<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_11_1336200</id>
	<title>OS X Update Officially Kills Intel Atom Support</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1257947640000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>bonch writes <i>"After apparently <a href="http://apple.slashdot.org/story/09/11/03/003243/Mac-OS-X-1062-Will-Block-Atom-Processors?art\_pos=8">disabling</a> and then <a href="http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/09/11/05/2110259/Apple-Not-Disabling-OS-X-Atom-Support-After-All?art\_pos=7&amp;art\_pos=7">re-enabling</a> support for the Atom chipset in test builds of their 10.6.2 update, Apple has <a href="http://osxdaily.com/2009/11/09/mac-os-x-10-6-2-update-released-intel-atom-support-officially-missing-breaks-hackintosh-netbooks/">officially disabled support for the chipset</a> in the final update.  This makes it impossible for <a href="http://www.osx86project.org/">OSX86</a> users to run 10.6.2 on their Atom-based netbooks until a modified kernel shows up."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>bonch writes " After apparently disabling and then re-enabling support for the Atom chipset in test builds of their 10.6.2 update , Apple has officially disabled support for the chipset in the final update .
This makes it impossible for OSX86 users to run 10.6.2 on their Atom-based netbooks until a modified kernel shows up .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bonch writes "After apparently disabling and then re-enabling support for the Atom chipset in test builds of their 10.6.2 update, Apple has officially disabled support for the chipset in the final update.
This makes it impossible for OSX86 users to run 10.6.2 on their Atom-based netbooks until a modified kernel shows up.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30065348</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, great.</title>
	<author>sbeckstead</author>
	<datestamp>1257068460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow, an anon get's modded to interesting for stating garbage and I get modded to 0 for stating the truth.  Slash Dot is great. There is no dot but slash.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , an anon get 's modded to interesting for stating garbage and I get modded to 0 for stating the truth .
Slash Dot is great .
There is no dot but slash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, an anon get's modded to interesting for stating garbage and I get modded to 0 for stating the truth.
Slash Dot is great.
There is no dot but slash.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30061016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059444</id>
	<title>Start complaining, "free" software people</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257087600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wah... oh well, sooner or later people will look at the price of their preferred genuine Apple portable, divide it by the number of hours they spend hacking to keep things working every time there is a point update, subtract a bit for general annoyance, come up with a single-digit hourly figure, and if they have half a brain they'll just buy one.</p><p>Or if they're not capable of working that out they'll just post whiny little messages on Slashdot about how their freedoms are being repressed by the big bad company that chose not to support hardware they don't even ship.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wah... oh well , sooner or later people will look at the price of their preferred genuine Apple portable , divide it by the number of hours they spend hacking to keep things working every time there is a point update , subtract a bit for general annoyance , come up with a single-digit hourly figure , and if they have half a brain they 'll just buy one.Or if they 're not capable of working that out they 'll just post whiny little messages on Slashdot about how their freedoms are being repressed by the big bad company that chose not to support hardware they do n't even ship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wah... oh well, sooner or later people will look at the price of their preferred genuine Apple portable, divide it by the number of hours they spend hacking to keep things working every time there is a point update, subtract a bit for general annoyance, come up with a single-digit hourly figure, and if they have half a brain they'll just buy one.Or if they're not capable of working that out they'll just post whiny little messages on Slashdot about how their freedoms are being repressed by the big bad company that chose not to support hardware they don't even ship.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059784</id>
	<title>Not that big of a deal</title>
	<author>Fred IV</author>
	<datestamp>1257088980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hackintosh users can live without the 10.6.2 update. This doesn't really break anything, it just prevents netbook users from having the latest set of OS patches between now and whenever the community finds a workaround.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hackintosh users can live without the 10.6.2 update .
This does n't really break anything , it just prevents netbook users from having the latest set of OS patches between now and whenever the community finds a workaround .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hackintosh users can live without the 10.6.2 update.
This doesn't really break anything, it just prevents netbook users from having the latest set of OS patches between now and whenever the community finds a workaround.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30060858</id>
	<title>This stock holder...</title>
	<author>rinoid</author>
	<datestamp>1257093780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am fine with this. After making more than a 1000\% off my initial investment everything is pretty damn peachy.

You can decry them, excoriate their "cool", label them as poseurs, but it doesn't really change the fact that Apple makes good hardware, a great OS, and a shit load of money.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am fine with this .
After making more than a 1000 \ % off my initial investment everything is pretty damn peachy .
You can decry them , excoriate their " cool " , label them as poseurs , but it does n't really change the fact that Apple makes good hardware , a great OS , and a shit load of money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am fine with this.
After making more than a 1000\% off my initial investment everything is pretty damn peachy.
You can decry them, excoriate their "cool", label them as poseurs, but it doesn't really change the fact that Apple makes good hardware, a great OS, and a shit load of money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30060510</id>
	<title>Re:I do not see the fuss about it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257092340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a difference between not compiling and configuring your program for certain architectures and actively blocking use with some chipsets. Both require EXTRA work, but only apple is prepared to do it (and paradoxically, reduces the amount of customers).</p><p>It's just a different philosophy. While bill gates admits part of the success of windows comes from pirates that stay on the os they pirated, apple is blocking access to anyone who doesn't buy apple products, making the product a proof you're rich.</p><p>Both work (just look at the profits), but don't compare two things that can't be compared.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a difference between not compiling and configuring your program for certain architectures and actively blocking use with some chipsets .
Both require EXTRA work , but only apple is prepared to do it ( and paradoxically , reduces the amount of customers ) .It 's just a different philosophy .
While bill gates admits part of the success of windows comes from pirates that stay on the os they pirated , apple is blocking access to anyone who does n't buy apple products , making the product a proof you 're rich.Both work ( just look at the profits ) , but do n't compare two things that ca n't be compared .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a difference between not compiling and configuring your program for certain architectures and actively blocking use with some chipsets.
Both require EXTRA work, but only apple is prepared to do it (and paradoxically, reduces the amount of customers).It's just a different philosophy.
While bill gates admits part of the success of windows comes from pirates that stay on the os they pirated, apple is blocking access to anyone who doesn't buy apple products, making the product a proof you're rich.Both work (just look at the profits), but don't compare two things that can't be compared.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30062156</id>
	<title>Morons:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257098880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple OS software is only designed and licensed to run on Apple hardware.</p><p>There is no Apple hardware that uses the Atom CPU.</p><p>Therefore it was never supported, so it can't be "officially unsupported" now.</p><p>Jesus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple OS software is only designed and licensed to run on Apple hardware.There is no Apple hardware that uses the Atom CPU.Therefore it was never supported , so it ca n't be " officially unsupported " now.Jesus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple OS software is only designed and licensed to run on Apple hardware.There is no Apple hardware that uses the Atom CPU.Therefore it was never supported, so it can't be "officially unsupported" now.Jesus.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30061434</id>
	<title>Re:I do not see the fuss about it...</title>
	<author>Vladimus</author>
	<datestamp>1257096180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I blame Microsoft. Microsoft did come out with a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows\_NT#Major\_features" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">PowerPC version of Windows</a> [wikipedia.org] and then stopped supporting it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I blame Microsoft .
Microsoft did come out with a PowerPC version of Windows [ wikipedia.org ] and then stopped supporting it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I blame Microsoft.
Microsoft did come out with a PowerPC version of Windows [wikipedia.org] and then stopped supporting it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30060252</id>
	<title>Re:I do not see the fuss about it...</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1257091140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If people want to run Mac OS X they should get a Mac and not one of those silly Netbooks!</p></div><p>People who want one of those silly netbooks <em>and</em> want to run OSX are being ignored by Apple. You're blaming the consumer for getting what they want, which is stupid. Thanks for making slashdot grate, Apple fanboy. Blame Apple for not offering potential customers what they want; it's short-sighted and in fact a bit pathetic.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Nobody is blaming M$ for their windows not running on PowerPC chips (as they never intended it to be useable on this processor)</p></div><p>Windows used to run on PowerPC, but nobody wanted it, so they discontinued it... just like Apple.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>and neither should anybody blame Apple for not taking care that Mac OS X boots nicely on a Atom (under-)powered Netbook.</p></div><p>People are blaming Apple for taking deliberate and unnecessary steps to make it not boot on Atom. Not all intel-based macs have instructions lacked by Atom, so the only way this would happen is if Apple made a deliberate and yet unnecessary change which stops Atom from working. Since my brain works, I bet I get more done on my "silly" Atom-based netbook than <em>you</em> can accomplish on any computer. Now go away, and stop telling consumers what they want.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If people want to run Mac OS X they should get a Mac and not one of those silly Netbooks ! People who want one of those silly netbooks and want to run OSX are being ignored by Apple .
You 're blaming the consumer for getting what they want , which is stupid .
Thanks for making slashdot grate , Apple fanboy .
Blame Apple for not offering potential customers what they want ; it 's short-sighted and in fact a bit pathetic.Nobody is blaming M $ for their windows not running on PowerPC chips ( as they never intended it to be useable on this processor ) Windows used to run on PowerPC , but nobody wanted it , so they discontinued it... just like Apple.and neither should anybody blame Apple for not taking care that Mac OS X boots nicely on a Atom ( under- ) powered Netbook.People are blaming Apple for taking deliberate and unnecessary steps to make it not boot on Atom .
Not all intel-based macs have instructions lacked by Atom , so the only way this would happen is if Apple made a deliberate and yet unnecessary change which stops Atom from working .
Since my brain works , I bet I get more done on my " silly " Atom-based netbook than you can accomplish on any computer .
Now go away , and stop telling consumers what they want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If people want to run Mac OS X they should get a Mac and not one of those silly Netbooks!People who want one of those silly netbooks and want to run OSX are being ignored by Apple.
You're blaming the consumer for getting what they want, which is stupid.
Thanks for making slashdot grate, Apple fanboy.
Blame Apple for not offering potential customers what they want; it's short-sighted and in fact a bit pathetic.Nobody is blaming M$ for their windows not running on PowerPC chips (as they never intended it to be useable on this processor)Windows used to run on PowerPC, but nobody wanted it, so they discontinued it... just like Apple.and neither should anybody blame Apple for not taking care that Mac OS X boots nicely on a Atom (under-)powered Netbook.People are blaming Apple for taking deliberate and unnecessary steps to make it not boot on Atom.
Not all intel-based macs have instructions lacked by Atom, so the only way this would happen is if Apple made a deliberate and yet unnecessary change which stops Atom from working.
Since my brain works, I bet I get more done on my "silly" Atom-based netbook than you can accomplish on any computer.
Now go away, and stop telling consumers what they want.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30070536</id>
	<title>Re:Apple Netbook on the Way</title>
	<author>Xest</author>
	<datestamp>1258021680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not if it uses an Atom processor<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:p</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not if it uses an Atom processor : p</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not if it uses an Atom processor :p</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30061582</id>
	<title>Re:"Officially"....?</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1257096600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even saying it "breaks Atom support" is perhaps a little inaccurate.  There has never officially been Atom support in OSX.  It just happened to work.  Now it happens to not work.  Maybe it was intentional on their part, but it was never "official".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even saying it " breaks Atom support " is perhaps a little inaccurate .
There has never officially been Atom support in OSX .
It just happened to work .
Now it happens to not work .
Maybe it was intentional on their part , but it was never " official " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even saying it "breaks Atom support" is perhaps a little inaccurate.
There has never officially been Atom support in OSX.
It just happened to work.
Now it happens to not work.
Maybe it was intentional on their part, but it was never "official".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30062796</id>
	<title>Atom is Dead Anyway</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257101760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just paid $400 for one of <a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834115655&amp;cm\_re=aspire\_1410-\_-34-115-655-\_-Product" title="newegg.com" rel="nofollow">these</a> [newegg.com]: Dual core celeron, 2GB RAM, 11.6" screen. Blows the Atom netbooks out of the water.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just paid $ 400 for one of these [ newegg.com ] : Dual core celeron , 2GB RAM , 11.6 " screen .
Blows the Atom netbooks out of the water .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just paid $400 for one of these [newegg.com]: Dual core celeron, 2GB RAM, 11.6" screen.
Blows the Atom netbooks out of the water.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30068606</id>
	<title>Re:Once again, so what?</title>
	<author>initialE</author>
	<datestamp>1257088380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The wierd thing is that OSX runs much better on an Atom than Windows 7 does, or even XP. I find the experience just as snappy as I would on a mac mini. Of course, don't use it for any heavy lifting, like making movies. If Apple sold an atom-based notebook, it would sell well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The wierd thing is that OSX runs much better on an Atom than Windows 7 does , or even XP .
I find the experience just as snappy as I would on a mac mini .
Of course , do n't use it for any heavy lifting , like making movies .
If Apple sold an atom-based notebook , it would sell well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The wierd thing is that OSX runs much better on an Atom than Windows 7 does, or even XP.
I find the experience just as snappy as I would on a mac mini.
Of course, don't use it for any heavy lifting, like making movies.
If Apple sold an atom-based notebook, it would sell well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30061220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30085092</id>
	<title>Re:I do not see the fuss about it...</title>
	<author>fluch</author>
	<datestamp>1258114020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>People who want one of those silly netbooks <em>and</em> want to run OSX are being ignored by Apple.</p></div><p>Apple offers the MacBook Air. And also the 13inch iMac is a small mobile computer with long lasting battery. And if you want to have it cheaper with worse hardware<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... feel free to use any other hardware with the remaining choices for the OS.</p><p>I myself use Linux next to Mac, so I wouldn't call myself Apple only fanboy. I know what Apple is good but I do not see it as the only good choice of operating system. If people want to use it on some small Atom machines, fine. But please stop moaning when something breaks for what ever reason...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People who want one of those silly netbooks and want to run OSX are being ignored by Apple.Apple offers the MacBook Air .
And also the 13inch iMac is a small mobile computer with long lasting battery .
And if you want to have it cheaper with worse hardware ... feel free to use any other hardware with the remaining choices for the OS.I myself use Linux next to Mac , so I would n't call myself Apple only fanboy .
I know what Apple is good but I do not see it as the only good choice of operating system .
If people want to use it on some small Atom machines , fine .
But please stop moaning when something breaks for what ever reason.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People who want one of those silly netbooks and want to run OSX are being ignored by Apple.Apple offers the MacBook Air.
And also the 13inch iMac is a small mobile computer with long lasting battery.
And if you want to have it cheaper with worse hardware ... feel free to use any other hardware with the remaining choices for the OS.I myself use Linux next to Mac, so I wouldn't call myself Apple only fanboy.
I know what Apple is good but I do not see it as the only good choice of operating system.
If people want to use it on some small Atom machines, fine.
But please stop moaning when something breaks for what ever reason...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30060252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30062366</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, great.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257099660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>cause I'm not spending $3k on a MacBook Pro...</p></div><p>Exaggerate much? The absolute top of the line 17" MBP is only $2.5k. A very good 15" is about $2k. The 13" models are $1.5k and under.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>cause I 'm not spending $ 3k on a MacBook Pro...Exaggerate much ?
The absolute top of the line 17 " MBP is only $ 2.5k .
A very good 15 " is about $ 2k .
The 13 " models are $ 1.5k and under .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>cause I'm not spending $3k on a MacBook Pro...Exaggerate much?
The absolute top of the line 17" MBP is only $2.5k.
A very good 15" is about $2k.
The 13" models are $1.5k and under.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30060584</id>
	<title>Re:I do not see the fuss about it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257092640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But people would blame Microsoft if Windows didn't work on a particular type of x86 processor. PowerPC isn't at all analogous to the Atom. Since the Atom is an x86 processor, in order to not support it with software that otherwise works on a range of other x86 processors, Apple had to specifically code it to not work on Atom processors. This isn't a passive, "We're not going to make sure it works on Atom processors." This is an active, "We will code it to make sure it doesn't work on Atom processors."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But people would blame Microsoft if Windows did n't work on a particular type of x86 processor .
PowerPC is n't at all analogous to the Atom .
Since the Atom is an x86 processor , in order to not support it with software that otherwise works on a range of other x86 processors , Apple had to specifically code it to not work on Atom processors .
This is n't a passive , " We 're not going to make sure it works on Atom processors .
" This is an active , " We will code it to make sure it does n't work on Atom processors .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But people would blame Microsoft if Windows didn't work on a particular type of x86 processor.
PowerPC isn't at all analogous to the Atom.
Since the Atom is an x86 processor, in order to not support it with software that otherwise works on a range of other x86 processors, Apple had to specifically code it to not work on Atom processors.
This isn't a passive, "We're not going to make sure it works on Atom processors.
" This is an active, "We will code it to make sure it doesn't work on Atom processors.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30063352</id>
	<title>Re:This stock holder...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257103980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>AAPL is currently at $203 and change. That equals 2800\% for me! Woo hoo!</htmltext>
<tokenext>AAPL is currently at $ 203 and change .
That equals 2800 \ % for me !
Woo hoo !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AAPL is currently at $203 and change.
That equals 2800\% for me!
Woo hoo!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30060858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059442</id>
	<title>"Officially"....?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257087600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I RTFA, and there's no acknowledgement by Apple of what they have done or why they have done it. So the update does not "officially" break Atom support, it just breaks Atom support.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I RTFA , and there 's no acknowledgement by Apple of what they have done or why they have done it .
So the update does not " officially " break Atom support , it just breaks Atom support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I RTFA, and there's no acknowledgement by Apple of what they have done or why they have done it.
So the update does not "officially" break Atom support, it just breaks Atom support.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059900</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, great.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257089520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>You haven't read through the previous comments, have you?  I see far more people (at least at this point) complaining about the anti-apple comments than anti-apple comments...<br> <br>
Now, with that said, I think it's genius what they are doing from a business perspective...  Making the software an beacon to their hardware profit center.  From a moral perspective, I don't care what they do, cause I'm not spending $3k on a MacBook Pro...  OSX may be amazing, but I am quite happy with Ubuntu, so this news has no consequence for me.  If you want the freedom to do what you choose, use a free OS (Linux flavors, BSD flavors, etc).  If you want the polished yet non-free OSs (OSX, Windows), then you have to live with the restrictions...  It's as simple as that.  They own the copyright on the OS, so they can tell you how they want you to use it.  You can argue about the moral implications of what they do all day long, all it does is keep their name in the news...</htmltext>
<tokenext>You have n't read through the previous comments , have you ?
I see far more people ( at least at this point ) complaining about the anti-apple comments than anti-apple comments.. . Now , with that said , I think it 's genius what they are doing from a business perspective... Making the software an beacon to their hardware profit center .
From a moral perspective , I do n't care what they do , cause I 'm not spending $ 3k on a MacBook Pro... OSX may be amazing , but I am quite happy with Ubuntu , so this news has no consequence for me .
If you want the freedom to do what you choose , use a free OS ( Linux flavors , BSD flavors , etc ) .
If you want the polished yet non-free OSs ( OSX , Windows ) , then you have to live with the restrictions... It 's as simple as that .
They own the copyright on the OS , so they can tell you how they want you to use it .
You can argue about the moral implications of what they do all day long , all it does is keep their name in the news.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You haven't read through the previous comments, have you?
I see far more people (at least at this point) complaining about the anti-apple comments than anti-apple comments... 
Now, with that said, I think it's genius what they are doing from a business perspective...  Making the software an beacon to their hardware profit center.
From a moral perspective, I don't care what they do, cause I'm not spending $3k on a MacBook Pro...  OSX may be amazing, but I am quite happy with Ubuntu, so this news has no consequence for me.
If you want the freedom to do what you choose, use a free OS (Linux flavors, BSD flavors, etc).
If you want the polished yet non-free OSs (OSX, Windows), then you have to live with the restrictions...  It's as simple as that.
They own the copyright on the OS, so they can tell you how they want you to use it.
You can argue about the moral implications of what they do all day long, all it does is keep their name in the news...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059628</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30064832</id>
	<title>Re:This stock holder...</title>
	<author>rinoid</author>
	<datestamp>1257066060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Frack me I'm on auto-troll today. This is not a troll post<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... it's an accounting of the FACTS!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Frack me I 'm on auto-troll today .
This is not a troll post ... it 's an accounting of the FACTS !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Frack me I'm on auto-troll today.
This is not a troll post ... it's an accounting of the FACTS!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30060858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30063282</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, great.</title>
	<author>AaronMK</author>
	<datestamp>1257103740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"They own the copyright on the OS, so they can tell you how they want you to use it."

There is a distinction between deciding which uses they want to support versus them being able to tell you, as a purchaser, what uses are allowed.

A company owning the copyright means they can make copies and sell those copies. It does not mean they have the right to tell me what I may legally do with something I have purchased, and calling a sale a license does not change that.

Now, whether you want to call Apple evil or not for the uses they decide to support is a different story.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" They own the copyright on the OS , so they can tell you how they want you to use it .
" There is a distinction between deciding which uses they want to support versus them being able to tell you , as a purchaser , what uses are allowed .
A company owning the copyright means they can make copies and sell those copies .
It does not mean they have the right to tell me what I may legally do with something I have purchased , and calling a sale a license does not change that .
Now , whether you want to call Apple evil or not for the uses they decide to support is a different story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"They own the copyright on the OS, so they can tell you how they want you to use it.
"

There is a distinction between deciding which uses they want to support versus them being able to tell you, as a purchaser, what uses are allowed.
A company owning the copyright means they can make copies and sell those copies.
It does not mean they have the right to tell me what I may legally do with something I have purchased, and calling a sale a license does not change that.
Now, whether you want to call Apple evil or not for the uses they decide to support is a different story.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30062822</id>
	<title>Wow, you can Kill That!</title>
	<author>sbeckstead</author>
	<datestamp>1257101940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How does one actually officially Kill something that one never officially had?  And any other company would get pretty much the same treatment as Apple if they didn't actually have the support that they um "officially killed" at least on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How does one actually officially Kill something that one never officially had ?
And any other company would get pretty much the same treatment as Apple if they did n't actually have the support that they um " officially killed " at least on / .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does one actually officially Kill something that one never officially had?
And any other company would get pretty much the same treatment as Apple if they didn't actually have the support that they um "officially killed" at least on /.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30060646</id>
	<title>Re:That's funny</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257092940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I saw this on Google News yesterday, and I figured, "Huh, must have missed that on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/."</p></div><p>To make up for the delay, it will be posted here a second time, probably next week.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I saw this on Google News yesterday , and I figured , " Huh , must have missed that on / .
" To make up for the delay , it will be posted here a second time , probably next week .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I saw this on Google News yesterday, and I figured, "Huh, must have missed that on /.
"To make up for the delay, it will be posted here a second time, probably next week.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059952</id>
	<title>Re:"Officially"....?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257089760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it "officially" breaks it because 10.6.2 is now an official build.<br>Official admission = Apple acknowledges it<br>Official break = Official release version breaks</p><p>Posting AC because I modded in this thread.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it " officially " breaks it because 10.6.2 is now an official build.Official admission = Apple acknowledges itOfficial break = Official release version breaksPosting AC because I modded in this thread .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it "officially" breaks it because 10.6.2 is now an official build.Official admission = Apple acknowledges itOfficial break = Official release version breaksPosting AC because I modded in this thread.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30063384</id>
	<title>http://www.osx86project.org/ infected my PC XP</title>
	<author>rezaroo</author>
	<datestamp>1257104100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I read this article and proceeded to <a href="http://www.osx86project.org/" title="osx86project.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.osx86project.org/</a> [osx86project.org] website to check it out - clicked on InsanelyMac button from my Windows XP browser (I.E. 7.0) and was the beneficiary of a virus attack - which ended up disabling my desktop.  I can only boot to windows recovery and I can see seven<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.exe loaded on c:\.  This is akin to throwing nails on the road and watching people get a flat tire - it must be illegal.  Is there any government agency you can report this to?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I read this article and proceeded to http : //www.osx86project.org/ [ osx86project.org ] website to check it out - clicked on InsanelyMac button from my Windows XP browser ( I.E .
7.0 ) and was the beneficiary of a virus attack - which ended up disabling my desktop .
I can only boot to windows recovery and I can see seven .exe loaded on c : \ .
This is akin to throwing nails on the road and watching people get a flat tire - it must be illegal .
Is there any government agency you can report this to ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read this article and proceeded to http://www.osx86project.org/ [osx86project.org] website to check it out - clicked on InsanelyMac button from my Windows XP browser (I.E.
7.0) and was the beneficiary of a virus attack - which ended up disabling my desktop.
I can only boot to windows recovery and I can see seven .exe loaded on c:\.
This is akin to throwing nails on the road and watching people get a flat tire - it must be illegal.
Is there any government agency you can report this to?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059778</id>
	<title>Apple Netbook on the Way</title>
	<author>wkurzius</author>
	<datestamp>1257088980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another sign of the rumored Apple Netbook?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another sign of the rumored Apple Netbook ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another sign of the rumored Apple Netbook?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30066076</id>
	<title>Re:"Officially"....?</title>
	<author>godawful</author>
	<datestamp>1257072240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Technically not even "support" as there never was support "compatibility" is a better choice of words.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Technically not even " support " as there never was support " compatibility " is a better choice of words .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Technically not even "support" as there never was support "compatibility" is a better choice of words.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30062966</id>
	<title>Atom vs PPC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257102540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I find ironic is that there is more fuss being made about support for Atom processors than PowerPC processors, and Apple even made PowerPC based computers.  Once could also complain about the lack of 68k support, but probably most people don't remember back that far.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I find ironic is that there is more fuss being made about support for Atom processors than PowerPC processors , and Apple even made PowerPC based computers .
Once could also complain about the lack of 68k support , but probably most people do n't remember back that far .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I find ironic is that there is more fuss being made about support for Atom processors than PowerPC processors, and Apple even made PowerPC based computers.
Once could also complain about the lack of 68k support, but probably most people don't remember back that far.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30060200</id>
	<title>Re:I do not see the fuss about it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257090900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Nobody is blaming M$ for their windows not running on PowerPC chips (as they never intended it to be useable on this processor)</i></p><p>Because x86 and PPC are totally different architectures. Microsoft hasn't explicitly prevented the code from running on PPC; there is simply NO WAY to get the code to run on PPC.</p><p>Atom, on the other hand, is an x86 chip. Mac OS X is targeted for x86 and would run except for the fact that Apple has put in an actual check into the code to forbid it. Understand the difference?</p><p><i>and neither should anybody blame Apple for not taking care that Mac OS X boots nicely on a Atom (under-)powered Netbook.</i></p><p>Straw man. Nobody asked Apple to optimize the user experience. Tinkers and hackers simple want to use it and deal with the associated issues of an unsupported platform.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody is blaming M $ for their windows not running on PowerPC chips ( as they never intended it to be useable on this processor ) Because x86 and PPC are totally different architectures .
Microsoft has n't explicitly prevented the code from running on PPC ; there is simply NO WAY to get the code to run on PPC.Atom , on the other hand , is an x86 chip .
Mac OS X is targeted for x86 and would run except for the fact that Apple has put in an actual check into the code to forbid it .
Understand the difference ? and neither should anybody blame Apple for not taking care that Mac OS X boots nicely on a Atom ( under- ) powered Netbook.Straw man .
Nobody asked Apple to optimize the user experience .
Tinkers and hackers simple want to use it and deal with the associated issues of an unsupported platform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody is blaming M$ for their windows not running on PowerPC chips (as they never intended it to be useable on this processor)Because x86 and PPC are totally different architectures.
Microsoft hasn't explicitly prevented the code from running on PPC; there is simply NO WAY to get the code to run on PPC.Atom, on the other hand, is an x86 chip.
Mac OS X is targeted for x86 and would run except for the fact that Apple has put in an actual check into the code to forbid it.
Understand the difference?and neither should anybody blame Apple for not taking care that Mac OS X boots nicely on a Atom (under-)powered Netbook.Straw man.
Nobody asked Apple to optimize the user experience.
Tinkers and hackers simple want to use it and deal with the associated issues of an unsupported platform.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059844</id>
	<title>FIRSt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257089220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>200 running NT Market. Therefo8e or chAir, return parties, but here</htmltext>
<tokenext>200 running NT Market .
Therefo8e or chAir , return parties , but here</tokentext>
<sentencetext>200 running NT Market.
Therefo8e or chAir, return parties, but here</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30071106</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, great.</title>
	<author>stiller</author>
	<datestamp>1258030740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't care what they do, cause I'm not spending $3k on a MacBook Pro...</p></div><p>Ok, your call. But for the record, $2500 buys you a 17" MacBook Pro, which leaves you $500 for some DIY (SSD, 8GB) upgrades. Pretty cool stuff.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't care what they do , cause I 'm not spending $ 3k on a MacBook Pro...Ok , your call .
But for the record , $ 2500 buys you a 17 " MacBook Pro , which leaves you $ 500 for some DIY ( SSD , 8GB ) upgrades .
Pretty cool stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't care what they do, cause I'm not spending $3k on a MacBook Pro...Ok, your call.
But for the record, $2500 buys you a 17" MacBook Pro, which leaves you $500 for some DIY (SSD, 8GB) upgrades.
Pretty cool stuff.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059866</id>
	<title>Re:"Officially"....?</title>
	<author>LWATCDR</author>
	<datestamp>1257089340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think that OS/X ever had official atom support to start with. The interesting question is this caused by intent or because Apple didn't test the update on an Atom. Of course they have no reason to test the update on an Atom because they do not sell a single computer that uses the Atom.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think that OS/X ever had official atom support to start with .
The interesting question is this caused by intent or because Apple did n't test the update on an Atom .
Of course they have no reason to test the update on an Atom because they do not sell a single computer that uses the Atom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think that OS/X ever had official atom support to start with.
The interesting question is this caused by intent or because Apple didn't test the update on an Atom.
Of course they have no reason to test the update on an Atom because they do not sell a single computer that uses the Atom.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059418</id>
	<title>That's funny</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257087540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I saw this on Google News yesterday, and I figured, "Huh, must have missed that on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/."<br>
<br>
Ah well, let the shitstorm begin.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I saw this on Google News yesterday , and I figured , " Huh , must have missed that on / .
" Ah well , let the shitstorm begin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I saw this on Google News yesterday, and I figured, "Huh, must have missed that on /.
"

Ah well, let the shitstorm begin.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30060236</id>
	<title>Re:Dell Zino</title>
	<author>gEvil (beta)</author>
	<datestamp>1257091020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not familiar with the Zino, so I read the specs then clicked the gallery link to get a look at the machine. Then I read the captions. Seems they need to get some things in order on their site. According to the gallery captions, there's an HDMI port, optional Blu-ray drive, integrated HD3200 graphics, and an AMD Athlon dual-core processor. Of course, none of those are available on the Zino. But if all of those <i>actually</i> were options, it would be a nice little machine worth considering...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not familiar with the Zino , so I read the specs then clicked the gallery link to get a look at the machine .
Then I read the captions .
Seems they need to get some things in order on their site .
According to the gallery captions , there 's an HDMI port , optional Blu-ray drive , integrated HD3200 graphics , and an AMD Athlon dual-core processor .
Of course , none of those are available on the Zino .
But if all of those actually were options , it would be a nice little machine worth considering.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not familiar with the Zino, so I read the specs then clicked the gallery link to get a look at the machine.
Then I read the captions.
Seems they need to get some things in order on their site.
According to the gallery captions, there's an HDMI port, optional Blu-ray drive, integrated HD3200 graphics, and an AMD Athlon dual-core processor.
Of course, none of those are available on the Zino.
But if all of those actually were options, it would be a nice little machine worth considering...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059780</id>
	<title>Hackintosh is for the hobbyist, not the end-user</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257088980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you know what any of the techno mumbo is in this article, you should know better then to care. The OSx86 project is facilitated by hobbyists who lived for this kind of nonsense. Oh sure, we all fret and cry out "Oh noes"...but we all know someone's gonna fix it sooner or later.</p><p>If putting OS X on anything you wanted was easy, it'd take all the fun and geek cred out of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you know what any of the techno mumbo is in this article , you should know better then to care .
The OSx86 project is facilitated by hobbyists who lived for this kind of nonsense .
Oh sure , we all fret and cry out " Oh noes " ...but we all know someone 's gon na fix it sooner or later.If putting OS X on anything you wanted was easy , it 'd take all the fun and geek cred out of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you know what any of the techno mumbo is in this article, you should know better then to care.
The OSx86 project is facilitated by hobbyists who lived for this kind of nonsense.
Oh sure, we all fret and cry out "Oh noes"...but we all know someone's gonna fix it sooner or later.If putting OS X on anything you wanted was easy, it'd take all the fun and geek cred out of it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30062458</id>
	<title>Uh, you come off too much as a fanboi</title>
	<author>Shivetya</author>
	<datestamp>1257100140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your quote reminds me very much of that Glen Beck story yesterday.</p><p>Unless they<nobr> <wbr></nobr>//Apple// specifically deny or acknowledge the event it has not occurred?</p><p>this is like their constant updating of iTunes or iPod firmware to prevent non Apple use.  Yet they would never come and say it.</p><p>Look at the title of the article, OS X update officially kills, not Apple.  It is the same type of reference as saying "guns kill people, instead of blaming the people".</p><p>I understand what you intended to say but it comes off as someone knee jerk defending Apple for their latest stunt.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your quote reminds me very much of that Glen Beck story yesterday.Unless they //Apple// specifically deny or acknowledge the event it has not occurred ? this is like their constant updating of iTunes or iPod firmware to prevent non Apple use .
Yet they would never come and say it.Look at the title of the article , OS X update officially kills , not Apple .
It is the same type of reference as saying " guns kill people , instead of blaming the people " .I understand what you intended to say but it comes off as someone knee jerk defending Apple for their latest stunt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your quote reminds me very much of that Glen Beck story yesterday.Unless they //Apple// specifically deny or acknowledge the event it has not occurred?this is like their constant updating of iTunes or iPod firmware to prevent non Apple use.
Yet they would never come and say it.Look at the title of the article, OS X update officially kills, not Apple.
It is the same type of reference as saying "guns kill people, instead of blaming the people".I understand what you intended to say but it comes off as someone knee jerk defending Apple for their latest stunt.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30060880</id>
	<title>No it doesn't.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257093840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only way to kill Atom support in Mac OS X is if Mac OS X supported Atom in the first place.  Since it never did, there's nothing to break.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only way to kill Atom support in Mac OS X is if Mac OS X supported Atom in the first place .
Since it never did , there 's nothing to break .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only way to kill Atom support in Mac OS X is if Mac OS X supported Atom in the first place.
Since it never did, there's nothing to break.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059570</id>
	<title>vvbx</title>
	<author>czychk</author>
	<datestamp>1257088140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thanks for
<a href="http://www.uggbootshare.co.uk/" title="uggbootshare.co.uk" rel="nofollow">ugg boots</a> [uggbootshare.co.uk]this post. I have finally found the time to comment, because you raise a very good point for the open and transparent community you and may of us, your readers, aspire to adopt and be a part of. It is hard to feel hopeful at times.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for ugg boots [ uggbootshare.co.uk ] this post .
I have finally found the time to comment , because you raise a very good point for the open and transparent community you and may of us , your readers , aspire to adopt and be a part of .
It is hard to feel hopeful at times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for
ugg boots [uggbootshare.co.uk]this post.
I have finally found the time to comment, because you raise a very good point for the open and transparent community you and may of us, your readers, aspire to adopt and be a part of.
It is hard to feel hopeful at times.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30063392</id>
	<title>Mac OS X? What about NT? Huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257104160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Spare some thought on the multitude of NT 3.5 users, happily running on MIPS or Alpha, when EVIL Microsoft decided to just release NT 4.0 on Intel hardware!</p><p>Seriously, it's their product. Want to run an operating system on Atom? Make and sell one! There is a market opportunity for you to exploit instead of whining.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Spare some thought on the multitude of NT 3.5 users , happily running on MIPS or Alpha , when EVIL Microsoft decided to just release NT 4.0 on Intel hardware ! Seriously , it 's their product .
Want to run an operating system on Atom ?
Make and sell one !
There is a market opportunity for you to exploit instead of whining .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spare some thought on the multitude of NT 3.5 users, happily running on MIPS or Alpha, when EVIL Microsoft decided to just release NT 4.0 on Intel hardware!Seriously, it's their product.
Want to run an operating system on Atom?
Make and sell one!
There is a market opportunity for you to exploit instead of whining.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30069964</id>
	<title>Re:Mac OS X? What about NT? Huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257105120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Err, NT 4.0 did support those platforms...It was dropped in a later service pack I think, and certainly by the time Windows 2000 came out. By then it was x86 and Itanium only, although technically with the 360 I guess the Windows Kernel is back on the PPC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Err , NT 4.0 did support those platforms...It was dropped in a later service pack I think , and certainly by the time Windows 2000 came out .
By then it was x86 and Itanium only , although technically with the 360 I guess the Windows Kernel is back on the PPC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Err, NT 4.0 did support those platforms...It was dropped in a later service pack I think, and certainly by the time Windows 2000 came out.
By then it was x86 and Itanium only, although technically with the 360 I guess the Windows Kernel is back on the PPC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30063392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30061392</id>
	<title>build your own from darwin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257096000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not just create your own replacement "OS/X" like OS and GUI?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Darwin currently includes support for both 32-bit and 64-bit variants of the PowerPC and Intel x86 processors used in the Mac and Apple TV as well as the 32-bit ARM processor used in the iPhone and iPod Touch. An open-source port of the XNU kernel exists which supports Darwin on Intel and AMD x86 platforms not officially supported by Apple.[7]</p></div><p>XNU is Open Source.  <a href="http://code.google.com/p/xnu-dev/" title="google.com">http://code.google.com/p/xnu-dev/</a> [google.com]</p><p>If you want full compatibility you will need Open Source ports of Carbon, Cocoa APIs, the Quartz Compositor, and the Aqua user interface.  Isn't Cocoa just Objective C?  I'm not a big fan of the Apple desktop but I think it could be replicated.  IMHO X is sufficient.</p><p>If you don't want to go through all of that work why not just use Linux?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not just create your own replacement " OS/X " like OS and GUI ? Darwin currently includes support for both 32-bit and 64-bit variants of the PowerPC and Intel x86 processors used in the Mac and Apple TV as well as the 32-bit ARM processor used in the iPhone and iPod Touch .
An open-source port of the XNU kernel exists which supports Darwin on Intel and AMD x86 platforms not officially supported by Apple .
[ 7 ] XNU is Open Source .
http : //code.google.com/p/xnu-dev/ [ google.com ] If you want full compatibility you will need Open Source ports of Carbon , Cocoa APIs , the Quartz Compositor , and the Aqua user interface .
Is n't Cocoa just Objective C ?
I 'm not a big fan of the Apple desktop but I think it could be replicated .
IMHO X is sufficient.If you do n't want to go through all of that work why not just use Linux ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not just create your own replacement "OS/X" like OS and GUI?Darwin currently includes support for both 32-bit and 64-bit variants of the PowerPC and Intel x86 processors used in the Mac and Apple TV as well as the 32-bit ARM processor used in the iPhone and iPod Touch.
An open-source port of the XNU kernel exists which supports Darwin on Intel and AMD x86 platforms not officially supported by Apple.
[7]XNU is Open Source.
http://code.google.com/p/xnu-dev/ [google.com]If you want full compatibility you will need Open Source ports of Carbon, Cocoa APIs, the Quartz Compositor, and the Aqua user interface.
Isn't Cocoa just Objective C?
I'm not a big fan of the Apple desktop but I think it could be replicated.
IMHO X is sufficient.If you don't want to go through all of that work why not just use Linux?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30070360</id>
	<title>waahh</title>
	<author>smash</author>
	<datestamp>1258019040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>OS X doesn't run on my Powerbook either.  I think i'll bitch and complain to apple about it.  What do the system requirements on the box say?  I'm guessing it is "An apple XXX with YYY mb ram"?  If your system doesn't fulfill the requirements ("apple macintosh" being one of the requirements), then don't be shocked that it doesn't work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>OS X does n't run on my Powerbook either .
I think i 'll bitch and complain to apple about it .
What do the system requirements on the box say ?
I 'm guessing it is " An apple XXX with YYY mb ram " ?
If your system does n't fulfill the requirements ( " apple macintosh " being one of the requirements ) , then do n't be shocked that it does n't work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OS X doesn't run on my Powerbook either.
I think i'll bitch and complain to apple about it.
What do the system requirements on the box say?
I'm guessing it is "An apple XXX with YYY mb ram"?
If your system doesn't fulfill the requirements ("apple macintosh" being one of the requirements), then don't be shocked that it doesn't work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059766</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, great.</title>
	<author>Quantumstate</author>
	<datestamp>1257088920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a difference between leaving in support and explicitly disabling "support".  I put support in quotes because there was never anything extra done to support atom, it just acts like a normal processor.  This si like websites which look at your browsers user agent and deny you access because you are running the wrong browser, when the page would run in the blocked browser anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a difference between leaving in support and explicitly disabling " support " .
I put support in quotes because there was never anything extra done to support atom , it just acts like a normal processor .
This si like websites which look at your browsers user agent and deny you access because you are running the wrong browser , when the page would run in the blocked browser anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a difference between leaving in support and explicitly disabling "support".
I put support in quotes because there was never anything extra done to support atom, it just acts like a normal processor.
This si like websites which look at your browsers user agent and deny you access because you are running the wrong browser, when the page would run in the blocked browser anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059628</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30061588</id>
	<title>Re:Apple Netbook on the Way</title>
	<author>Professor\_UNIX</author>
	<datestamp>1257096600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple already sells a Netbook.  They call it the Macbook Air and it starts at $1500.  LOL!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple already sells a Netbook .
They call it the Macbook Air and it starts at $ 1500 .
LOL !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple already sells a Netbook.
They call it the Macbook Air and it starts at $1500.
LOL!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30060382</id>
	<title>Re:I do not see the fuss about it...</title>
	<author>jedidiah</author>
	<datestamp>1257091680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Nobody is blaming M$ for their windows not running on PowerPC chips<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...except as an x86 OS, MacOS doesn't have to "do anything extra" in order to run on an Atom netbook.</p><p>Apple has to specifically go out of their way in order to keep MacOS from running on such a machine.</p><p>This is by no stretch of the imagination equivalent to Windows not running on PPC.</p><p>This is on par with Microsoft checking to see if Windows is running on top of DR-DOS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Nobody is blaming M $ for their windows not running on PowerPC chips ...except as an x86 OS , MacOS does n't have to " do anything extra " in order to run on an Atom netbook.Apple has to specifically go out of their way in order to keep MacOS from running on such a machine.This is by no stretch of the imagination equivalent to Windows not running on PPC.This is on par with Microsoft checking to see if Windows is running on top of DR-DOS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Nobody is blaming M$ for their windows not running on PowerPC chips ...except as an x86 OS, MacOS doesn't have to "do anything extra" in order to run on an Atom netbook.Apple has to specifically go out of their way in order to keep MacOS from running on such a machine.This is by no stretch of the imagination equivalent to Windows not running on PPC.This is on par with Microsoft checking to see if Windows is running on top of DR-DOS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30060674</id>
	<title>Re:I do not see the fuss about it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257093000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows\_NT#Major\_features<br>
&nbsp; <br>"Versions of NT family operating systems have been released for a variety of processor architectures, initially Intel IA-32, MIPS R3000/R4000 and Alpha, with PowerPC, Itanium and AMD64  supported in later releases."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows \ _NT # Major \ _features   " Versions of NT family operating systems have been released for a variety of processor architectures , initially Intel IA-32 , MIPS R3000/R4000 and Alpha , with PowerPC , Itanium and AMD64 supported in later releases .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows\_NT#Major\_features
  "Versions of NT family operating systems have been released for a variety of processor architectures, initially Intel IA-32, MIPS R3000/R4000 and Alpha, with PowerPC, Itanium and AMD64  supported in later releases.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30070092</id>
	<title>Re:Uh, you come off too much as a fanboi</title>
	<author>Macman408</author>
	<datestamp>1258058100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>this is like their constant updating of iTunes or iPod firmware to prevent non Apple use.  Yet they would never come and say it.</p></div><p>Maybe not outright, but in iTunes 8.2.1, they made it pretty obvious to anybody that knew what was going on, when the release notes said "iTunes 8.2.1 provides a number of important bug fixes and addresses and issue with verification of Apple devices."</p><p>As an Engineer, I'd agree with others who think that there could be a legitimate reason for this - they might have changed something that now makes it explicitly incompatible.</p><p>As an Engineer who has worked in a company with a Marketing department, I'd bet this wasn't primarily an Engineering change - if it worked before and it doesn't now, they're not going to choose a point release to break it; if 10.6 broke the Atom, I'd be more likely to believe that it was an optimization. It's still possible, I just don't think it's the most likely situation.</p><p>As a Mac user, I have just one thing to say: Who cares? Does this topic really merit hitting the Slashdot front page 3 times?</p><p>Personally, I'd bet on an Apple product in the first half of next year that will fall between the iPhone/iPod Touch and the MacBook Air. And it won't run on an Atom. (Hey, isn't it about time for PA Semi to come out with something useful?)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>this is like their constant updating of iTunes or iPod firmware to prevent non Apple use .
Yet they would never come and say it.Maybe not outright , but in iTunes 8.2.1 , they made it pretty obvious to anybody that knew what was going on , when the release notes said " iTunes 8.2.1 provides a number of important bug fixes and addresses and issue with verification of Apple devices .
" As an Engineer , I 'd agree with others who think that there could be a legitimate reason for this - they might have changed something that now makes it explicitly incompatible.As an Engineer who has worked in a company with a Marketing department , I 'd bet this was n't primarily an Engineering change - if it worked before and it does n't now , they 're not going to choose a point release to break it ; if 10.6 broke the Atom , I 'd be more likely to believe that it was an optimization .
It 's still possible , I just do n't think it 's the most likely situation.As a Mac user , I have just one thing to say : Who cares ?
Does this topic really merit hitting the Slashdot front page 3 times ? Personally , I 'd bet on an Apple product in the first half of next year that will fall between the iPhone/iPod Touch and the MacBook Air .
And it wo n't run on an Atom .
( Hey , is n't it about time for PA Semi to come out with something useful ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this is like their constant updating of iTunes or iPod firmware to prevent non Apple use.
Yet they would never come and say it.Maybe not outright, but in iTunes 8.2.1, they made it pretty obvious to anybody that knew what was going on, when the release notes said "iTunes 8.2.1 provides a number of important bug fixes and addresses and issue with verification of Apple devices.
"As an Engineer, I'd agree with others who think that there could be a legitimate reason for this - they might have changed something that now makes it explicitly incompatible.As an Engineer who has worked in a company with a Marketing department, I'd bet this wasn't primarily an Engineering change - if it worked before and it doesn't now, they're not going to choose a point release to break it; if 10.6 broke the Atom, I'd be more likely to believe that it was an optimization.
It's still possible, I just don't think it's the most likely situation.As a Mac user, I have just one thing to say: Who cares?
Does this topic really merit hitting the Slashdot front page 3 times?Personally, I'd bet on an Apple product in the first half of next year that will fall between the iPhone/iPod Touch and the MacBook Air.
And it won't run on an Atom.
(Hey, isn't it about time for PA Semi to come out with something useful?
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30062458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059620</id>
	<title>Re:Dell Zino</title>
	<author>Nerdfest</author>
	<datestamp>1257088380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who needs OS X with that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... they sell a version with Ubuntu installed. I just wish they'd sell a larger range of laptops with Linux already loaded.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who needs OS X with that ... they sell a version with Ubuntu installed .
I just wish they 'd sell a larger range of laptops with Linux already loaded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who needs OS X with that ... they sell a version with Ubuntu installed.
I just wish they'd sell a larger range of laptops with Linux already loaded.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059394</id>
	<title>Dell Zino</title>
	<author>tompeach</author>
	<datestamp>1257087420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder if the recently launched Dell Zino could have been a motivator?

<a href="http://www1.euro.dell.com/uk/en/home/Desktops/inspiron-zino/pd.aspx?refid=inspiron-zino&amp;s=dhs&amp;cs=ukdhs1" title="dell.com" rel="nofollow">http://www1.euro.dell.com/uk/en/home/Desktops/inspiron-zino/pd.aspx?refid=inspiron-zino&amp;s=dhs&amp;cs=ukdhs1</a> [dell.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if the recently launched Dell Zino could have been a motivator ?
http : //www1.euro.dell.com/uk/en/home/Desktops/inspiron-zino/pd.aspx ? refid = inspiron-zino&amp;s = dhs&amp;cs = ukdhs1 [ dell.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if the recently launched Dell Zino could have been a motivator?
http://www1.euro.dell.com/uk/en/home/Desktops/inspiron-zino/pd.aspx?refid=inspiron-zino&amp;s=dhs&amp;cs=ukdhs1 [dell.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059906</id>
	<title>I do not see the fuss about it...</title>
	<author>fluch</author>
	<datestamp>1257089520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If people want to run Mac OS X they should get a Mac and not one of those silly Netbooks!</p><p>Nobody is blaming M$ for their windows not running on PowerPC chips (as they never intended it to be useable on this processor) and neither should anybody blame Apple for not taking care that Mac OS X boots nicely on a Atom (under-)powered Netbook.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If people want to run Mac OS X they should get a Mac and not one of those silly Netbooks ! Nobody is blaming M $ for their windows not running on PowerPC chips ( as they never intended it to be useable on this processor ) and neither should anybody blame Apple for not taking care that Mac OS X boots nicely on a Atom ( under- ) powered Netbook .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If people want to run Mac OS X they should get a Mac and not one of those silly Netbooks!Nobody is blaming M$ for their windows not running on PowerPC chips (as they never intended it to be useable on this processor) and neither should anybody blame Apple for not taking care that Mac OS X boots nicely on a Atom (under-)powered Netbook.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30067944</id>
	<title>Re:build your own from darwin</title>
	<author>mambodog</author>
	<datestamp>1257082620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Objective-C is the language, Cocoa is the API. Cocoa APIs are also available for some other languages, but Objective-C is the primary language for Mac software.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Objective-C is the language , Cocoa is the API .
Cocoa APIs are also available for some other languages , but Objective-C is the primary language for Mac software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Objective-C is the language, Cocoa is the API.
Cocoa APIs are also available for some other languages, but Objective-C is the primary language for Mac software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30061392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059384</id>
	<title>No biggie</title>
	<author>Puchku</author>
	<datestamp>1257087360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since they don't sell any computers with Atom.. I don't think that you can blame them for dropping support. Tightens the code and all that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since they do n't sell any computers with Atom.. I do n't think that you can blame them for dropping support .
Tightens the code and all that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since they don't sell any computers with Atom.. I don't think that you can blame them for dropping support.
Tightens the code and all that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30060102</id>
	<title>Not in Darwin?</title>
	<author>wandazulu</author>
	<datestamp>1257090600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm guessing that, since the actual kernel is <a href="http://www.opensource.apple.com/" title="apple.com">open source</a> [apple.com] that they are doing some additional check further up the chain in a non-open source module. Otherwise wouldn't it be trivial to do a diff, search for the code that checks for the stepping, and if it's an Atom, call exit(0)?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm guessing that , since the actual kernel is open source [ apple.com ] that they are doing some additional check further up the chain in a non-open source module .
Otherwise would n't it be trivial to do a diff , search for the code that checks for the stepping , and if it 's an Atom , call exit ( 0 ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm guessing that, since the actual kernel is open source [apple.com] that they are doing some additional check further up the chain in a non-open source module.
Otherwise wouldn't it be trivial to do a diff, search for the code that checks for the stepping, and if it's an Atom, call exit(0)?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30060256</id>
	<title>yuo f4il it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257091140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>smells worse than a We strongly urge It has to be fun it transfor8s into is dying.  Fact: Trying to dissect Users With Large won't be standing world-spanning BitTorrent) Second,</htmltext>
<tokenext>smells worse than a We strongly urge It has to be fun it transfor8s into is dying .
Fact : Trying to dissect Users With Large wo n't be standing world-spanning BitTorrent ) Second,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>smells worse than a We strongly urge It has to be fun it transfor8s into is dying.
Fact: Trying to dissect Users With Large won't be standing world-spanning BitTorrent) Second,</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30060932</id>
	<title>Re:I do not see the fuss about it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257094080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People want OSX, on a platform larger then an iPod/iPhone and with a full phyiscal keyboard, but smaller then the smallest macbooks.  It's not really all that confusing.  Things getting in their way, like Apple deliberately disabling that functionality, frustrate them.  It's natural.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People want OSX , on a platform larger then an iPod/iPhone and with a full phyiscal keyboard , but smaller then the smallest macbooks .
It 's not really all that confusing .
Things getting in their way , like Apple deliberately disabling that functionality , frustrate them .
It 's natural .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People want OSX, on a platform larger then an iPod/iPhone and with a full phyiscal keyboard, but smaller then the smallest macbooks.
It's not really all that confusing.
Things getting in their way, like Apple deliberately disabling that functionality, frustrate them.
It's natural.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30060368</id>
	<title>re OSX</title>
	<author>freddieb</author>
	<datestamp>1257091620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is not surprising. It only indicates that Apple doesn't plan to 1) either use the Atom in a netbook or 2) bringing out a netbook with an Atom in the immediate
future. My guess is if they do introduce a netbook it will have a variant of the Atom it can continue to make sure OSX does not work on most netbooks.

Apple has a very specific business mode which does not include selling OSX to the masses.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not surprising .
It only indicates that Apple does n't plan to 1 ) either use the Atom in a netbook or 2 ) bringing out a netbook with an Atom in the immediate future .
My guess is if they do introduce a netbook it will have a variant of the Atom it can continue to make sure OSX does not work on most netbooks .
Apple has a very specific business mode which does not include selling OSX to the masses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not surprising.
It only indicates that Apple doesn't plan to 1) either use the Atom in a netbook or 2) bringing out a netbook with an Atom in the immediate
future.
My guess is if they do introduce a netbook it will have a variant of the Atom it can continue to make sure OSX does not work on most netbooks.
Apple has a very specific business mode which does not include selling OSX to the masses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30061076</id>
	<title>Re:That's fine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257094620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The size of a code baseline often has little to do with execution speed.  What matters is the speed of the execution paths in the code (i.e. what code actually gets executed), not how much code there is.</p><p>Does the fact that there is a road from Los Angeles to San Francisco slow down your drive from Los Angeles to Las Vegas?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The size of a code baseline often has little to do with execution speed .
What matters is the speed of the execution paths in the code ( i.e .
what code actually gets executed ) , not how much code there is.Does the fact that there is a road from Los Angeles to San Francisco slow down your drive from Los Angeles to Las Vegas ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The size of a code baseline often has little to do with execution speed.
What matters is the speed of the execution paths in the code (i.e.
what code actually gets executed), not how much code there is.Does the fact that there is a road from Los Angeles to San Francisco slow down your drive from Los Angeles to Las Vegas?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30060696</id>
	<title>Re:Apple Netbook on the Way</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257093060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is probably the most insightful comment by far.<br> <br>
1. One day they support<br>
2. Next day the don't<br>
3. The next one again<br>
4. Generate buzz and lots of drama<br>
5. New release<br>
6.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>
7. Profit!<br> <br>
Steps 1 to 4 are traditional marketing strategies from Apple.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is probably the most insightful comment by far .
1. One day they support 2 .
Next day the do n't 3 .
The next one again 4 .
Generate buzz and lots of drama 5 .
New release 6 .
.. . 7 .
Profit ! Steps 1 to 4 are traditional marketing strategies from Apple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is probably the most insightful comment by far.
1. One day they support
2.
Next day the don't
3.
The next one again
4.
Generate buzz and lots of drama
5.
New release
6.
...
7.
Profit! 
Steps 1 to 4 are traditional marketing strategies from Apple.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30083042</id>
	<title>Re:Not in Darwin?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258042560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or they have something like Window's Hondon tool to defeat you binary differs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or they have something like Window 's Hondon tool to defeat you binary differs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or they have something like Window's Hondon tool to defeat you binary differs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30060102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30063516</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, great.</title>
	<author>ogdenk</author>
	<datestamp>1257104520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>  They own the copyright on the OS, so they can tell you how they want you to use it.  You can argue about the moral implications of what they do all day long, all it does is keep their name in the news...</p></div><p>I'll use a purchased copy of software any damn way I see fit and if they don't like it they can kiss my ass or stop selling retail boxed copies.</p><p>Just because I write in my EULA that all end users have to give me 3 blowjobs a year in the back of an Apple-branded sports car doesn't mean it's legally enforceable.</p><p>That doesn't mean I expect them to make it easy to install or even support my hardware they don't even use in their own products however.</p><p>I will use it any way I want (on a single machine) and I dare them to try to do something about it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They own the copyright on the OS , so they can tell you how they want you to use it .
You can argue about the moral implications of what they do all day long , all it does is keep their name in the news...I 'll use a purchased copy of software any damn way I see fit and if they do n't like it they can kiss my ass or stop selling retail boxed copies.Just because I write in my EULA that all end users have to give me 3 blowjobs a year in the back of an Apple-branded sports car does n't mean it 's legally enforceable.That does n't mean I expect them to make it easy to install or even support my hardware they do n't even use in their own products however.I will use it any way I want ( on a single machine ) and I dare them to try to do something about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  They own the copyright on the OS, so they can tell you how they want you to use it.
You can argue about the moral implications of what they do all day long, all it does is keep their name in the news...I'll use a purchased copy of software any damn way I see fit and if they don't like it they can kiss my ass or stop selling retail boxed copies.Just because I write in my EULA that all end users have to give me 3 blowjobs a year in the back of an Apple-branded sports car doesn't mean it's legally enforceable.That doesn't mean I expect them to make it easy to install or even support my hardware they don't even use in their own products however.I will use it any way I want (on a single machine) and I dare them to try to do something about it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30063588</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, great.</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1257104760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Time for another thousand posts on how Evil Apple should leave in support for hardware that they don't sell. Fantastic.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Well it does kind of prove that Apple are anally retentive control freaks and are against any kind on unsanctioned OS X or Mac community (as in inherently geek unfriendly).<br> <br>

Obligatory, I know I'll be modded down for this but...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Time for another thousand posts on how Evil Apple should leave in support for hardware that they do n't sell .
Fantastic . Well it does kind of prove that Apple are anally retentive control freaks and are against any kind on unsanctioned OS X or Mac community ( as in inherently geek unfriendly ) .
Obligatory , I know I 'll be modded down for this but.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time for another thousand posts on how Evil Apple should leave in support for hardware that they don't sell.
Fantastic.

Well it does kind of prove that Apple are anally retentive control freaks and are against any kind on unsanctioned OS X or Mac community (as in inherently geek unfriendly).
Obligatory, I know I'll be modded down for this but...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059628</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30062234</id>
	<title>Re:Not in Darwin?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257099240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you'll notice that the 10.6.2 sources aren't there...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you 'll notice that the 10.6.2 sources are n't there.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you'll notice that the 10.6.2 sources aren't there...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30060102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059982</id>
	<title>That's fine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257089880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Less support for CPUs not sold by Apple means less bloat in the Darwin XNU kernel, means more speed for us legitimate mac users.</p><p>Thumbs up, Apple. Our money were well spent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Less support for CPUs not sold by Apple means less bloat in the Darwin XNU kernel , means more speed for us legitimate mac users.Thumbs up , Apple .
Our money were well spent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Less support for CPUs not sold by Apple means less bloat in the Darwin XNU kernel, means more speed for us legitimate mac users.Thumbs up, Apple.
Our money were well spent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30061220</id>
	<title>Once again, so what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257095160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple doesn't make an Atom-based Mac.  Nor did they in the past.  They explicitly sell and license Mac OS X to run only on Macs.  If you want to try and get it to work on a non-Mac with a different CPU and/or chipset than what Apple supports, you're on your own, good luck to you.</p><p>Apple isn't going to send an army of lawyers to your house to stop you from trying to build a hackintosh.  They will if you figure it out and then start selling them - see Psystar for details.  But they won't do anything to make it easy for you to build a hackintosh, and if it breaks - oh well, sucks to be you, next time buy a Mac or stick to a supported OS on your hackintosh.</p><p>Me, I stick to Windows 7 Pro on my eee901 for now, but I may switch to eeebuntu soon.  I like it.  I'll keep Mac OS on my Macs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple does n't make an Atom-based Mac .
Nor did they in the past .
They explicitly sell and license Mac OS X to run only on Macs .
If you want to try and get it to work on a non-Mac with a different CPU and/or chipset than what Apple supports , you 're on your own , good luck to you.Apple is n't going to send an army of lawyers to your house to stop you from trying to build a hackintosh .
They will if you figure it out and then start selling them - see Psystar for details .
But they wo n't do anything to make it easy for you to build a hackintosh , and if it breaks - oh well , sucks to be you , next time buy a Mac or stick to a supported OS on your hackintosh.Me , I stick to Windows 7 Pro on my eee901 for now , but I may switch to eeebuntu soon .
I like it .
I 'll keep Mac OS on my Macs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple doesn't make an Atom-based Mac.
Nor did they in the past.
They explicitly sell and license Mac OS X to run only on Macs.
If you want to try and get it to work on a non-Mac with a different CPU and/or chipset than what Apple supports, you're on your own, good luck to you.Apple isn't going to send an army of lawyers to your house to stop you from trying to build a hackintosh.
They will if you figure it out and then start selling them - see Psystar for details.
But they won't do anything to make it easy for you to build a hackintosh, and if it breaks - oh well, sucks to be you, next time buy a Mac or stick to a supported OS on your hackintosh.Me, I stick to Windows 7 Pro on my eee901 for now, but I may switch to eeebuntu soon.
I like it.
I'll keep Mac OS on my Macs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30096892</id>
	<title>No ATOM product from Apple Computers</title>
	<author>hicksw</author>
	<datestamp>1258209120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>About all one should infer from the ATOM user problem is that Apple has no plans to build and sell an ATOM based product that runs OS X.  Not until the next update, anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>About all one should infer from the ATOM user problem is that Apple has no plans to build and sell an ATOM based product that runs OS X. Not until the next update , anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>About all one should infer from the ATOM user problem is that Apple has no plans to build and sell an ATOM based product that runs OS X.  Not until the next update, anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30060700</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, great.</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1257093060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I see far more people (at least at this point) complaining about the anti-apple comments than anti-apple comments...</p></div></blockquote><p>Welcome to The Slashdot Fashion Phenomenon, where the things we collectively laud or eschew change like the seasons.</p><p>In the beginning, the trend was anti-Apple because PCs were superior.<br>Then, Jobs came back and the Macintosh became sexy, so the trend was pro-Apple.<br>Then, we came to loathe their closed and litigious behavior, so the trend was anti-Apple.<br>Then, in response to all the anti-Apple sentiment, the trend was anti-anti-Apple.<br>Now, we're starting to see the next emerging trend: anti-anti-anti-Apple comments.</p><p>I love this place.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I see far more people ( at least at this point ) complaining about the anti-apple comments than anti-apple comments...Welcome to The Slashdot Fashion Phenomenon , where the things we collectively laud or eschew change like the seasons.In the beginning , the trend was anti-Apple because PCs were superior.Then , Jobs came back and the Macintosh became sexy , so the trend was pro-Apple.Then , we came to loathe their closed and litigious behavior , so the trend was anti-Apple.Then , in response to all the anti-Apple sentiment , the trend was anti-anti-Apple.Now , we 're starting to see the next emerging trend : anti-anti-anti-Apple comments.I love this place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see far more people (at least at this point) complaining about the anti-apple comments than anti-apple comments...Welcome to The Slashdot Fashion Phenomenon, where the things we collectively laud or eschew change like the seasons.In the beginning, the trend was anti-Apple because PCs were superior.Then, Jobs came back and the Macintosh became sexy, so the trend was pro-Apple.Then, we came to loathe their closed and litigious behavior, so the trend was anti-Apple.Then, in response to all the anti-Apple sentiment, the trend was anti-anti-Apple.Now, we're starting to see the next emerging trend: anti-anti-anti-Apple comments.I love this place.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30092438</id>
	<title>Re:Not in Darwin?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258110180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why the conspiracy theory? Maybe they're just using cpu instructions that are supported on core solo chips and higher that don't exist in the little atom chips?  It could even be a compiler optimization.  Remember they're using GCC and LLVM + clang for different things now and possibly certain optimizations take advantage of more featuer complete cpus.</p><p>I don't know this to be fact because i have not compared the ISA for the core cpu vs the atom, but i would imagine that a energy efficient chip like the atom was designed with to a little slimmer in features so as not to compete with their more expensive products.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why the conspiracy theory ?
Maybe they 're just using cpu instructions that are supported on core solo chips and higher that do n't exist in the little atom chips ?
It could even be a compiler optimization .
Remember they 're using GCC and LLVM + clang for different things now and possibly certain optimizations take advantage of more featuer complete cpus.I do n't know this to be fact because i have not compared the ISA for the core cpu vs the atom , but i would imagine that a energy efficient chip like the atom was designed with to a little slimmer in features so as not to compete with their more expensive products .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why the conspiracy theory?
Maybe they're just using cpu instructions that are supported on core solo chips and higher that don't exist in the little atom chips?
It could even be a compiler optimization.
Remember they're using GCC and LLVM + clang for different things now and possibly certain optimizations take advantage of more featuer complete cpus.I don't know this to be fact because i have not compared the ISA for the core cpu vs the atom, but i would imagine that a energy efficient chip like the atom was designed with to a little slimmer in features so as not to compete with their more expensive products.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30060102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30061016</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, great.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257094380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You had me up until here:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>They own the copyright on the OS, so they can tell you how they want you to use it.</p></div><p>Because, no; no they can't.  Once I've bought it, I can do with it as I please, including hacking it to make it compatible with my hardware.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You had me up until here : They own the copyright on the OS , so they can tell you how they want you to use it.Because , no ; no they ca n't .
Once I 've bought it , I can do with it as I please , including hacking it to make it compatible with my hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You had me up until here:They own the copyright on the OS, so they can tell you how they want you to use it.Because, no; no they can't.
Once I've bought it, I can do with it as I please, including hacking it to make it compatible with my hardware.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30061326</id>
	<title>Re:That's fine</title>
	<author>the\_humeister</author>
	<datestamp>1257095640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There really aren't any code changes necessary for Atom to run any of the other OSes at this point (Windows 7, Ubuntu, ect.). And the Atom supports the same processor extensions as the Core Solo that Apple used in the Mini. There's really no reason for OS X not to run on the Atom unless there is a processor check. The other option is that there is no processor check, but the installation of 10.6.2 hasn't been fully worked out by the Hackintosh community.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There really are n't any code changes necessary for Atom to run any of the other OSes at this point ( Windows 7 , Ubuntu , ect. ) .
And the Atom supports the same processor extensions as the Core Solo that Apple used in the Mini .
There 's really no reason for OS X not to run on the Atom unless there is a processor check .
The other option is that there is no processor check , but the installation of 10.6.2 has n't been fully worked out by the Hackintosh community .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There really aren't any code changes necessary for Atom to run any of the other OSes at this point (Windows 7, Ubuntu, ect.).
And the Atom supports the same processor extensions as the Core Solo that Apple used in the Mini.
There's really no reason for OS X not to run on the Atom unless there is a processor check.
The other option is that there is no processor check, but the installation of 10.6.2 hasn't been fully worked out by the Hackintosh community.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059628</id>
	<title>Oh, great.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257088380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Time for another thousand posts on how Evil Apple should leave in support for hardware that they don't sell. Fantastic.</p><p>--saint</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Time for another thousand posts on how Evil Apple should leave in support for hardware that they do n't sell .
Fantastic.--saint</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time for another thousand posts on how Evil Apple should leave in support for hardware that they don't sell.
Fantastic.--saint</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30066678</id>
	<title>Re:This stock holder...</title>
	<author>ogdenk</author>
	<datestamp>1257074700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who modded this troll?  This guy is right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who modded this troll ?
This guy is right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who modded this troll?
This guy is right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30060858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30063024</id>
	<title>Re:I do not see the fuss about it...</title>
	<author>sbeckstead</author>
	<datestamp>1257102780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Since my brain works</i> <br> <br>
Citation Needed!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since my brain works Citation Needed !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since my brain works  
Citation Needed!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30060252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30062378</id>
	<title>1/2 Right - 1/2 Vast</title>
	<author>konohitowa</author>
	<datestamp>1257099720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I RTFA and followed the links there. I found the part where this build isn't working with the Atom processor. However, I was unable to find the "official" part. Any links to that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I RTFA and followed the links there .
I found the part where this build is n't working with the Atom processor .
However , I was unable to find the " official " part .
Any links to that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I RTFA and followed the links there.
I found the part where this build isn't working with the Atom processor.
However, I was unable to find the "official" part.
Any links to that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30063242</id>
	<title>Evil Apple!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257103500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's see... how much is the Mac OS? A point version has been $129. Snow Leopard is $29, for a few minor changes on the surface, and some major changes under the hood. The business strategy for Apple has been quite consistent through the years. From 3.2, which was on the Mac Plus I bought, through System 6, it was free. As in, go into the store with the floppies and get them to make you three or four floppies, and you have the update. Then they started charging for 7, 8 and 9, though not what you pay with Windows. Apple makes money on the hardware. Same model applies to the music store and the app store; software charge just covers third-party profits and/or copyright holder fees. It's there to make the hardware more useful.</p><p>So, where's the profit if people put it on a netbook? Miniscule. By the way, where's the profit on netbooks? Well, nowhere. They're selling like hotcakes, losing money on each, but they'll make it up in volume. You'll notice that, last quarter, Microsoft lost money. Last quarter, sales were up for PCs but they lost money -- except Apple.</p><p>Everybody's waiting for the supposed tablet/big iPhone, whatever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's see... how much is the Mac OS ?
A point version has been $ 129 .
Snow Leopard is $ 29 , for a few minor changes on the surface , and some major changes under the hood .
The business strategy for Apple has been quite consistent through the years .
From 3.2 , which was on the Mac Plus I bought , through System 6 , it was free .
As in , go into the store with the floppies and get them to make you three or four floppies , and you have the update .
Then they started charging for 7 , 8 and 9 , though not what you pay with Windows .
Apple makes money on the hardware .
Same model applies to the music store and the app store ; software charge just covers third-party profits and/or copyright holder fees .
It 's there to make the hardware more useful.So , where 's the profit if people put it on a netbook ?
Miniscule. By the way , where 's the profit on netbooks ?
Well , nowhere .
They 're selling like hotcakes , losing money on each , but they 'll make it up in volume .
You 'll notice that , last quarter , Microsoft lost money .
Last quarter , sales were up for PCs but they lost money -- except Apple.Everybody 's waiting for the supposed tablet/big iPhone , whatever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's see... how much is the Mac OS?
A point version has been $129.
Snow Leopard is $29, for a few minor changes on the surface, and some major changes under the hood.
The business strategy for Apple has been quite consistent through the years.
From 3.2, which was on the Mac Plus I bought, through System 6, it was free.
As in, go into the store with the floppies and get them to make you three or four floppies, and you have the update.
Then they started charging for 7, 8 and 9, though not what you pay with Windows.
Apple makes money on the hardware.
Same model applies to the music store and the app store; software charge just covers third-party profits and/or copyright holder fees.
It's there to make the hardware more useful.So, where's the profit if people put it on a netbook?
Miniscule. By the way, where's the profit on netbooks?
Well, nowhere.
They're selling like hotcakes, losing money on each, but they'll make it up in volume.
You'll notice that, last quarter, Microsoft lost money.
Last quarter, sales were up for PCs but they lost money -- except Apple.Everybody's waiting for the supposed tablet/big iPhone, whatever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059936</id>
	<title>Re:Dell Zino</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257089640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Absolutely not, Apple has sold machines and sells machines to that demographic already. It's netbooks that challenge Apple, because they don't actually offer anything in that market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Absolutely not , Apple has sold machines and sells machines to that demographic already .
It 's netbooks that challenge Apple , because they do n't actually offer anything in that market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Absolutely not, Apple has sold machines and sells machines to that demographic already.
It's netbooks that challenge Apple, because they don't actually offer anything in that market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059394</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1336200_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30061588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1336200_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30065348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30061016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059628
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1336200_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30061326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1336200_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1336200_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30063282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059628
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1336200_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30060200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1336200_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30092438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30060102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1336200_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30061434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1336200_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30062366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059628
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1336200_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1336200_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30062234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30060102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1336200_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30060584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1336200_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30070536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1336200_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30060646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1336200_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30061582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1336200_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30070092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30062458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1336200_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30060236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1336200_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30061076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1336200_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30060932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1336200_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30063352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30060858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1336200_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30071106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059628
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1336200_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30064832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30060858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1336200_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30066076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1336200_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30066678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30060858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1336200_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30085092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30060252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1336200_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30068606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30061220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1336200_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30060382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1336200_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30063024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30060252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1336200_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30060674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1336200_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30060510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1336200_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059628
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1336200_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30083042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30060102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1336200_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30060700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059628
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1336200_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30067944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30061392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1336200_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30063588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059628
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1336200_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30060696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1336200_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1336200_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30063516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059628
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1336200_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30069964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30063392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1336200_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_1336200.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30060646
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_1336200.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30063392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30069964
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_1336200.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059444
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_1336200.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30066076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30061582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30062458
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30070092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059952
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059866
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_1336200.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30062966
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_1336200.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059628
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30063588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059900
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30063282
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30061016
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30065348
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30071106
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30060700
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30063516
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30062366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059766
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_1336200.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059384
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_1336200.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30061434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30060932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30060510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30060252
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30063024
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30085092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30060584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30060200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30060674
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30060382
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_1336200.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30061392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30067944
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_1336200.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30060696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30061588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30070536
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_1336200.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30061326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30061076
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_1336200.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30060858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30066678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30064832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30063352
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_1336200.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059784
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_1336200.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30060102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30062234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30092438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30083042
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_1336200.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30061220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30068606
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_1336200.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059394
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30060236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30059620
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_1336200.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30063242
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_1336200.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30062378
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_1336200.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30063384
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_1336200.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1336200.30060368
</commentlist>
</conversation>
