 iirc, almost seven years now) and I have to say, the community process and the extensions make Firefox what it is.Yes, these days there's another open source browser on the block (Chrome) and it too is very good.
But it's great to have Mozilla and Firefox around because you can be sure that Mozilla will look after users' interests far more than Google or Microsoft will.
If nothing else, it keeps the others honest.So congratulations Firefox, and here's to five more years!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30035990</id>
	<title>Re:A cake is in order</title>
	<author>jellomizer</author>
	<datestamp>1257794760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes the 5 Anniversary of a version 1 branch of an existing product is so much more newsworthy then the 20th university of the fall of the berlin wall.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes the 5 Anniversary of a version 1 branch of an existing product is so much more newsworthy then the 20th university of the fall of the berlin wall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes the 5 Anniversary of a version 1 branch of an existing product is so much more newsworthy then the 20th university of the fall of the berlin wall.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30033912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30073258</id>
	<title>Re:Comments about bloat</title>
	<author>strikethree</author>
	<datestamp>1258043820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"1) Software naturally becomes larger with more features over time."</i></p><p>E.G. bloat</p><p><i>"2) Many of the features added are very good and very helpful "</i></p><p>I decline to agree.</p><p><i>"3) We live in an era where memory is not a precious commodity."</i></p><p>Wrong, memory *IS* a precious commodity. I can only have 4 gigabytes of ram in my laptop. If every program assumes that ram is not an issue, it quickly becomes an issue. RAM is much much much much larger than it was before. It is still finite.</p><p>So, bloat is major problem for Firefox now. Why? Because it uses too much of my memory and too much of my time. I close Firefox, I click on the icon to launch it again, and it then tells me that Firefox is still running and to wait. WTF?! Exactly how long does it take to exit()? Oh, it is synching a database. Um, since when did I want or need a database for my web browsing habits? Stop collecting information! "Use privacy mode". Why? What benefits accrue to me from the web browser storing all of this information about me and the websites that I visit?</p><p>Honestly, I categorically reject this media rich fun zone that is being thrust upon me. Especially since it seeks to remove all control from me. Leave me alone. Give me Firefox 1.0 with bugfixes/security updates damnit. Firefox 3 is an out of control monstrosity that is growing past the needs of any single individual.</p><p>God I wish I could understand the convoluted codebase of even Firefox 1.0 so I could just maintain it myself. What a nightmare.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" 1 ) Software naturally becomes larger with more features over time. " E.G .
bloat " 2 ) Many of the features added are very good and very helpful " I decline to agree .
" 3 ) We live in an era where memory is not a precious commodity .
" Wrong , memory * IS * a precious commodity .
I can only have 4 gigabytes of ram in my laptop .
If every program assumes that ram is not an issue , it quickly becomes an issue .
RAM is much much much much larger than it was before .
It is still finite.So , bloat is major problem for Firefox now .
Why ? Because it uses too much of my memory and too much of my time .
I close Firefox , I click on the icon to launch it again , and it then tells me that Firefox is still running and to wait .
WTF ? ! Exactly how long does it take to exit ( ) ?
Oh , it is synching a database .
Um , since when did I want or need a database for my web browsing habits ?
Stop collecting information !
" Use privacy mode " .
Why ? What benefits accrue to me from the web browser storing all of this information about me and the websites that I visit ? Honestly , I categorically reject this media rich fun zone that is being thrust upon me .
Especially since it seeks to remove all control from me .
Leave me alone .
Give me Firefox 1.0 with bugfixes/security updates damnit .
Firefox 3 is an out of control monstrosity that is growing past the needs of any single individual.God I wish I could understand the convoluted codebase of even Firefox 1.0 so I could just maintain it myself .
What a nightmare .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"1) Software naturally becomes larger with more features over time."E.G.
bloat"2) Many of the features added are very good and very helpful "I decline to agree.
"3) We live in an era where memory is not a precious commodity.
"Wrong, memory *IS* a precious commodity.
I can only have 4 gigabytes of ram in my laptop.
If every program assumes that ram is not an issue, it quickly becomes an issue.
RAM is much much much much larger than it was before.
It is still finite.So, bloat is major problem for Firefox now.
Why? Because it uses too much of my memory and too much of my time.
I close Firefox, I click on the icon to launch it again, and it then tells me that Firefox is still running and to wait.
WTF?! Exactly how long does it take to exit()?
Oh, it is synching a database.
Um, since when did I want or need a database for my web browsing habits?
Stop collecting information!
"Use privacy mode".
Why? What benefits accrue to me from the web browser storing all of this information about me and the websites that I visit?Honestly, I categorically reject this media rich fun zone that is being thrust upon me.
Especially since it seeks to remove all control from me.
Leave me alone.
Give me Firefox 1.0 with bugfixes/security updates damnit.
Firefox 3 is an out of control monstrosity that is growing past the needs of any single individual.God I wish I could understand the convoluted codebase of even Firefox 1.0 so I could just maintain it myself.
What a nightmare.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30037422</id>
	<title>Re:Original Firefox goals forgotten...</title>
	<author>Zoxed</author>
	<datestamp>1257757980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Which piece of bloat would you remove first?<br>Built in RSS reader.<br>Also:<br>- Caching and filtering could easily be done in a separate process<br>- Themes</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Which piece of bloat would you remove first ? Built in RSS reader.Also : - Caching and filtering could easily be done in a separate process- Themes</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Which piece of bloat would you remove first?Built in RSS reader.Also:- Caching and filtering could easily be done in a separate process- Themes</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30035588</id>
	<title>Re:Comments about bloat</title>
	<author>netsavior</author>
	<datestamp>1257793260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>3) We live in an era where memory is not a precious commodity.</i> <br>
No, we live in an era where the configurations and limitations for each machine are incredibly diverse.<br>
Anyone still have FireFox as your primary browser on a 1.6 atom netbook after the June 30th release?  How is that working out for you?<br>
Default configuration for XP for HP 1010s worked fine, install firefox and you're good to go.  Now FF is so much worse, even maxed on RAM, you cannot watch Hulu or Netflix streaming on them.<br>  Oh Noes you should use Linux... oh wait no netflix streaming on linux, cause Netflix and Microsoft are dicks(silverlight, and no moonlight doesn't work)... and we all know how awesome full-screen flash video is on linux.<br> <br>
I think it should be standard practice to have sets of compiler directives for "Useless crap only geeks would use" so that my wife can use Firefox again.</htmltext>
<tokenext>3 ) We live in an era where memory is not a precious commodity .
No , we live in an era where the configurations and limitations for each machine are incredibly diverse .
Anyone still have FireFox as your primary browser on a 1.6 atom netbook after the June 30th release ?
How is that working out for you ?
Default configuration for XP for HP 1010s worked fine , install firefox and you 're good to go .
Now FF is so much worse , even maxed on RAM , you can not watch Hulu or Netflix streaming on them .
Oh Noes you should use Linux... oh wait no netflix streaming on linux , cause Netflix and Microsoft are dicks ( silverlight , and no moonlight does n't work ) ... and we all know how awesome full-screen flash video is on linux .
I think it should be standard practice to have sets of compiler directives for " Useless crap only geeks would use " so that my wife can use Firefox again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3) We live in an era where memory is not a precious commodity.
No, we live in an era where the configurations and limitations for each machine are incredibly diverse.
Anyone still have FireFox as your primary browser on a 1.6 atom netbook after the June 30th release?
How is that working out for you?
Default configuration for XP for HP 1010s worked fine, install firefox and you're good to go.
Now FF is so much worse, even maxed on RAM, you cannot watch Hulu or Netflix streaming on them.
Oh Noes you should use Linux... oh wait no netflix streaming on linux, cause Netflix and Microsoft are dicks(silverlight, and no moonlight doesn't work)... and we all know how awesome full-screen flash video is on linux.
I think it should be standard practice to have sets of compiler directives for "Useless crap only geeks would use" so that my wife can use Firefox again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30035464</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone using Lynx?</title>
	<author>godrik</author>
	<datestamp>1257792780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I usually prefer w3m for those things (in particular to read the HTML mails in mutt). but lynx get the job done as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I usually prefer w3m for those things ( in particular to read the HTML mails in mutt ) .
but lynx get the job done as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I usually prefer w3m for those things (in particular to read the HTML mails in mutt).
but lynx get the job done as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30035004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30033942</id>
	<title>Because I'm just an angry man</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257786900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think today I will finally try out Chrome and see how it compares to IE and Opera. Plus I hear Konqueror is not bad on Linux too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think today I will finally try out Chrome and see how it compares to IE and Opera .
Plus I hear Konqueror is not bad on Linux too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think today I will finally try out Chrome and see how it compares to IE and Opera.
Plus I hear Konqueror is not bad on Linux too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30037576</id>
	<title>Let's have a funeral for IE6 next year!</title>
	<author>brentonboy</author>
	<datestamp>1257758580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the 6th birthday of Firefox, let's have a funeral for the 6th version of Internet Explorer. It's about time. 9 years is too long for a version of a browser to live.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the 6th birthday of Firefox , let 's have a funeral for the 6th version of Internet Explorer .
It 's about time .
9 years is too long for a version of a browser to live .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the 6th birthday of Firefox, let's have a funeral for the 6th version of Internet Explorer.
It's about time.
9 years is too long for a version of a browser to live.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034124</id>
	<title>Re:Original Firefox goals forgotten...</title>
	<author>slim</author>
	<datestamp>1257787560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which piece of bloat would you remove first?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which piece of bloat would you remove first ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which piece of bloat would you remove first?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30033962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034736</id>
	<title>Re:A cake is in order</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1257789960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These comments remind me of this video (where Mac and PC get poisoned with a cake):</p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mg6wrYCT9Q" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mg6wrYCT9Q</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These comments remind me of this video ( where Mac and PC get poisoned with a cake ) : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = 9mg6wrYCT9Q [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These comments remind me of this video (where Mac and PC get poisoned with a cake):http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mg6wrYCT9Q [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034782</id>
	<title>Re:Original Firefox goals forgotten...</title>
	<author>harmonise</author>
	<datestamp>1257790140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Which piece of bloat would you remove first?</p></div></blockquote><p>JavaScript.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which piece of bloat would you remove first ? JavaScript .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which piece of bloat would you remove first?JavaScript.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30035252</id>
	<title>Re:The addons deserve the real praise</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257792060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The addons are useful, but their implementation is pure shit.</p><p>It should be obvious to anyone that writing applications using a combination of XML and JavaScript, all running within a single-threaded environment (the Gecko rendering engine), is going to make for a shitty user experience.</p><p>And that proves to be true, with the "lightweight" Firefox browser typically consuming over 500+ MB of resident memory, and requiring a CPU from early 2008 or later to be even remotely usable.</p><p>Go try running recent versions of Firefox and Opera on a 500 MHz x86 system with 64 MB of RAM. Opera works just fine, while Firefox often can't even start up. I know this to be true, because I recently had to help a user with such a system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The addons are useful , but their implementation is pure shit.It should be obvious to anyone that writing applications using a combination of XML and JavaScript , all running within a single-threaded environment ( the Gecko rendering engine ) , is going to make for a shitty user experience.And that proves to be true , with the " lightweight " Firefox browser typically consuming over 500 + MB of resident memory , and requiring a CPU from early 2008 or later to be even remotely usable.Go try running recent versions of Firefox and Opera on a 500 MHz x86 system with 64 MB of RAM .
Opera works just fine , while Firefox often ca n't even start up .
I know this to be true , because I recently had to help a user with such a system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The addons are useful, but their implementation is pure shit.It should be obvious to anyone that writing applications using a combination of XML and JavaScript, all running within a single-threaded environment (the Gecko rendering engine), is going to make for a shitty user experience.And that proves to be true, with the "lightweight" Firefox browser typically consuming over 500+ MB of resident memory, and requiring a CPU from early 2008 or later to be even remotely usable.Go try running recent versions of Firefox and Opera on a 500 MHz x86 system with 64 MB of RAM.
Opera works just fine, while Firefox often can't even start up.
I know this to be true, because I recently had to help a user with such a system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30038072</id>
	<title>Re:Original Firefox goals forgotten...</title>
	<author>GreatBunzinni</author>
	<datestamp>1257760620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Amen. I don't understand how can anyone bitch about the awesomebar, particularly those we expect to be very comfortable with the command line interface. Thanks to the awesomebar I can finally side-step a great deal of trivial searches which I had to rely on search engines to perform by simply "starring" a link and then typing any word remotely related to it on the text widget. How cool is that?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Amen .
I do n't understand how can anyone bitch about the awesomebar , particularly those we expect to be very comfortable with the command line interface .
Thanks to the awesomebar I can finally side-step a great deal of trivial searches which I had to rely on search engines to perform by simply " starring " a link and then typing any word remotely related to it on the text widget .
How cool is that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amen.
I don't understand how can anyone bitch about the awesomebar, particularly those we expect to be very comfortable with the command line interface.
Thanks to the awesomebar I can finally side-step a great deal of trivial searches which I had to rely on search engines to perform by simply "starring" a link and then typing any word remotely related to it on the text widget.
How cool is that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30037230</id>
	<title>Re:Original Firefox goals forgotten...</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1257757200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have my bookmarks toolbar filled with links (hide the text and only show icons) of all of my commonly visited sites. That combined with anything rare I want to return to being bookmarked by hitting the star. I not only don't need bookmarks but I've hidden the whole menu bar (It is now shown as a single icon to the left of the go back button). Also the awesome bar doesn't slow anything down, can be shut off and if you simply ignore it it won't react differently than the old bar.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have my bookmarks toolbar filled with links ( hide the text and only show icons ) of all of my commonly visited sites .
That combined with anything rare I want to return to being bookmarked by hitting the star .
I not only do n't need bookmarks but I 've hidden the whole menu bar ( It is now shown as a single icon to the left of the go back button ) .
Also the awesome bar does n't slow anything down , can be shut off and if you simply ignore it it wo n't react differently than the old bar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have my bookmarks toolbar filled with links (hide the text and only show icons) of all of my commonly visited sites.
That combined with anything rare I want to return to being bookmarked by hitting the star.
I not only don't need bookmarks but I've hidden the whole menu bar (It is now shown as a single icon to the left of the go back button).
Also the awesome bar doesn't slow anything down, can be shut off and if you simply ignore it it won't react differently than the old bar.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30035472</id>
	<title>If you really want to reminisce,</title>
	<author>adagioforstrings</author>
	<datestamp>1257792840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>check out this Slashdot story about Phoenix 0.2: <a href="http://developers.slashdot.org/developers/02/10/07/1739241.shtml" title="slashdot.org">http://developers.slashdot.org/developers/02/10/07/1739241.shtml</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>I remember Mozilla and its slowness and seemingly hundreds of configuration options that I didn't care about.  It was like they were trying to fit every possible feature into the software.  Then I tried Phoenix and it was so much more pleasant to use, even at that young stage. I'm happy to see Firefox has survived this long and remains, for the most part, as great to use now as those early days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>check out this Slashdot story about Phoenix 0.2 : http : //developers.slashdot.org/developers/02/10/07/1739241.shtml [ slashdot.org ] I remember Mozilla and its slowness and seemingly hundreds of configuration options that I did n't care about .
It was like they were trying to fit every possible feature into the software .
Then I tried Phoenix and it was so much more pleasant to use , even at that young stage .
I 'm happy to see Firefox has survived this long and remains , for the most part , as great to use now as those early days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>check out this Slashdot story about Phoenix 0.2: http://developers.slashdot.org/developers/02/10/07/1739241.shtml [slashdot.org]I remember Mozilla and its slowness and seemingly hundreds of configuration options that I didn't care about.
It was like they were trying to fit every possible feature into the software.
Then I tried Phoenix and it was so much more pleasant to use, even at that young stage.
I'm happy to see Firefox has survived this long and remains, for the most part, as great to use now as those early days.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30036012</id>
	<title>Re:Original Firefox goals forgotten...</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1257794880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bloat... or added features working within ever expanding RAM and HD space?</p><p>i'm not saying that there is no bloat in FF. But rather, questioning whether we are calling it bloated because it is bigger. Bigger doesn't not mean bloated.  An F-22 is much bigger than a P-51, but that's not bloat.  It's improvement and dealing with modern options.  The amount of RAM available in a 09 machine vs. an 04 is quite different.  Processor speeds and HD space grew faster yet.  The Wright Flyer didn't need radar.  Should we remove radars from modern planes?  Maybe the sky is a bit more crowded now than it was in those days.  Things change.  Expectations change.  Onions untie and fall off our belts.</p><p>It's the nature of products to gain features, esp, software and electronics.  Cars don't "need" stereos or air condition to do their jobs.  Consoles are becoming more like computers.  Websites are becoming more like software.  Computers are running other computers. Computers are working like there are one big computer.</p><p>Did you know that Mozilla is making this product for people other than you?</p><p>Is FF bloated w/o any plug-ins or extensions?</p><p>How can something sound too good, or even be too good?  "Damn, I can't eat anymore more of this pizza. It's too good!"  "Turn the radio off! That song is just too awesome."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bloat... or added features working within ever expanding RAM and HD space ? i 'm not saying that there is no bloat in FF .
But rather , questioning whether we are calling it bloated because it is bigger .
Bigger does n't not mean bloated .
An F-22 is much bigger than a P-51 , but that 's not bloat .
It 's improvement and dealing with modern options .
The amount of RAM available in a 09 machine vs. an 04 is quite different .
Processor speeds and HD space grew faster yet .
The Wright Flyer did n't need radar .
Should we remove radars from modern planes ?
Maybe the sky is a bit more crowded now than it was in those days .
Things change .
Expectations change .
Onions untie and fall off our belts.It 's the nature of products to gain features , esp , software and electronics .
Cars do n't " need " stereos or air condition to do their jobs .
Consoles are becoming more like computers .
Websites are becoming more like software .
Computers are running other computers .
Computers are working like there are one big computer.Did you know that Mozilla is making this product for people other than you ? Is FF bloated w/o any plug-ins or extensions ? How can something sound too good , or even be too good ?
" Damn , I ca n't eat anymore more of this pizza .
It 's too good !
" " Turn the radio off !
That song is just too awesome .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bloat... or added features working within ever expanding RAM and HD space?i'm not saying that there is no bloat in FF.
But rather, questioning whether we are calling it bloated because it is bigger.
Bigger doesn't not mean bloated.
An F-22 is much bigger than a P-51, but that's not bloat.
It's improvement and dealing with modern options.
The amount of RAM available in a 09 machine vs. an 04 is quite different.
Processor speeds and HD space grew faster yet.
The Wright Flyer didn't need radar.
Should we remove radars from modern planes?
Maybe the sky is a bit more crowded now than it was in those days.
Things change.
Expectations change.
Onions untie and fall off our belts.It's the nature of products to gain features, esp, software and electronics.
Cars don't "need" stereos or air condition to do their jobs.
Consoles are becoming more like computers.
Websites are becoming more like software.
Computers are running other computers.
Computers are working like there are one big computer.Did you know that Mozilla is making this product for people other than you?Is FF bloated w/o any plug-ins or extensions?How can something sound too good, or even be too good?
"Damn, I can't eat anymore more of this pizza.
It's too good!
"  "Turn the radio off!
That song is just too awesome.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30033962</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_168233_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30041738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30033962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_168233_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30036460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30035004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_168233_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30048570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30033962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_168233_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30037230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30033962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_168233_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30073258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_168233_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30052716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30033962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_168233_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30035252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_168233_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30039250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30037668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_168233_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30035788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30033962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_168233_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30036618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_168233_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30037422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30033962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_168233_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30036298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30033962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_168233_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30039350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30036726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30035004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_168233_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30037856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_168233_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30033912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_168233_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30033912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_168233_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30033962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_168233_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30038284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30033962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_168233_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30035012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30033962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_168233_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30036012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30033962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_168233_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30038030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30033962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_168233_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30033912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_168233_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30033962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_168233_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30033912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_168233_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30037520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30033962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_168233_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30033962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_168233_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30040194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30033962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_168233_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30035464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30035004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_168233_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30038066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30036726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30035004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_168233_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30038072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30033962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_168233_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30035598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30033912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_168233_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30036362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30035004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_168233_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30036256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_168233_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30044768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30033912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_168233_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30036494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30033912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_168233_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30037006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30033962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_168233_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30036208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30033962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_168233_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30038470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30035990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30033912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_168233_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30037116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30033962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_168233_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30039534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30033962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_168233_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_168233_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30035588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_168233_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30036172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30035004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_168233_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30035538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30033912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_168233_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30036114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30033962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_168233.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30033912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30036494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30035990
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30038470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30035538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034234
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034604
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034736
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30035598
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30044768
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_168233.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30033962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30038284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30037006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30040194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30052716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30036012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034124
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034904
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30048570
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30037520
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30039534
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30038072
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30037230
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034886
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30036298
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30036114
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30037116
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30037422
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30041738
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30035788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30038030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034544
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30035012
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034616
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30036208
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_168233.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30035004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30036362
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30036172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30036460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30036726
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30038066
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30039350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30035464
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_168233.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034004
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_168233.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30037856
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_168233.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30035406
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_168233.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034556
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_168233.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30036256
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30035588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30073258
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_168233.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30037668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30039250
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_168233.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30035268
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_168233.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034868
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_168233.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30035602
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_168233.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30036618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30035252
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_168233.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_168233.30034284
</commentlist>
</conversation>
