<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_20_2314220</id>
	<title>New Microsoft Silverlight Features Have Windows Bias</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1258718220000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes with this quote from a story at El Reg about an early look at the Silverlight 4 beta:
<i>"There are ... major changes to Silverlight's out-of-browser functionality, a loose equivalent to Adobe Systems' AIR runtime for Flash. Even when fully sandboxed, which means having the same permissions that would apply to a browser-hosted Silverlight applet, out-of-browser applications get an HTML control, custom window settings, and the ability to fire pop-up notifications. ... Unfortunately, some of these features are not what they first appear. The HTML control in Silverlight 4 is not a new embedded browser from Microsoft, but uses components from Internet Explorer on Windows, or Safari on the Mac, which means that the same content might render differently. The HTML control only works out-of-browser, and simply displays a blank space if browser-hosted. Clipboard support is text-only in the Silverlight 4 beta, though this could change for the full release. More seriously, <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/20/silverlight\_4\_windows\_bias/">COM automation is a Windows-only feature</a>, introducing differentiation between the Mac and Windows implementations."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes with this quote from a story at El Reg about an early look at the Silverlight 4 beta : " There are ... major changes to Silverlight 's out-of-browser functionality , a loose equivalent to Adobe Systems ' AIR runtime for Flash .
Even when fully sandboxed , which means having the same permissions that would apply to a browser-hosted Silverlight applet , out-of-browser applications get an HTML control , custom window settings , and the ability to fire pop-up notifications .
... Unfortunately , some of these features are not what they first appear .
The HTML control in Silverlight 4 is not a new embedded browser from Microsoft , but uses components from Internet Explorer on Windows , or Safari on the Mac , which means that the same content might render differently .
The HTML control only works out-of-browser , and simply displays a blank space if browser-hosted .
Clipboard support is text-only in the Silverlight 4 beta , though this could change for the full release .
More seriously , COM automation is a Windows-only feature , introducing differentiation between the Mac and Windows implementations .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes with this quote from a story at El Reg about an early look at the Silverlight 4 beta:
"There are ... major changes to Silverlight's out-of-browser functionality, a loose equivalent to Adobe Systems' AIR runtime for Flash.
Even when fully sandboxed, which means having the same permissions that would apply to a browser-hosted Silverlight applet, out-of-browser applications get an HTML control, custom window settings, and the ability to fire pop-up notifications.
... Unfortunately, some of these features are not what they first appear.
The HTML control in Silverlight 4 is not a new embedded browser from Microsoft, but uses components from Internet Explorer on Windows, or Safari on the Mac, which means that the same content might render differently.
The HTML control only works out-of-browser, and simply displays a blank space if browser-hosted.
Clipboard support is text-only in the Silverlight 4 beta, though this could change for the full release.
More seriously, COM automation is a Windows-only feature, introducing differentiation between the Mac and Windows implementations.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30191110</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft pollution at its best</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1258827000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since the beginning I've said Silverlight, C# and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net are traps.  People have called me paranoid for saying that Moonlight was an intentional trap - a deliberate move to inject in the Linux development process a follower to Microsoft technologies that can never catch up.  Now <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/20/silverlight\_4\_windows\_bias/" title="theregister.co.uk" rel="nofollow">the trap is sprung.</a> [theregister.co.uk]  Mac OS and Linux users can't use this system.  By doing this you've validated all of the criticisms I've levied and blessed me with more credibility - thanks for that.
</p><p>I get that you guys are trying to win.  If you did it in the right way the tinfoil hat crowd would have less justification for their raving.  You're handing them credibility every month.  That's not good.  Microsoft is becoming the AT&amp;T of software: the monopoly with tentacles everywhere that prevent progress.  It's a losing battle - progress will occur with or without you.  A better tack would be to come out on the side of progress and innovate in all ways from supercomputing to phone platforms to ebook readers and deliver a better solution than the alternatives by being more open.
</p><p>You can still win this one but the window is closing.  I told you before - you guys don't have too many more tries at this thing.  The world made a turn without you.  Your position is less tenable now than it was then. You need to get ahead of this curve before we watch you shrink in our rear-view mirror.  Given your corporate history I hope you'll individually forgive me for not wishing you well.  Whatever my hopes though, I'll tell you true: you're doing it wrong.  As we move to the cloud this will become more and more obvious.  Free software in the cloud has no licensing ambiguities that can wreck your enterprise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since the beginning I 've said Silverlight , C # and .net are traps .
People have called me paranoid for saying that Moonlight was an intentional trap - a deliberate move to inject in the Linux development process a follower to Microsoft technologies that can never catch up .
Now the trap is sprung .
[ theregister.co.uk ] Mac OS and Linux users ca n't use this system .
By doing this you 've validated all of the criticisms I 've levied and blessed me with more credibility - thanks for that .
I get that you guys are trying to win .
If you did it in the right way the tinfoil hat crowd would have less justification for their raving .
You 're handing them credibility every month .
That 's not good .
Microsoft is becoming the AT&amp;T of software : the monopoly with tentacles everywhere that prevent progress .
It 's a losing battle - progress will occur with or without you .
A better tack would be to come out on the side of progress and innovate in all ways from supercomputing to phone platforms to ebook readers and deliver a better solution than the alternatives by being more open .
You can still win this one but the window is closing .
I told you before - you guys do n't have too many more tries at this thing .
The world made a turn without you .
Your position is less tenable now than it was then .
You need to get ahead of this curve before we watch you shrink in our rear-view mirror .
Given your corporate history I hope you 'll individually forgive me for not wishing you well .
Whatever my hopes though , I 'll tell you true : you 're doing it wrong .
As we move to the cloud this will become more and more obvious .
Free software in the cloud has no licensing ambiguities that can wreck your enterprise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since the beginning I've said Silverlight, C# and .net are traps.
People have called me paranoid for saying that Moonlight was an intentional trap - a deliberate move to inject in the Linux development process a follower to Microsoft technologies that can never catch up.
Now the trap is sprung.
[theregister.co.uk]  Mac OS and Linux users can't use this system.
By doing this you've validated all of the criticisms I've levied and blessed me with more credibility - thanks for that.
I get that you guys are trying to win.
If you did it in the right way the tinfoil hat crowd would have less justification for their raving.
You're handing them credibility every month.
That's not good.
Microsoft is becoming the AT&amp;T of software: the monopoly with tentacles everywhere that prevent progress.
It's a losing battle - progress will occur with or without you.
A better tack would be to come out on the side of progress and innovate in all ways from supercomputing to phone platforms to ebook readers and deliver a better solution than the alternatives by being more open.
You can still win this one but the window is closing.
I told you before - you guys don't have too many more tries at this thing.
The world made a turn without you.
Your position is less tenable now than it was then.
You need to get ahead of this curve before we watch you shrink in our rear-view mirror.
Given your corporate history I hope you'll individually forgive me for not wishing you well.
Whatever my hopes though, I'll tell you true: you're doing it wrong.
As we move to the cloud this will become more and more obvious.
Free software in the cloud has no licensing ambiguities that can wreck your enterprise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30182310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30180274</id>
	<title>Microsoft pollution at its best</title>
	<author>jeanph01</author>
	<datestamp>1258724160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Each time I read about silverlight I get angry. Why won't Microsoft invest time and energy making IE html5 compliant instead of promoting this f*** product that nobody wants anyway. I mean, look at the competition for god sake. IE is stuck with Javascript 1.5 since November 2000. Man we are now 9 years since Ms has updated its Javascript engine. Firefox, Chrome, Safari, name it, all have javascript support almost if not ready for ECMAScript 5.</p><p>What is comforting in a way is the low deployment of silverlight. Google can give us a slight idea : <a href="http://www.google.com/insights/search/#q=adobe\%20flash\%2Cmicrosoft\%20silverlight&amp;date=today\%2012-m&amp;cmpt=q" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.com/insights/search/#q=adobe\%20flash\%2Cmicrosoft\%20silverlight&amp;date=today\%2012-m&amp;cmpt=q</a> [google.com]<br>I know at least that it is not deployed at work : 20,000 less pcs for Microsoft + the 2 mine at home.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Each time I read about silverlight I get angry .
Why wo n't Microsoft invest time and energy making IE html5 compliant instead of promoting this f * * * product that nobody wants anyway .
I mean , look at the competition for god sake .
IE is stuck with Javascript 1.5 since November 2000 .
Man we are now 9 years since Ms has updated its Javascript engine .
Firefox , Chrome , Safari , name it , all have javascript support almost if not ready for ECMAScript 5.What is comforting in a way is the low deployment of silverlight .
Google can give us a slight idea : http : //www.google.com/insights/search/ # q = adobe \ % 20flash \ % 2Cmicrosoft \ % 20silverlight&amp;date = today \ % 2012-m&amp;cmpt = q [ google.com ] I know at least that it is not deployed at work : 20,000 less pcs for Microsoft + the 2 mine at home .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Each time I read about silverlight I get angry.
Why won't Microsoft invest time and energy making IE html5 compliant instead of promoting this f*** product that nobody wants anyway.
I mean, look at the competition for god sake.
IE is stuck with Javascript 1.5 since November 2000.
Man we are now 9 years since Ms has updated its Javascript engine.
Firefox, Chrome, Safari, name it, all have javascript support almost if not ready for ECMAScript 5.What is comforting in a way is the low deployment of silverlight.
Google can give us a slight idea : http://www.google.com/insights/search/#q=adobe\%20flash\%2Cmicrosoft\%20silverlight&amp;date=today\%2012-m&amp;cmpt=q [google.com]I know at least that it is not deployed at work : 20,000 less pcs for Microsoft + the 2 mine at home.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30179870</id>
	<title>COM Automation = ActiveX</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258722060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>For those not up to speed on the windows acronyms, COM automation is just another word for ActiveX. It's exactly the same thing. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLE\_Automation#cite\_ref-5" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLE\_Automation#cite\_ref-5</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>For those not up to speed on the windows acronyms , COM automation is just another word for ActiveX .
It 's exactly the same thing .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLE \ _Automation # cite \ _ref-5 [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For those not up to speed on the windows acronyms, COM automation is just another word for ActiveX.
It's exactly the same thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLE\_Automation#cite\_ref-5 [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30182484</id>
	<title>Silverlight was supposed to be a departure from CO</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258746780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The full<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net framework has a lot of hacks to support COM. Your STA running managed code can get preempted at any time to Release COM objects behind RCWs that get garbage collected. This can cause interesting stress bugs. It gets even worse when an RCW around an STA gets finalized on the finalizer thread. That blocks the finalizer thread, because it waits for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net to Release the COM object on the original STA thread. If the STA thread is in a wait state, you can hang the finalizer thread. Another big issue is around supplying alternative credentials for DCOM.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net has no exposure of the CoCreateInstanceEx API that allows you to specify alternative credentials. Even if you wrap it yourself, you have to make sure you call CoSetProxyBlanket before you do any calls - and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net does QueryInterface under the hood for you, and you have to make sure CoSetProxyBlanket is called again, then the simple programming interface of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net becomes more of a hindrance than a help.

They were supposed to get away from COM in the Silverlight versions. Now the waters are even muddier, because WPF is still supported on the Full version of the CLR.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The full .Net framework has a lot of hacks to support COM .
Your STA running managed code can get preempted at any time to Release COM objects behind RCWs that get garbage collected .
This can cause interesting stress bugs .
It gets even worse when an RCW around an STA gets finalized on the finalizer thread .
That blocks the finalizer thread , because it waits for .Net to Release the COM object on the original STA thread .
If the STA thread is in a wait state , you can hang the finalizer thread .
Another big issue is around supplying alternative credentials for DCOM .
.Net has no exposure of the CoCreateInstanceEx API that allows you to specify alternative credentials .
Even if you wrap it yourself , you have to make sure you call CoSetProxyBlanket before you do any calls - and .Net does QueryInterface under the hood for you , and you have to make sure CoSetProxyBlanket is called again , then the simple programming interface of .Net becomes more of a hindrance than a help .
They were supposed to get away from COM in the Silverlight versions .
Now the waters are even muddier , because WPF is still supported on the Full version of the CLR .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The full .Net framework has a lot of hacks to support COM.
Your STA running managed code can get preempted at any time to Release COM objects behind RCWs that get garbage collected.
This can cause interesting stress bugs.
It gets even worse when an RCW around an STA gets finalized on the finalizer thread.
That blocks the finalizer thread, because it waits for .Net to Release the COM object on the original STA thread.
If the STA thread is in a wait state, you can hang the finalizer thread.
Another big issue is around supplying alternative credentials for DCOM.
.Net has no exposure of the CoCreateInstanceEx API that allows you to specify alternative credentials.
Even if you wrap it yourself, you have to make sure you call CoSetProxyBlanket before you do any calls - and .Net does QueryInterface under the hood for you, and you have to make sure CoSetProxyBlanket is called again, then the simple programming interface of .Net becomes more of a hindrance than a help.
They were supposed to get away from COM in the Silverlight versions.
Now the waters are even muddier, because WPF is still supported on the Full version of the CLR.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30183230</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft pollution at its best</title>
	<author>StrawberryFrog</author>
	<datestamp>1258804200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Each time I read about silverlight I get angry. Why won't Microsoft invest time and energy making IE html5 compliant instead of </i></p><p>Why do you assume that it's either-or? MS is a very large company, which usually pursues multiple paths at once (in different teams, clearly). Sure the IE team could have done more. Lots more. I'm not sure what that's got to do with the Silverlight and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net group though.</p><p><i>product that nobody wants anyway.</i></p><p>Got number for that? Or are you just over-generalising from personal preference?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Each time I read about silverlight I get angry .
Why wo n't Microsoft invest time and energy making IE html5 compliant instead of Why do you assume that it 's either-or ?
MS is a very large company , which usually pursues multiple paths at once ( in different teams , clearly ) .
Sure the IE team could have done more .
Lots more .
I 'm not sure what that 's got to do with the Silverlight and .net group though.product that nobody wants anyway.Got number for that ?
Or are you just over-generalising from personal preference ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Each time I read about silverlight I get angry.
Why won't Microsoft invest time and energy making IE html5 compliant instead of Why do you assume that it's either-or?
MS is a very large company, which usually pursues multiple paths at once (in different teams, clearly).
Sure the IE team could have done more.
Lots more.
I'm not sure what that's got to do with the Silverlight and .net group though.product that nobody wants anyway.Got number for that?
Or are you just over-generalising from personal preference?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30180274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30209440</id>
	<title>Non-issue</title>
	<author>GWBasic</author>
	<datestamp>1258989240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The HTML control in Silverlight 4 is not a new embedded browser from Microsoft, but uses components from Internet Explorer on Windows, or Safari on the Mac, which means that the same content might render differently.</p></div><p>Just use Google's Chrome Frame.  Problem solved!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The HTML control in Silverlight 4 is not a new embedded browser from Microsoft , but uses components from Internet Explorer on Windows , or Safari on the Mac , which means that the same content might render differently.Just use Google 's Chrome Frame .
Problem solved !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The HTML control in Silverlight 4 is not a new embedded browser from Microsoft, but uses components from Internet Explorer on Windows, or Safari on the Mac, which means that the same content might render differently.Just use Google's Chrome Frame.
Problem solved!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30181324</id>
	<title>New Microsoft Silverlight Features</title>
	<author>1s44c</author>
	<datestamp>1258732020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>New Microsoft Silverlight Features Have Windows Bias</p></div><p>Oh the shock!!!!! Who would ever of expected Microsoft to pull a low-down dirty trick like that?</p><p>This is sarcasm. I'm being sarcastic.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>New Microsoft Silverlight Features Have Windows BiasOh the shock ! ! ! ! !
Who would ever of expected Microsoft to pull a low-down dirty trick like that ? This is sarcasm .
I 'm being sarcastic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>New Microsoft Silverlight Features Have Windows BiasOh the shock!!!!!
Who would ever of expected Microsoft to pull a low-down dirty trick like that?This is sarcasm.
I'm being sarcastic.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30180710</id>
	<title>You are bitching about a lack of IE on Mac!?</title>
	<author>harlows\_monkeys</author>
	<datestamp>1258726980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WTF? If I'm viewing something on my Mac, I want it to use Safari components, so it will behave like I'm used to on the Mac. If I'm viewing the same thing on Windows, I want it to use IE components, so it will behave like I'm used to on Windows. This is a good thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WTF ?
If I 'm viewing something on my Mac , I want it to use Safari components , so it will behave like I 'm used to on the Mac .
If I 'm viewing the same thing on Windows , I want it to use IE components , so it will behave like I 'm used to on Windows .
This is a good thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WTF?
If I'm viewing something on my Mac, I want it to use Safari components, so it will behave like I'm used to on the Mac.
If I'm viewing the same thing on Windows, I want it to use IE components, so it will behave like I'm used to on Windows.
This is a good thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30183632</id>
	<title>Re:Because HTML5 sucks ass as a development platfo</title>
	<author>jeanph01</author>
	<datestamp>1258811820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>&gt;Instead, everyone will continue hacking browsers into submission ad nauseam..</p></div><p>I would mod you up if I could. Trying to design an interface in HTML + css + javascript is really, really hard. But even if I agree with you on this, I don't think that the solution is Silverlight. We have to have better standards instead of proprietary technology. Few people will win with the Microsoft approach, we will be stuck in another Microsoft prison. A prison with golden bars maybe but still no liberty.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Instead , everyone will continue hacking browsers into submission ad nauseam..I would mod you up if I could .
Trying to design an interface in HTML + css + javascript is really , really hard .
But even if I agree with you on this , I do n't think that the solution is Silverlight .
We have to have better standards instead of proprietary technology .
Few people will win with the Microsoft approach , we will be stuck in another Microsoft prison .
A prison with golden bars maybe but still no liberty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;Instead, everyone will continue hacking browsers into submission ad nauseam..I would mod you up if I could.
Trying to design an interface in HTML + css + javascript is really, really hard.
But even if I agree with you on this, I don't think that the solution is Silverlight.
We have to have better standards instead of proprietary technology.
Few people will win with the Microsoft approach, we will be stuck in another Microsoft prison.
A prison with golden bars maybe but still no liberty.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30181740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30181048</id>
	<title>Re:COM Automation = ActiveX</title>
	<author>jpmorgan</author>
	<datestamp>1258729440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Close, but not quite. ActiveX is a COM component that implements the IDispatch interface. IDispatch is a 'meta' interface that allows dynamic binding to COM objects, rather than the purely static binding that COM defines, allowing COM objects to be called from dynamic languages (like JavaScript). From a purely technological perspective, it's quite slick really, and if you've ever played around in Win32 Python you'll know what I mean.</p><p>The security problems with ActiveX was that Microsoft exposed these low-level interfaces to untrusted websites through JavaScript, opening up an enormous attack surface (as now many ActiveX objects on your system, which were never designed with security in mind, were being called from untrusted JavaScript and running under local user permissions). Worse, was allowing websites to request the installation of ActiveX objects themselves. So yeah.... clever technology but a TERRIBLE use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Close , but not quite .
ActiveX is a COM component that implements the IDispatch interface .
IDispatch is a 'meta ' interface that allows dynamic binding to COM objects , rather than the purely static binding that COM defines , allowing COM objects to be called from dynamic languages ( like JavaScript ) .
From a purely technological perspective , it 's quite slick really , and if you 've ever played around in Win32 Python you 'll know what I mean.The security problems with ActiveX was that Microsoft exposed these low-level interfaces to untrusted websites through JavaScript , opening up an enormous attack surface ( as now many ActiveX objects on your system , which were never designed with security in mind , were being called from untrusted JavaScript and running under local user permissions ) .
Worse , was allowing websites to request the installation of ActiveX objects themselves .
So yeah.... clever technology but a TERRIBLE use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Close, but not quite.
ActiveX is a COM component that implements the IDispatch interface.
IDispatch is a 'meta' interface that allows dynamic binding to COM objects, rather than the purely static binding that COM defines, allowing COM objects to be called from dynamic languages (like JavaScript).
From a purely technological perspective, it's quite slick really, and if you've ever played around in Win32 Python you'll know what I mean.The security problems with ActiveX was that Microsoft exposed these low-level interfaces to untrusted websites through JavaScript, opening up an enormous attack surface (as now many ActiveX objects on your system, which were never designed with security in mind, were being called from untrusted JavaScript and running under local user permissions).
Worse, was allowing websites to request the installation of ActiveX objects themselves.
So yeah.... clever technology but a TERRIBLE use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30179870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30188044</id>
	<title>Re:COM Automation = ActiveX</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258799460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Correct. I would like to add to this that whatever troubles there are potentially associated with having things that run in-browser access COM-objects (the same as Firefox plug-ins essentially - check what you allow to run or suffer the consequences) it cannot be said that COM is Windows only, since it's just a set of interfaces, and an extremely simple and intuitive one to boot. Implementations (at least for the in-process case) exist for pretty much on every platform since the way COM works mimics what C++ does so closely that most of the time you only need to declare the appropriate methods.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Correct .
I would like to add to this that whatever troubles there are potentially associated with having things that run in-browser access COM-objects ( the same as Firefox plug-ins essentially - check what you allow to run or suffer the consequences ) it can not be said that COM is Windows only , since it 's just a set of interfaces , and an extremely simple and intuitive one to boot .
Implementations ( at least for the in-process case ) exist for pretty much on every platform since the way COM works mimics what C + + does so closely that most of the time you only need to declare the appropriate methods .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Correct.
I would like to add to this that whatever troubles there are potentially associated with having things that run in-browser access COM-objects (the same as Firefox plug-ins essentially - check what you allow to run or suffer the consequences) it cannot be said that COM is Windows only, since it's just a set of interfaces, and an extremely simple and intuitive one to boot.
Implementations (at least for the in-process case) exist for pretty much on every platform since the way COM works mimics what C++ does so closely that most of the time you only need to declare the appropriate methods.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30181048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30185464</id>
	<title>Soo.......</title>
	<author>aix tom</author>
	<datestamp>1258826400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is this think called "Browser", right?</p><p>Which is build to display HTML, right?</p><p>And Microsoft invented some stuff nobody wants, that can do *additonal* stuff in that Browser. That was pretty bad to begin with.</p><p>And now they want to use *that* to do HMTL, but that feature is broken?</p><p>I think I have to get out of IT before the stuff blows up.</p><p>In 5 years or so you will open up IE, that starts a sSlverlight OS, that starts a VMWare machine, that starts an embedded version of Windows, that starts a sandboxes version of another IE to display a 404 Error.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is this think called " Browser " , right ? Which is build to display HTML , right ? And Microsoft invented some stuff nobody wants , that can do * additonal * stuff in that Browser .
That was pretty bad to begin with.And now they want to use * that * to do HMTL , but that feature is broken ? I think I have to get out of IT before the stuff blows up.In 5 years or so you will open up IE , that starts a sSlverlight OS , that starts a VMWare machine , that starts an embedded version of Windows , that starts a sandboxes version of another IE to display a 404 Error .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is this think called "Browser", right?Which is build to display HTML, right?And Microsoft invented some stuff nobody wants, that can do *additonal* stuff in that Browser.
That was pretty bad to begin with.And now they want to use *that* to do HMTL, but that feature is broken?I think I have to get out of IT before the stuff blows up.In 5 years or so you will open up IE, that starts a sSlverlight OS, that starts a VMWare machine, that starts an embedded version of Windows, that starts a sandboxes version of another IE to display a 404 Error.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30182834</id>
	<title>And then then it hit me...</title>
	<author>lawnboy5-O</author>
	<datestamp>1258796580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Like, Duh!!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Like , Duh ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like, Duh!!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30180644</id>
	<title>Re:So what? Freedom of choice is good.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258726440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In my country, this kind of freedom of choice is called choosing between plague and cholera.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In my country , this kind of freedom of choice is called choosing between plague and cholera .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my country, this kind of freedom of choice is called choosing between plague and cholera.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30180268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30181166</id>
	<title>Wow what a shock</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258730460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who would have thought, Microsoft and platform lock-in?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who would have thought , Microsoft and platform lock-in ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who would have thought, Microsoft and platform lock-in?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30182092</id>
	<title>C'mon it's also an OS bigot</title>
	<author>Provocateur</author>
	<datestamp>1258740360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Answer me this: does explorer continue to show ONLY windows partitions? I'm<br>sure many of you will chime in, oh you can add such-and-such and it will<br>display ext3/ext4 and so on; to you people, I say <i>Whoosh</i></p><p>I'm talking about out-of-the-box behavior. Does it continue this denial that<br>other partitions (formed by other OS's) are there, and have data in them that<br>I may want to access while in Windows? <i>Puh-lease,</i> if I'm paying for the<br>Premium Edition, I want <b>Premium</b> Edition, not clearance corner bargain<br>bin Norton wannabe tunnel-vision hey-its-the-90's file managers. So<br>Silverlight's got a Windows Bias? Yawn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Answer me this : does explorer continue to show ONLY windows partitions ?
I'msure many of you will chime in , oh you can add such-and-such and it willdisplay ext3/ext4 and so on ; to you people , I say WhooshI 'm talking about out-of-the-box behavior .
Does it continue this denial thatother partitions ( formed by other OS 's ) are there , and have data in them thatI may want to access while in Windows ?
Puh-lease , if I 'm paying for thePremium Edition , I want Premium Edition , not clearance corner bargainbin Norton wannabe tunnel-vision hey-its-the-90 's file managers .
SoSilverlight 's got a Windows Bias ?
Yawn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Answer me this: does explorer continue to show ONLY windows partitions?
I'msure many of you will chime in, oh you can add such-and-such and it willdisplay ext3/ext4 and so on; to you people, I say WhooshI'm talking about out-of-the-box behavior.
Does it continue this denial thatother partitions (formed by other OS's) are there, and have data in them thatI may want to access while in Windows?
Puh-lease, if I'm paying for thePremium Edition, I want Premium Edition, not clearance corner bargainbin Norton wannabe tunnel-vision hey-its-the-90's file managers.
SoSilverlight's got a Windows Bias?
Yawn.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30183372</id>
	<title>Re:History</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258806960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you want to rip peoples heads off, and only because you don't understand what you're dealing with?</p><p>Javascript is an ok language (comparing it to VBA is a joke), it just needs to deal with DOM and all the fuckups that includes. Any code in any language that interacts with the DOM is going to be horrible.</p><p>I'd like to hear why js is "the crappiest language" and an "attack vector"? No engine bugs, browser policy mistakes or DOM exploits, please -- these will be available in any language.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you want to rip peoples heads off , and only because you do n't understand what you 're dealing with ? Javascript is an ok language ( comparing it to VBA is a joke ) , it just needs to deal with DOM and all the fuckups that includes .
Any code in any language that interacts with the DOM is going to be horrible.I 'd like to hear why js is " the crappiest language " and an " attack vector " ?
No engine bugs , browser policy mistakes or DOM exploits , please -- these will be available in any language .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you want to rip peoples heads off, and only because you don't understand what you're dealing with?Javascript is an ok language (comparing it to VBA is a joke), it just needs to deal with DOM and all the fuckups that includes.
Any code in any language that interacts with the DOM is going to be horrible.I'd like to hear why js is "the crappiest language" and an "attack vector"?
No engine bugs, browser policy mistakes or DOM exploits, please -- these will be available in any language.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30181824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30184284</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft pollution at its best</title>
	<author>b4dc0d3r</author>
	<datestamp>1258819320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe the engine was relatively unmodified, but the objects were enhanced to support standard properties and methods in addition to microsoft specific ones.</p><p>JScript (windows scripting) 5.5 implemented Javacript 1.5, but did it poorly.  IE 6.0 uses JScript 5.6 which was relatively more useful and closer to the standard.  Everyone everywhere was updating their JScript or WSH or whatever to 5.6.  Incremental updates to 5.7 and 5.8 made the JavaScript 1.5 implementation better.</p><p>So yes they improved the underlying engine, but they have not claimed to implement any new standards past JavaScript 1.5.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe the engine was relatively unmodified , but the objects were enhanced to support standard properties and methods in addition to microsoft specific ones.JScript ( windows scripting ) 5.5 implemented Javacript 1.5 , but did it poorly .
IE 6.0 uses JScript 5.6 which was relatively more useful and closer to the standard .
Everyone everywhere was updating their JScript or WSH or whatever to 5.6 .
Incremental updates to 5.7 and 5.8 made the JavaScript 1.5 implementation better.So yes they improved the underlying engine , but they have not claimed to implement any new standards past JavaScript 1.5 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe the engine was relatively unmodified, but the objects were enhanced to support standard properties and methods in addition to microsoft specific ones.JScript (windows scripting) 5.5 implemented Javacript 1.5, but did it poorly.
IE 6.0 uses JScript 5.6 which was relatively more useful and closer to the standard.
Everyone everywhere was updating their JScript or WSH or whatever to 5.6.
Incremental updates to 5.7 and 5.8 made the JavaScript 1.5 implementation better.So yes they improved the underlying engine, but they have not claimed to implement any new standards past JavaScript 1.5.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30181020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30180268</id>
	<title>So what? Freedom of choice is good.</title>
	<author>awitod</author>
	<datestamp>1258724160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It has the ability to support older API's that aren't available on all platforms. Developers who care about maximum cross-platform reach just won't use them. On the flip-side, if it didn't allow interop with the old stuff, the current adopters would be pissed for obvious reasons.</p><p>This way the people creating Silverlight apps have freedom of choice and choice is good.</p><p>As far as IE goes, I have a product that integrates with IE. I looked closely at Webkit and Gecko. Neither one is very friendly to program against with<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET and the API's don't expose nearly as much automation capability as IE. If the maintainers of those browsers want developers to embed them in desktop apps as an alternative, they need to make an investment.</p><p>Why should Microsoft do it? As far as I know, anyone can create and distribute Silverlight components. If you want a good API for WPF/Silverlight for Gecko, talk to the Mozilla Foundation. I'd be glad to have it, but I'm not mad at Microsoft because it doesn't exist. (BTW, I am aware of GeckoFx and XulRunner. The API is very shallow compared to the IE COM interfaces.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It has the ability to support older API 's that are n't available on all platforms .
Developers who care about maximum cross-platform reach just wo n't use them .
On the flip-side , if it did n't allow interop with the old stuff , the current adopters would be pissed for obvious reasons.This way the people creating Silverlight apps have freedom of choice and choice is good.As far as IE goes , I have a product that integrates with IE .
I looked closely at Webkit and Gecko .
Neither one is very friendly to program against with .NET and the API 's do n't expose nearly as much automation capability as IE .
If the maintainers of those browsers want developers to embed them in desktop apps as an alternative , they need to make an investment.Why should Microsoft do it ?
As far as I know , anyone can create and distribute Silverlight components .
If you want a good API for WPF/Silverlight for Gecko , talk to the Mozilla Foundation .
I 'd be glad to have it , but I 'm not mad at Microsoft because it does n't exist .
( BTW , I am aware of GeckoFx and XulRunner .
The API is very shallow compared to the IE COM interfaces .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has the ability to support older API's that aren't available on all platforms.
Developers who care about maximum cross-platform reach just won't use them.
On the flip-side, if it didn't allow interop with the old stuff, the current adopters would be pissed for obvious reasons.This way the people creating Silverlight apps have freedom of choice and choice is good.As far as IE goes, I have a product that integrates with IE.
I looked closely at Webkit and Gecko.
Neither one is very friendly to program against with .NET and the API's don't expose nearly as much automation capability as IE.
If the maintainers of those browsers want developers to embed them in desktop apps as an alternative, they need to make an investment.Why should Microsoft do it?
As far as I know, anyone can create and distribute Silverlight components.
If you want a good API for WPF/Silverlight for Gecko, talk to the Mozilla Foundation.
I'd be glad to have it, but I'm not mad at Microsoft because it doesn't exist.
(BTW, I am aware of GeckoFx and XulRunner.
The API is very shallow compared to the IE COM interfaces.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30180304</id>
	<title>MS releases Silverlight 4, nobody cares</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258724280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft today announced the release of version 4.0 of its world-beating Silverlight multimedia platform for the Web. As a replacement for Adobe&rsquo;s Flash, it is widely considered <a href="http://notnews.today.com/2008/10/19/microsoft-releases-silverlight-20-nobody-cares/" title="today.com">utterly superfluous and of no interest to anyone who could be found</a> [today.com].

</p><p>&ldquo;We have a fabulous selection of content partners for Silverlight,&rdquo; announced Microsoft marketer Scott Guthrie on his blog today. &ldquo;NBC for the Olympics, which delivered millions of new users to BitTorrent. The Democrat National Convention, which is fine because those Linux users are all Ron Paul weirdos anyway. It comes with rich frameworks, rich controls, rich networking support, a rich base class library, rich media support, oh God kill me now. My options are underwater, my resum&#233;&rsquo;s a car crash, Google won&rsquo;t call me back. My life is an exercise in futility. I&rsquo;m the walking dead, man. The walking dead.&rdquo;

</p><p>Silverlight was created by Microsoft to leverage its desktop monopoly on Windows, to work off the tremendous sales and popularity of Vista. Flash is present on a pathetic 96\% of all computers connected to the Internet, whereas Silverlight downloads are into the triple figures.

</p><p>&ldquo;But it&rsquo;s got DRM!&rdquo; cried Guthrie. &ldquo;Netflix loved it! And web developers love us too, after all we did for them with IE 6. Wait, come back! We&rsquo;ll put porn on it! Free porn!&rdquo;

</p><p>Similar Microsoft initiatives include its XPS replacement for Adobe PDF, its HD Photo replacement for JPEG photographs and its earlier Liquid Motion attempt to replace Flash. Also, that CD-ROM format Vista defaults to which no other computers can read.

</p><p>In a Microsoft internal security sweep, Guthrie&rsquo;s own desktop was found to still be running Windows XP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft today announced the release of version 4.0 of its world-beating Silverlight multimedia platform for the Web .
As a replacement for Adobe    s Flash , it is widely considered utterly superfluous and of no interest to anyone who could be found [ today.com ] .
   We have a fabulous selection of content partners for Silverlight ,    announced Microsoft marketer Scott Guthrie on his blog today .
   NBC for the Olympics , which delivered millions of new users to BitTorrent .
The Democrat National Convention , which is fine because those Linux users are all Ron Paul weirdos anyway .
It comes with rich frameworks , rich controls , rich networking support , a rich base class library , rich media support , oh God kill me now .
My options are underwater , my resum      s a car crash , Google won    t call me back .
My life is an exercise in futility .
I    m the walking dead , man .
The walking dead.    Silverlight was created by Microsoft to leverage its desktop monopoly on Windows , to work off the tremendous sales and popularity of Vista .
Flash is present on a pathetic 96 \ % of all computers connected to the Internet , whereas Silverlight downloads are into the triple figures .
   But it    s got DRM !    cried Guthrie .
   Netflix loved it !
And web developers love us too , after all we did for them with IE 6 .
Wait , come back !
We    ll put porn on it !
Free porn !    Similar Microsoft initiatives include its XPS replacement for Adobe PDF , its HD Photo replacement for JPEG photographs and its earlier Liquid Motion attempt to replace Flash .
Also , that CD-ROM format Vista defaults to which no other computers can read .
In a Microsoft internal security sweep , Guthrie    s own desktop was found to still be running Windows XP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft today announced the release of version 4.0 of its world-beating Silverlight multimedia platform for the Web.
As a replacement for Adobe’s Flash, it is widely considered utterly superfluous and of no interest to anyone who could be found [today.com].
“We have a fabulous selection of content partners for Silverlight,” announced Microsoft marketer Scott Guthrie on his blog today.
“NBC for the Olympics, which delivered millions of new users to BitTorrent.
The Democrat National Convention, which is fine because those Linux users are all Ron Paul weirdos anyway.
It comes with rich frameworks, rich controls, rich networking support, a rich base class library, rich media support, oh God kill me now.
My options are underwater, my resumé’s a car crash, Google won’t call me back.
My life is an exercise in futility.
I’m the walking dead, man.
The walking dead.”

Silverlight was created by Microsoft to leverage its desktop monopoly on Windows, to work off the tremendous sales and popularity of Vista.
Flash is present on a pathetic 96\% of all computers connected to the Internet, whereas Silverlight downloads are into the triple figures.
“But it’s got DRM!” cried Guthrie.
“Netflix loved it!
And web developers love us too, after all we did for them with IE 6.
Wait, come back!
We’ll put porn on it!
Free porn!”

Similar Microsoft initiatives include its XPS replacement for Adobe PDF, its HD Photo replacement for JPEG photographs and its earlier Liquid Motion attempt to replace Flash.
Also, that CD-ROM format Vista defaults to which no other computers can read.
In a Microsoft internal security sweep, Guthrie’s own desktop was found to still be running Windows XP.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30182856</id>
	<title>Well duh</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1258797000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does anyone not using Windows actually use Silverlight? To me this sounds like<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET or IE have a Windows bias.</p><p>If anything, it's good that all the crap is quarantined together and doesn't spread to become a web standard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone not using Windows actually use Silverlight ?
To me this sounds like .NET or IE have a Windows bias.If anything , it 's good that all the crap is quarantined together and does n't spread to become a web standard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone not using Windows actually use Silverlight?
To me this sounds like .NET or IE have a Windows bias.If anything, it's good that all the crap is quarantined together and doesn't spread to become a web standard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30180408</id>
	<title>As a desktop Linux user, I avoid Sliverlite...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258725000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Think about it:<br>Why would I want to help MS get more market share when it comes to the delivery of on-line multimedia? I'm sure if MS gets a large percentage  of the market, they would shiv me in the back by pulling codec support from the Linux version or sabotaging it in some other manor.</p><p>We're talking about the same company that tried to lock out free audio codecs from PMPs a wile back to screw free software users.</p><p>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/27/accidental\_music\_monopoly\_bid/</p><p>I'm happy to stick with Flash. It may be closed source, but at least it isn't made by (or under the control of) a company that regularly goes out of its way to screw people over.</p><p>That being said, I'm sure MS could buy Adobe, so a free solution would still be much better/reliable than flash.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Think about it : Why would I want to help MS get more market share when it comes to the delivery of on-line multimedia ?
I 'm sure if MS gets a large percentage of the market , they would shiv me in the back by pulling codec support from the Linux version or sabotaging it in some other manor.We 're talking about the same company that tried to lock out free audio codecs from PMPs a wile back to screw free software users.http : //www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/27/accidental \ _music \ _monopoly \ _bid/I 'm happy to stick with Flash .
It may be closed source , but at least it is n't made by ( or under the control of ) a company that regularly goes out of its way to screw people over.That being said , I 'm sure MS could buy Adobe , so a free solution would still be much better/reliable than flash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Think about it:Why would I want to help MS get more market share when it comes to the delivery of on-line multimedia?
I'm sure if MS gets a large percentage  of the market, they would shiv me in the back by pulling codec support from the Linux version or sabotaging it in some other manor.We're talking about the same company that tried to lock out free audio codecs from PMPs a wile back to screw free software users.http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/27/accidental\_music\_monopoly\_bid/I'm happy to stick with Flash.
It may be closed source, but at least it isn't made by (or under the control of) a company that regularly goes out of its way to screw people over.That being said, I'm sure MS could buy Adobe, so a free solution would still be much better/reliable than flash.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30181138</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft pollution at its best</title>
	<author>Mongoose Disciple</author>
	<datestamp>1258730280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The short answer is, they're not trying to solve the problem you think (or want) they're trying to solve.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The short answer is , they 're not trying to solve the problem you think ( or want ) they 're trying to solve .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The short answer is, they're not trying to solve the problem you think (or want) they're trying to solve.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30180274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30182690</id>
	<title>Re:COM Automation = ActiveX</title>
	<author>dave87656</author>
	<datestamp>1258837020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft continues their "CaptiveX Technology with Windows Exploder".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft continues their " CaptiveX Technology with Windows Exploder " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft continues their "CaptiveX Technology with Windows Exploder".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30179870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30180178</id>
	<title>Re:History</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258723680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The thing is, instead of releasing plugins, the Open Source community is just agreeing on standards in browsers (so theoretically, any brower that can do javascript and html5 can do whatever you want without a plugin).</htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing is , instead of releasing plugins , the Open Source community is just agreeing on standards in browsers ( so theoretically , any brower that can do javascript and html5 can do whatever you want without a plugin ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing is, instead of releasing plugins, the Open Source community is just agreeing on standards in browsers (so theoretically, any brower that can do javascript and html5 can do whatever you want without a plugin).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30179918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30183576</id>
	<title>Re:History</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1258810800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wait, you're comparing a language which is a direct descendant of Self to VBA and you want us to take you seriously?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait , you 're comparing a language which is a direct descendant of Self to VBA and you want us to take you seriously ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait, you're comparing a language which is a direct descendant of Self to VBA and you want us to take you seriously?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30181824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30181740</id>
	<title>Because HTML5 sucks ass as a development platform</title>
	<author>melted</author>
	<datestamp>1258736400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt; Why won't Microsoft invest time and energy making IE html5 compliant</p><p>Looks like they will bring it closer to compliance in IE9.</p><p>Silverlight exists because HTML5 and Flash suck ass as a development platform if you want to develop desktop-class applications and deploy them over the web. I'm sorry, that's just a fact of life. Just look at Google Docs. It will never be full fidelity until it is rebuilt on top of the platform actually designed to run applications, not just display content.</p><p>Sun had a tremendous lead with Java, but somehow they managed to fuck up every single thing they needed to do to succeed. Microsoft fucked up the first three versions already, as they typically do, now with version 4 coming out I expect a good product, and good tooling around the SDK to go with it.</p><p>The only shitty bit about Silverlight from technological standpoint is that it relies on XAML. If there ever was an idea that deserved to be strangled in its infancy, that would be XAML. Other than that, SL provides a high performance (faster than Java, not to mention Javascript, and with lower memory footprint), garbage collected runtime, a contemporary object-oriented language  (with functional bits tastily thrown in over the past couple of years), GPU accelerated media decoding and drawing, etc, etc.</p><p>If Google released something like this, everyone would be shitting their pants in ecstasy. Think about it, in SL there's NOTHING preventing you from building a full-fidelity equivalent of Word or Excel, for example. Anything you can do in managed code on the desktop (and that's a heck of a lot), you can do in Silverlight just as well. And it will run on both PC and Mac.</p><p>Instead, everyone will continue hacking browsers into submission ad nauseam. I've spent years of my life doing just that, and I want those years back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; Why wo n't Microsoft invest time and energy making IE html5 compliantLooks like they will bring it closer to compliance in IE9.Silverlight exists because HTML5 and Flash suck ass as a development platform if you want to develop desktop-class applications and deploy them over the web .
I 'm sorry , that 's just a fact of life .
Just look at Google Docs .
It will never be full fidelity until it is rebuilt on top of the platform actually designed to run applications , not just display content.Sun had a tremendous lead with Java , but somehow they managed to fuck up every single thing they needed to do to succeed .
Microsoft fucked up the first three versions already , as they typically do , now with version 4 coming out I expect a good product , and good tooling around the SDK to go with it.The only shitty bit about Silverlight from technological standpoint is that it relies on XAML .
If there ever was an idea that deserved to be strangled in its infancy , that would be XAML .
Other than that , SL provides a high performance ( faster than Java , not to mention Javascript , and with lower memory footprint ) , garbage collected runtime , a contemporary object-oriented language ( with functional bits tastily thrown in over the past couple of years ) , GPU accelerated media decoding and drawing , etc , etc.If Google released something like this , everyone would be shitting their pants in ecstasy .
Think about it , in SL there 's NOTHING preventing you from building a full-fidelity equivalent of Word or Excel , for example .
Anything you can do in managed code on the desktop ( and that 's a heck of a lot ) , you can do in Silverlight just as well .
And it will run on both PC and Mac.Instead , everyone will continue hacking browsers into submission ad nauseam .
I 've spent years of my life doing just that , and I want those years back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; Why won't Microsoft invest time and energy making IE html5 compliantLooks like they will bring it closer to compliance in IE9.Silverlight exists because HTML5 and Flash suck ass as a development platform if you want to develop desktop-class applications and deploy them over the web.
I'm sorry, that's just a fact of life.
Just look at Google Docs.
It will never be full fidelity until it is rebuilt on top of the platform actually designed to run applications, not just display content.Sun had a tremendous lead with Java, but somehow they managed to fuck up every single thing they needed to do to succeed.
Microsoft fucked up the first three versions already, as they typically do, now with version 4 coming out I expect a good product, and good tooling around the SDK to go with it.The only shitty bit about Silverlight from technological standpoint is that it relies on XAML.
If there ever was an idea that deserved to be strangled in its infancy, that would be XAML.
Other than that, SL provides a high performance (faster than Java, not to mention Javascript, and with lower memory footprint), garbage collected runtime, a contemporary object-oriented language  (with functional bits tastily thrown in over the past couple of years), GPU accelerated media decoding and drawing, etc, etc.If Google released something like this, everyone would be shitting their pants in ecstasy.
Think about it, in SL there's NOTHING preventing you from building a full-fidelity equivalent of Word or Excel, for example.
Anything you can do in managed code on the desktop (and that's a heck of a lot), you can do in Silverlight just as well.
And it will run on both PC and Mac.Instead, everyone will continue hacking browsers into submission ad nauseam.
I've spent years of my life doing just that, and I want those years back.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30180274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30180346</id>
	<title>Features?</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1258724520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So far, the only feature in TFS that I can see as having "Windows bias" is ActiveX support. Which is kinda not surprising (I mean, who doesn't know that ActiveX is "that evil Windows thing" - even people who don't even understand what it is and how it works?). Qt also has an ActiveX support module, and it doesn't make it any less cross-platform - no-one forces you to use it. Same applies here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So far , the only feature in TFS that I can see as having " Windows bias " is ActiveX support .
Which is kinda not surprising ( I mean , who does n't know that ActiveX is " that evil Windows thing " - even people who do n't even understand what it is and how it works ? ) .
Qt also has an ActiveX support module , and it does n't make it any less cross-platform - no-one forces you to use it .
Same applies here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So far, the only feature in TFS that I can see as having "Windows bias" is ActiveX support.
Which is kinda not surprising (I mean, who doesn't know that ActiveX is "that evil Windows thing" - even people who don't even understand what it is and how it works?).
Qt also has an ActiveX support module, and it doesn't make it any less cross-platform - no-one forces you to use it.
Same applies here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30182310</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft pollution at its best</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258743900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>ummmm.... because silverlight is on its 4'th version and HTML5 isn't even a full standard yet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>ummmm.... because silverlight is on its 4'th version and HTML5 is n't even a full standard yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ummmm.... because silverlight is on its 4'th version and HTML5 isn't even a full standard yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30180274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30185424</id>
	<title>What a mess</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258826160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The whole idea of a technology like silverlight is to be consistent across all platforms.<br>I can't see it ever gaining any real traction until Microsoft can fix such fundamental defects.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole idea of a technology like silverlight is to be consistent across all platforms.I ca n't see it ever gaining any real traction until Microsoft can fix such fundamental defects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole idea of a technology like silverlight is to be consistent across all platforms.I can't see it ever gaining any real traction until Microsoft can fix such fundamental defects.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30184408</id>
	<title>Re:History</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258820460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're the kind of scum who makes the internet such a shitty, bad written place. You're a poor excuse for writing any kind of code, even a simple markup language, and then complain how it's beyond you. You're why webdevs have such a ridiculous reputation as less than second rate, because morons like you are less than second rate and so ridiculously proud of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're the kind of scum who makes the internet such a shitty , bad written place .
You 're a poor excuse for writing any kind of code , even a simple markup language , and then complain how it 's beyond you .
You 're why webdevs have such a ridiculous reputation as less than second rate , because morons like you are less than second rate and so ridiculously proud of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're the kind of scum who makes the internet such a shitty, bad written place.
You're a poor excuse for writing any kind of code, even a simple markup language, and then complain how it's beyond you.
You're why webdevs have such a ridiculous reputation as less than second rate, because morons like you are less than second rate and so ridiculously proud of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30181824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30180342</id>
	<title>Speaking of Bias..</title>
	<author>Dragonshed</author>
	<datestamp>1258724520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From TFA:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Unfortunately, some of these features are not what they first appear. The HTML control in Silverlight 4 is not a new embedded browser from Microsoft, but uses components from Internet Explorer on Windows, or Safari on the Mac, which means that the same content might render differently. The HTML control only works out-of-browser, and simply displays a blank space if browser-hosted.</p></div><p>The difference in rendering between IE on Windows and Safari on Macosx is a reality, whether silverlight is involved or not.  The purpose of the HTML Control is to allow scenarios dependent on the HTML Bridge, the part of silverlight that blurs the lines and allows communication between the html dom + javascript and C# code, to run correctly when the app is hosted out of the browser.  It's essentially a crutch to allow developers that want to use siverlight a way to leverage existing investments in web application development.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> More seriously, COM automation is a Windows-only feature, introducing differentiation between the Mac and Windows implementations. Since cross-platform Mac and Windows is a key Silverlight feature, it is curious that Microsoft has now decided to make it platform-specific in such an important respect. Microsoft Office and parts of the Windows API have a COM interface, so access to COM makes Silverlight a much more capable client.</p></div><p>This is a fairly obscure feature, and I'm fairly surprised that it was included at all, but doubt it'll be of use to the vast majority of current and future silverlight developers out there.  Like the html control, it's a crutch, to allow developers that want to use silverlight a way to leverage existing investments.  The mantra I've heard out of the silverlight team is to focus on unblocking customer scenarios (scenarios they cannot unblock themselves) without compromising the overall feature goals (like keeping the runtime download small).</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Nevertheless, Silverlight has crossed a threshold. It is now a runtime that has extended functionality only on Windows. That will not help Microsoft win developers from Adobe AIR, which has the same features on both Mac and Windows.</p></div><p>I don't think it'll matter.  Any developer that is seriously considering using silverlight over Adobe AIR, but is then persuaded not to because Silverlight's Trusted Out-Of-Browser scenario has COM support on Windows and not on Mac is "Doing It Wrong".  It's an edge case feature that doesn't affect Silverlight's over all "Cross-Platforminess".</p><p>Flame On.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : Unfortunately , some of these features are not what they first appear .
The HTML control in Silverlight 4 is not a new embedded browser from Microsoft , but uses components from Internet Explorer on Windows , or Safari on the Mac , which means that the same content might render differently .
The HTML control only works out-of-browser , and simply displays a blank space if browser-hosted.The difference in rendering between IE on Windows and Safari on Macosx is a reality , whether silverlight is involved or not .
The purpose of the HTML Control is to allow scenarios dependent on the HTML Bridge , the part of silverlight that blurs the lines and allows communication between the html dom + javascript and C # code , to run correctly when the app is hosted out of the browser .
It 's essentially a crutch to allow developers that want to use siverlight a way to leverage existing investments in web application development .
More seriously , COM automation is a Windows-only feature , introducing differentiation between the Mac and Windows implementations .
Since cross-platform Mac and Windows is a key Silverlight feature , it is curious that Microsoft has now decided to make it platform-specific in such an important respect .
Microsoft Office and parts of the Windows API have a COM interface , so access to COM makes Silverlight a much more capable client.This is a fairly obscure feature , and I 'm fairly surprised that it was included at all , but doubt it 'll be of use to the vast majority of current and future silverlight developers out there .
Like the html control , it 's a crutch , to allow developers that want to use silverlight a way to leverage existing investments .
The mantra I 've heard out of the silverlight team is to focus on unblocking customer scenarios ( scenarios they can not unblock themselves ) without compromising the overall feature goals ( like keeping the runtime download small ) .Nevertheless , Silverlight has crossed a threshold .
It is now a runtime that has extended functionality only on Windows .
That will not help Microsoft win developers from Adobe AIR , which has the same features on both Mac and Windows.I do n't think it 'll matter .
Any developer that is seriously considering using silverlight over Adobe AIR , but is then persuaded not to because Silverlight 's Trusted Out-Of-Browser scenario has COM support on Windows and not on Mac is " Doing It Wrong " .
It 's an edge case feature that does n't affect Silverlight 's over all " Cross-Platforminess " .Flame On .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA:Unfortunately, some of these features are not what they first appear.
The HTML control in Silverlight 4 is not a new embedded browser from Microsoft, but uses components from Internet Explorer on Windows, or Safari on the Mac, which means that the same content might render differently.
The HTML control only works out-of-browser, and simply displays a blank space if browser-hosted.The difference in rendering between IE on Windows and Safari on Macosx is a reality, whether silverlight is involved or not.
The purpose of the HTML Control is to allow scenarios dependent on the HTML Bridge, the part of silverlight that blurs the lines and allows communication between the html dom + javascript and C# code, to run correctly when the app is hosted out of the browser.
It's essentially a crutch to allow developers that want to use siverlight a way to leverage existing investments in web application development.
More seriously, COM automation is a Windows-only feature, introducing differentiation between the Mac and Windows implementations.
Since cross-platform Mac and Windows is a key Silverlight feature, it is curious that Microsoft has now decided to make it platform-specific in such an important respect.
Microsoft Office and parts of the Windows API have a COM interface, so access to COM makes Silverlight a much more capable client.This is a fairly obscure feature, and I'm fairly surprised that it was included at all, but doubt it'll be of use to the vast majority of current and future silverlight developers out there.
Like the html control, it's a crutch, to allow developers that want to use silverlight a way to leverage existing investments.
The mantra I've heard out of the silverlight team is to focus on unblocking customer scenarios (scenarios they cannot unblock themselves) without compromising the overall feature goals (like keeping the runtime download small).Nevertheless, Silverlight has crossed a threshold.
It is now a runtime that has extended functionality only on Windows.
That will not help Microsoft win developers from Adobe AIR, which has the same features on both Mac and Windows.I don't think it'll matter.
Any developer that is seriously considering using silverlight over Adobe AIR, but is then persuaded not to because Silverlight's Trusted Out-Of-Browser scenario has COM support on Windows and not on Mac is "Doing It Wrong".
It's an edge case feature that doesn't affect Silverlight's over all "Cross-Platforminess".Flame On.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30181672</id>
	<title>BFD</title>
	<author>McBeer</author>
	<datestamp>1258735680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I really don't see why everybody is acting like the sky is falling over this.  The level of cross platform compatibility is not changing in any significant way.  Virtually nobody is going to use the Windows only com automation. It only works in a full trust out of browser Silverlight app. 99.5\% of Silverlight use is in browser and of that remaining 0.5\% most are partial trust apps.  I can't think of why somebody with these requirements wouldn't just use WPF honestly.
<br> <br>
<a href="http://silverlight.net/getstarted/silverlight-4-beta/" title="silverlight.net" rel="nofollow">Here's a more comprehensive listing of the changes to come.</a> [silverlight.net]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really do n't see why everybody is acting like the sky is falling over this .
The level of cross platform compatibility is not changing in any significant way .
Virtually nobody is going to use the Windows only com automation .
It only works in a full trust out of browser Silverlight app .
99.5 \ % of Silverlight use is in browser and of that remaining 0.5 \ % most are partial trust apps .
I ca n't think of why somebody with these requirements would n't just use WPF honestly .
Here 's a more comprehensive listing of the changes to come .
[ silverlight.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really don't see why everybody is acting like the sky is falling over this.
The level of cross platform compatibility is not changing in any significant way.
Virtually nobody is going to use the Windows only com automation.
It only works in a full trust out of browser Silverlight app.
99.5\% of Silverlight use is in browser and of that remaining 0.5\% most are partial trust apps.
I can't think of why somebody with these requirements wouldn't just use WPF honestly.
Here's a more comprehensive listing of the changes to come.
[silverlight.net]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30183770</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft pollution at its best</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258814160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because then they can ship you numerous other products, such as Visual Studio, Expression Blahwhatever, XAML, etc. In other words, they tie any Silverlight developer tightly into their tiny little proprietary world, and suck out their companies' cash. Not to mention any Silverlight developer by definition has to know<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net APIs, C#, etc.</p><p>Can't anyone just give me a way to create an OpenGL game for browsers, preferably implemented in C++ (sandboxed and unprivileged, but<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... 'normal') and with classic event loop? I hate hate hate Javascript's/DOM's/whatever's DOM model</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because then they can ship you numerous other products , such as Visual Studio , Expression Blahwhatever , XAML , etc .
In other words , they tie any Silverlight developer tightly into their tiny little proprietary world , and suck out their companies ' cash .
Not to mention any Silverlight developer by definition has to know .Net APIs , C # , etc.Ca n't anyone just give me a way to create an OpenGL game for browsers , preferably implemented in C + + ( sandboxed and unprivileged , but ... 'normal ' ) and with classic event loop ?
I hate hate hate Javascript 's/DOM 's/whatever 's DOM model</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because then they can ship you numerous other products, such as Visual Studio, Expression Blahwhatever, XAML, etc.
In other words, they tie any Silverlight developer tightly into their tiny little proprietary world, and suck out their companies' cash.
Not to mention any Silverlight developer by definition has to know .Net APIs, C#, etc.Can't anyone just give me a way to create an OpenGL game for browsers, preferably implemented in C++ (sandboxed and unprivileged, but ... 'normal') and with classic event loop?
I hate hate hate Javascript's/DOM's/whatever's DOM model</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30180274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30180568</id>
	<title>Windows bias? Is that what you see?</title>
	<author>93 Escort Wagon</author>
	<datestamp>1258725900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The HTML control in Silverlight 4 is not a new embedded browser from Microsoft, but uses components from Internet Explorer on Windows, or Safari on the Mac, which means that the same content might render differently.</p></div><p>So on the Mac it'll use Webkit, which means it'll render correctly. On Windows it'll use IE, which means... okay, anyone who's done any web development at all knows what that means.</p><p>I guess I'm not seeing the "pro-Windows bias" here - it looks like an anti-Windows bias to me!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The HTML control in Silverlight 4 is not a new embedded browser from Microsoft , but uses components from Internet Explorer on Windows , or Safari on the Mac , which means that the same content might render differently.So on the Mac it 'll use Webkit , which means it 'll render correctly .
On Windows it 'll use IE , which means... okay , anyone who 's done any web development at all knows what that means.I guess I 'm not seeing the " pro-Windows bias " here - it looks like an anti-Windows bias to me !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The HTML control in Silverlight 4 is not a new embedded browser from Microsoft, but uses components from Internet Explorer on Windows, or Safari on the Mac, which means that the same content might render differently.So on the Mac it'll use Webkit, which means it'll render correctly.
On Windows it'll use IE, which means... okay, anyone who's done any web development at all knows what that means.I guess I'm not seeing the "pro-Windows bias" here - it looks like an anti-Windows bias to me!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30180394</id>
	<title>Re:So what? Freedom of choice is good.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258724880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a developer you have a lot more freedom with gecko or webkit, you don't need to automate the browser or its rendering engine, you can modify it to do exactly what you want, or incorporate its code into your program and call its internal functions directly.<br>There's nothing stopping you from implementing the api that you want.</p><p>How many developers will care about cross-platform?<br>Some developers create cross platform apps by default, but the vast majority create them by accident using cross platform languages... How many flash objects or java applets were ever tested or designed on more than one platform? If you make cross platform ability an option rather than the default, then the vast majority of apps will not be cross platform.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a developer you have a lot more freedom with gecko or webkit , you do n't need to automate the browser or its rendering engine , you can modify it to do exactly what you want , or incorporate its code into your program and call its internal functions directly.There 's nothing stopping you from implementing the api that you want.How many developers will care about cross-platform ? Some developers create cross platform apps by default , but the vast majority create them by accident using cross platform languages... How many flash objects or java applets were ever tested or designed on more than one platform ?
If you make cross platform ability an option rather than the default , then the vast majority of apps will not be cross platform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a developer you have a lot more freedom with gecko or webkit, you don't need to automate the browser or its rendering engine, you can modify it to do exactly what you want, or incorporate its code into your program and call its internal functions directly.There's nothing stopping you from implementing the api that you want.How many developers will care about cross-platform?Some developers create cross platform apps by default, but the vast majority create them by accident using cross platform languages... How many flash objects or java applets were ever tested or designed on more than one platform?
If you make cross platform ability an option rather than the default, then the vast majority of apps will not be cross platform.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30180268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30183574</id>
	<title>Re:History</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1258810740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They did, years ago, but completely sucked at marketing it.  Some of the Squeak team ported their Smalltalk VM to run as a plugin back in the late '90s.  This had a fully object-oriented environment, complete with developer tools and let you use the same VM image for development and deployment (although, more commonly, you'd remove things like the dev tools for deployment).  A modern Flash plugin is a pretty nice Smalltalk VM (ActionScript is semantically equivalent to Smalltalk, it just has horrible syntax) and contains a lot of optimisations that weren't in something like Squeak, but you could still run things like <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MShr7ZHsOfI" title="youtube.com">eToys</a> [youtube.com] in the Squeak plugin.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They did , years ago , but completely sucked at marketing it .
Some of the Squeak team ported their Smalltalk VM to run as a plugin back in the late '90s .
This had a fully object-oriented environment , complete with developer tools and let you use the same VM image for development and deployment ( although , more commonly , you 'd remove things like the dev tools for deployment ) .
A modern Flash plugin is a pretty nice Smalltalk VM ( ActionScript is semantically equivalent to Smalltalk , it just has horrible syntax ) and contains a lot of optimisations that were n't in something like Squeak , but you could still run things like eToys [ youtube.com ] in the Squeak plugin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They did, years ago, but completely sucked at marketing it.
Some of the Squeak team ported their Smalltalk VM to run as a plugin back in the late '90s.
This had a fully object-oriented environment, complete with developer tools and let you use the same VM image for development and deployment (although, more commonly, you'd remove things like the dev tools for deployment).
A modern Flash plugin is a pretty nice Smalltalk VM (ActionScript is semantically equivalent to Smalltalk, it just has horrible syntax) and contains a lot of optimisations that weren't in something like Squeak, but you could still run things like eToys [youtube.com] in the Squeak plugin.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30179918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30181824</id>
	<title>Re:History</title>
	<author>modmans2ndcoming</author>
	<datestamp>1258737180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Javascript is the crappiest language to do what you are attempting to do on the web. Every time I hear someone talking about javascript + HTML 5 +Canvas I want to rip their head off and shit down their neck.</p><p>If the OSS folks are so great at making standards, then why the fuck haven't they replaced the attack vector, POS VBA wanna-be Javascript with something good?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Javascript is the crappiest language to do what you are attempting to do on the web .
Every time I hear someone talking about javascript + HTML 5 + Canvas I want to rip their head off and shit down their neck.If the OSS folks are so great at making standards , then why the fuck have n't they replaced the attack vector , POS VBA wan na-be Javascript with something good ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Javascript is the crappiest language to do what you are attempting to do on the web.
Every time I hear someone talking about javascript + HTML 5 +Canvas I want to rip their head off and shit down their neck.If the OSS folks are so great at making standards, then why the fuck haven't they replaced the attack vector, POS VBA wanna-be Javascript with something good?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30180178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30181222</id>
	<title>Re:Features?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258730940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I understand ActiveX, and the lack of ActiveX support biases me to everything BUT windows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I understand ActiveX , and the lack of ActiveX support biases me to everything BUT windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I understand ActiveX, and the lack of ActiveX support biases me to everything BUT windows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30180346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30183946</id>
	<title>Re:Because HTML5 sucks ass as a development platfo</title>
	<author>ChienAndalu</author>
	<datestamp>1258816500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>  Anything you can do in managed code on the desktop (and that's a heck of a lot), you can do in Silverlight just as well.</p></div><p>Maybe someone builds a decent browser with it some day.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anything you can do in managed code on the desktop ( and that 's a heck of a lot ) , you can do in Silverlight just as well.Maybe someone builds a decent browser with it some day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  Anything you can do in managed code on the desktop (and that's a heck of a lot), you can do in Silverlight just as well.Maybe someone builds a decent browser with it some day.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30181740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30179918</id>
	<title>Re:History</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258722360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>i know, if there is one thing i wish the OSS community would make a decent competitor to, it's flash. silverlight looks promising, but this kills it for me outside of work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>i know , if there is one thing i wish the OSS community would make a decent competitor to , it 's flash .
silverlight looks promising , but this kills it for me outside of work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i know, if there is one thing i wish the OSS community would make a decent competitor to, it's flash.
silverlight looks promising, but this kills it for me outside of work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30179880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30187282</id>
	<title>Microsoft can't help being a bully.</title>
	<author>sonicsteve</author>
	<datestamp>1258794660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just uninstalled novell moonlight from firefox. I never used it anyways. Anything microsoft has control over ends up being a bad thing. I'm so sick of their endless lock-in games. When your in business to make money and to keep people under your thumb you get Microsoft. I can only hope that one day enough people will see this for Microsoft to come tumbling down.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just uninstalled novell moonlight from firefox .
I never used it anyways .
Anything microsoft has control over ends up being a bad thing .
I 'm so sick of their endless lock-in games .
When your in business to make money and to keep people under your thumb you get Microsoft .
I can only hope that one day enough people will see this for Microsoft to come tumbling down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just uninstalled novell moonlight from firefox.
I never used it anyways.
Anything microsoft has control over ends up being a bad thing.
I'm so sick of their endless lock-in games.
When your in business to make money and to keep people under your thumb you get Microsoft.
I can only hope that one day enough people will see this for Microsoft to come tumbling down.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30179872</id>
	<title>wow!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258722060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Story submitter and first post</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Story submitter and first post</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Story submitter and first post</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30181020</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft pollution at its best</title>
	<author>cbhacking</author>
	<datestamp>1258729260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know where they are in terms of language support (not great, if Acid3 is any indication), but IE8's JavaScript engine was a massive step up from IE7's and an even more massive step up from IE6. It's more standards-compliant (i.e. less incorrect behavior), implements more of the spec (not necessarily any of the newest changes to the spec, but more of the language as a whole), and is much, much faster than before.</p><p>Don't get me wrong, it's still way behind the other big-name browsers, but claiming 9 years since MS updated the javascript engine is a bald-faced lie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know where they are in terms of language support ( not great , if Acid3 is any indication ) , but IE8 's JavaScript engine was a massive step up from IE7 's and an even more massive step up from IE6 .
It 's more standards-compliant ( i.e .
less incorrect behavior ) , implements more of the spec ( not necessarily any of the newest changes to the spec , but more of the language as a whole ) , and is much , much faster than before.Do n't get me wrong , it 's still way behind the other big-name browsers , but claiming 9 years since MS updated the javascript engine is a bald-faced lie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know where they are in terms of language support (not great, if Acid3 is any indication), but IE8's JavaScript engine was a massive step up from IE7's and an even more massive step up from IE6.
It's more standards-compliant (i.e.
less incorrect behavior), implements more of the spec (not necessarily any of the newest changes to the spec, but more of the language as a whole), and is much, much faster than before.Don't get me wrong, it's still way behind the other big-name browsers, but claiming 9 years since MS updated the javascript engine is a bald-faced lie.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30180274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30180894</id>
	<title>Surprise surprise</title>
	<author>kikito</author>
	<datestamp>1258728360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft software quality again.</p><p>Seriously, is anyone not payed by microsoft using this Silverlight stuff?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft software quality again.Seriously , is anyone not payed by microsoft using this Silverlight stuff ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft software quality again.Seriously, is anyone not payed by microsoft using this Silverlight stuff?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30179880</id>
	<title>History</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258722120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anybody who didn't see this coming when MS came out hard about the "amazing cross compatibility besting Adobe!" a few years ago is insane. This is the same old shit they have pulled time and time again. At least they let the cat out of the bag before this needless plug-in gained any real traction. And no I'm no Flash fan. Adobe treats us like dogs too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anybody who did n't see this coming when MS came out hard about the " amazing cross compatibility besting Adobe !
" a few years ago is insane .
This is the same old shit they have pulled time and time again .
At least they let the cat out of the bag before this needless plug-in gained any real traction .
And no I 'm no Flash fan .
Adobe treats us like dogs too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anybody who didn't see this coming when MS came out hard about the "amazing cross compatibility besting Adobe!
" a few years ago is insane.
This is the same old shit they have pulled time and time again.
At least they let the cat out of the bag before this needless plug-in gained any real traction.
And no I'm no Flash fan.
Adobe treats us like dogs too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_2314220_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30183372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30181824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30180178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30179918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30179880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_2314220_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30183632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30181740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30180274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_2314220_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30191110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30182310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30180274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_2314220_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30182690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30179870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_2314220_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30183576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30181824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30180178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30179918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30179880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_2314220_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30181222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30180346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_2314220_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30180644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30180268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_2314220_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30184408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30181824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30180178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30179918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30179880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_2314220_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30188044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30181048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30179870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_2314220_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30181138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30180274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_2314220_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30183770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30180274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_2314220_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30183574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30179918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30179880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_2314220_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30184284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30181020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30180274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_2314220_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30183230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30180274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_2314220_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30180394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30180268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_2314220_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30183946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30181740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30180274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_2314220.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30182092
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_2314220.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30179870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30182690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30181048
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30188044
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_2314220.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30180304
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_2314220.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30180342
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_2314220.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30181166
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_2314220.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30179880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30179918
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30180178
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30181824
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30184408
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30183372
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30183576
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30183574
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_2314220.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30180346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30181222
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_2314220.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30180268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30180394
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30180644
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_2314220.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30182484
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_2314220.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30180274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30181740
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30183632
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30183946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30182310
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30191110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30183770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30183230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30181138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30181020
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2314220.30184284
</commentlist>
</conversation>
