<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_22_1620243</id>
	<title>Chrome OS and Android "Will Likely Converge" In the Future</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1258908840000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>xchg writes <i>"When Google first announced that the company would be pursuing <a href="http://www.wiseandroid.com/NewsItem.aspx?category=News&amp;path=November&amp;itemid=28">development of two distinct operating systems</a>, many questioned Google's motivation. 'Google executives, including CEO Eric Schmidt, have downplayed the conflict ever since, asking for time to let the projects evolve. And a few days after Chrome OS was revealed, Android chief Andy Rubin said device makers "need different technology for different products," explaining that Android has a lot of unique code that makes it suitable for use in a phone and Chrome has unique benefits of its own. But Brin, speaking informally to reporters after the company's Chrome OS presentation on Thursday, said "<a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939\_109-10402653-2.html">Android and Chrome will likely converge over time</a>," citing among other things the common Linux and Webkit code base present in both projects.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>xchg writes " When Google first announced that the company would be pursuing development of two distinct operating systems , many questioned Google 's motivation .
'Google executives , including CEO Eric Schmidt , have downplayed the conflict ever since , asking for time to let the projects evolve .
And a few days after Chrome OS was revealed , Android chief Andy Rubin said device makers " need different technology for different products , " explaining that Android has a lot of unique code that makes it suitable for use in a phone and Chrome has unique benefits of its own .
But Brin , speaking informally to reporters after the company 's Chrome OS presentation on Thursday , said " Android and Chrome will likely converge over time , " citing among other things the common Linux and Webkit code base present in both projects .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>xchg writes "When Google first announced that the company would be pursuing development of two distinct operating systems, many questioned Google's motivation.
'Google executives, including CEO Eric Schmidt, have downplayed the conflict ever since, asking for time to let the projects evolve.
And a few days after Chrome OS was revealed, Android chief Andy Rubin said device makers "need different technology for different products," explaining that Android has a lot of unique code that makes it suitable for use in a phone and Chrome has unique benefits of its own.
But Brin, speaking informally to reporters after the company's Chrome OS presentation on Thursday, said "Android and Chrome will likely converge over time," citing among other things the common Linux and Webkit code base present in both projects.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30195432</id>
	<title>Re:Which will win?</title>
	<author>genghisjahn</author>
	<datestamp>1258920960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Prices could go up, could go down or they might stay the same...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Prices could go up , could go down or they might stay the same.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Prices could go up, could go down or they might stay the same...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30206482</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps they'll both converge on "cancelled"</title>
	<author>hkmwbz</author>
	<datestamp>1258973040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'd rather pay for an iPhone than use the Android phone for free.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Why? What makes the iPhone OS so great compared to Android?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd rather pay for an iPhone than use the Android phone for free .
Why ? What makes the iPhone OS so great compared to Android ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd rather pay for an iPhone than use the Android phone for free.
Why? What makes the iPhone OS so great compared to Android?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30195698</id>
	<title>Re:Google is suffering from success</title>
	<author>dirkdodgers</author>
	<datestamp>1258922820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What do you mean, "the self-cannabilising overlap"?</p><p>Android is a production product that must be stable, reliable, and operate within the constraints of consumer mobile devices today.</p><p>Chrome OS is an R&amp;D platform for emerging markets and technologies.</p><p>You don't couple your production product with your R&amp;D platform for a market that does not yet exist, unless you want both of them to fail.</p><p>The good news for Google is that by talking so publicly about their R&amp;D products, and giving you the opportunity to comment on them, for every one comment like the above trying to second-guess Google, there are a thousand people who are excited and continue to be amazed at what the combination of Google and mobile device technology are making possible, and will make possible in 2-5 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What do you mean , " the self-cannabilising overlap " ? Android is a production product that must be stable , reliable , and operate within the constraints of consumer mobile devices today.Chrome OS is an R&amp;D platform for emerging markets and technologies.You do n't couple your production product with your R&amp;D platform for a market that does not yet exist , unless you want both of them to fail.The good news for Google is that by talking so publicly about their R&amp;D products , and giving you the opportunity to comment on them , for every one comment like the above trying to second-guess Google , there are a thousand people who are excited and continue to be amazed at what the combination of Google and mobile device technology are making possible , and will make possible in 2-5 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do you mean, "the self-cannabilising overlap"?Android is a production product that must be stable, reliable, and operate within the constraints of consumer mobile devices today.Chrome OS is an R&amp;D platform for emerging markets and technologies.You don't couple your production product with your R&amp;D platform for a market that does not yet exist, unless you want both of them to fail.The good news for Google is that by talking so publicly about their R&amp;D products, and giving you the opportunity to comment on them, for every one comment like the above trying to second-guess Google, there are a thousand people who are excited and continue to be amazed at what the combination of Google and mobile device technology are making possible, and will make possible in 2-5 years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30198796</id>
	<title>Difficult maintaing an OS</title>
	<author>garphik</author>
	<datestamp>1258905480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is a real surprise they are going to merge chrome and android.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/Sarcasm</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is a real surprise they are going to merge chrome and android .
/Sarcasm</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is a real surprise they are going to merge chrome and android.
/Sarcasm</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194430</id>
	<title>Google is suffering from success</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258912980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google have the same problem as Microsoft: they're too successful. They have a river of cash flowing through the front door and an allergy to paying dividends to shareholders.<br><br>Thus they're pursuing what I call the "spaghetti cannon strategy". They blast buckets of spaghetti up against the wall and hope that some of it will stick.<br><br>Eventually any such company becomes large enough that it cannot coordinate what the various bits and pieces are doing. The self-cannabalising overlap of Android and ChromeOS is a symptom of the spaghetti cannon working overtime.<br><br>Because god forbid you send any of the profits to the people who paid money to own part of a wildly profitable company.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google have the same problem as Microsoft : they 're too successful .
They have a river of cash flowing through the front door and an allergy to paying dividends to shareholders.Thus they 're pursuing what I call the " spaghetti cannon strategy " .
They blast buckets of spaghetti up against the wall and hope that some of it will stick.Eventually any such company becomes large enough that it can not coordinate what the various bits and pieces are doing .
The self-cannabalising overlap of Android and ChromeOS is a symptom of the spaghetti cannon working overtime.Because god forbid you send any of the profits to the people who paid money to own part of a wildly profitable company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google have the same problem as Microsoft: they're too successful.
They have a river of cash flowing through the front door and an allergy to paying dividends to shareholders.Thus they're pursuing what I call the "spaghetti cannon strategy".
They blast buckets of spaghetti up against the wall and hope that some of it will stick.Eventually any such company becomes large enough that it cannot coordinate what the various bits and pieces are doing.
The self-cannabalising overlap of Android and ChromeOS is a symptom of the spaghetti cannon working overtime.Because god forbid you send any of the profits to the people who paid money to own part of a wildly profitable company.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30197082</id>
	<title>Re:Google is suffering from success</title>
	<author>abigor</author>
	<datestamp>1258890000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, you'd better get your ass to Mar-I mean Google, and let them know about your cutting-edge business analysis. What fools! If only they had your insight, forged in the fires of massive business success.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , you 'd better get your ass to Mar-I mean Google , and let them know about your cutting-edge business analysis .
What fools !
If only they had your insight , forged in the fires of massive business success .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, you'd better get your ass to Mar-I mean Google, and let them know about your cutting-edge business analysis.
What fools!
If only they had your insight, forged in the fires of massive business success.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194832</id>
	<title>Perhaps they'll both converge on "cancelled"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258915860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>
<p>Google has had the foresight to cut their losses before... </p><p> I have an Android phone.  It was a gift from Google.  Admittedly, it was an early version so maybe Android 2.0 looks better, but frankly when compared to an iPhone it looks like a high school science fair project.  I'd rather pay for an iPhone than use the Android phone for free.  </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google has had the foresight to cut their losses before... I have an Android phone .
It was a gift from Google .
Admittedly , it was an early version so maybe Android 2.0 looks better , but frankly when compared to an iPhone it looks like a high school science fair project .
I 'd rather pay for an iPhone than use the Android phone for free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Google has had the foresight to cut their losses before...  I have an Android phone.
It was a gift from Google.
Admittedly, it was an early version so maybe Android 2.0 looks better, but frankly when compared to an iPhone it looks like a high school science fair project.
I'd rather pay for an iPhone than use the Android phone for free.  </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30195278</id>
	<title>Re:Which will win?</title>
	<author>farble1670</author>
	<datestamp>1258919580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <em>or a &quot;PC&quot; that can only run Java apps compiled to a weird byte code</em> </p><p>that's an implementation detail that you would only care (or even know) about if you wanted to. do you think users care about the programming language used to write the apps they use? </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>or a " PC " that can only run Java apps compiled to a weird byte code that 's an implementation detail that you would only care ( or even know ) about if you wanted to .
do you think users care about the programming language used to write the apps they use ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> or a "PC" that can only run Java apps compiled to a weird byte code that's an implementation detail that you would only care (or even know) about if you wanted to.
do you think users care about the programming language used to write the apps they use? </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30198952</id>
	<title>Re:Which will win?</title>
	<author>mqduck</author>
	<datestamp>1258906920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't really fancy a phone that can only run web apps</p></div><p>Unless I'm misunderstanding, Android is not a browser-based OS. You're perhaps thinking of Android's disallowing anything but a unique variant of Java-based applications - which is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android\_(operating\_system)#Native\_code" title="wikipedia.org">no longer the case</a> [wikipedia.org], anyway.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't really fancy a phone that can only run web appsUnless I 'm misunderstanding , Android is not a browser-based OS .
You 're perhaps thinking of Android 's disallowing anything but a unique variant of Java-based applications - which is no longer the case [ wikipedia.org ] , anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't really fancy a phone that can only run web appsUnless I'm misunderstanding, Android is not a browser-based OS.
You're perhaps thinking of Android's disallowing anything but a unique variant of Java-based applications - which is no longer the case [wikipedia.org], anyway.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194574</id>
	<title>Which will win?</title>
	<author>Lemming Mark</author>
	<datestamp>1258913940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder if this means Android will converge towards a more standard Linux, or if Chrome will converge to become less standard.  Or if they'll keep the unique aspects of each and just try to unify stuff like browser code.  I don't really fancy a phone that can only run web apps, or a "PC" that can only run Java apps compiled to a weird byte code!  I don't really like the way Android has reinvented all of userspace, whereas at least Chrome builds on existing code a bit more.  But they are solving different problems, which perhaps explains *some* of the differences...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if this means Android will converge towards a more standard Linux , or if Chrome will converge to become less standard .
Or if they 'll keep the unique aspects of each and just try to unify stuff like browser code .
I do n't really fancy a phone that can only run web apps , or a " PC " that can only run Java apps compiled to a weird byte code !
I do n't really like the way Android has reinvented all of userspace , whereas at least Chrome builds on existing code a bit more .
But they are solving different problems , which perhaps explains * some * of the differences.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if this means Android will converge towards a more standard Linux, or if Chrome will converge to become less standard.
Or if they'll keep the unique aspects of each and just try to unify stuff like browser code.
I don't really fancy a phone that can only run web apps, or a "PC" that can only run Java apps compiled to a weird byte code!
I don't really like the way Android has reinvented all of userspace, whereas at least Chrome builds on existing code a bit more.
But they are solving different problems, which perhaps explains *some* of the differences...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194962</id>
	<title>whats the point?</title>
	<author>NeoStrider\_BZK</author>
	<datestamp>1258917060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have two bloated OS'es? I fail to see any substancial benefit from it.<br>The only tangible benefit (if it ever happens) is NativeClient support on Android, if this ever comes to ChromeOS (something people have been speculating for a long time).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have two bloated OS'es ?
I fail to see any substancial benefit from it.The only tangible benefit ( if it ever happens ) is NativeClient support on Android , if this ever comes to ChromeOS ( something people have been speculating for a long time ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have two bloated OS'es?
I fail to see any substancial benefit from it.The only tangible benefit (if it ever happens) is NativeClient support on Android, if this ever comes to ChromeOS (something people have been speculating for a long time).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30196760</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps they'll both converge on "cancelled"</title>
	<author>\_Sprocket\_</author>
	<datestamp>1258887900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And yet the Android phones are rolling out.  Go figure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And yet the Android phones are rolling out .
Go figure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And yet the Android phones are rolling out.
Go figure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30199330</id>
	<title>Re:Chrome OS is an answer to a question...</title>
	<author>johncandale</author>
	<datestamp>1258910520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>tis true.   The mini laptop thin client is a device in search of a purpose.   If I just want to read email and listen to mp3s and web surf, I can do that on a blackberry or HTC Win Mobile fine. I have 16gig microsd card in mine.  Anything beyond that and I might as well get a real laptop.   They are taking things away without adding anything. [Don't believe for one second it will be virus or bug free].  A normal winxp netbook goes anywhere a Chrome OS netbook goes and does x10 more.    <p>if Apple ever came out with that rumored tablet/slate, that would be the device to get if you really just want a locked down device that feels like a oversized smartphone.   Come to think of it, all you'd really need is small screen with a behind the back docking for your iphone or other smartphone and you'd have a great netbook.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>t is true .
The mini laptop thin client is a device in search of a purpose .
If I just want to read email and listen to mp3s and web surf , I can do that on a blackberry or HTC Win Mobile fine .
I have 16gig microsd card in mine .
Anything beyond that and I might as well get a real laptop .
They are taking things away without adding anything .
[ Do n't believe for one second it will be virus or bug free ] .
A normal winxp netbook goes anywhere a Chrome OS netbook goes and does x10 more .
if Apple ever came out with that rumored tablet/slate , that would be the device to get if you really just want a locked down device that feels like a oversized smartphone .
Come to think of it , all you 'd really need is small screen with a behind the back docking for your iphone or other smartphone and you 'd have a great netbook .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>tis true.
The mini laptop thin client is a device in search of a purpose.
If I just want to read email and listen to mp3s and web surf, I can do that on a blackberry or HTC Win Mobile fine.
I have 16gig microsd card in mine.
Anything beyond that and I might as well get a real laptop.
They are taking things away without adding anything.
[Don't believe for one second it will be virus or bug free].
A normal winxp netbook goes anywhere a Chrome OS netbook goes and does x10 more.
if Apple ever came out with that rumored tablet/slate, that would be the device to get if you really just want a locked down device that feels like a oversized smartphone.
Come to think of it, all you'd really need is small screen with a behind the back docking for your iphone or other smartphone and you'd have a great netbook.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30195444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194512</id>
	<title>R.I.P. Android</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258913460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I might as well just bite the bullet and buy an iPhone now...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I might as well just bite the bullet and buy an iPhone now.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I might as well just bite the bullet and buy an iPhone now...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30195098</id>
	<title>It makes sense: survival of the fittest</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258918200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Re Chrome OS vs. Android...</p><p>It sounds like a wise strategy: survival of the fittest.</p><p>I always knew that Google would eventually move into the OS space.  Being such an important move, Google is rightly cautious, and developing multiple technologies is the best way I can think of to mitigate the risks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Re Chrome OS vs. Android...It sounds like a wise strategy : survival of the fittest.I always knew that Google would eventually move into the OS space .
Being such an important move , Google is rightly cautious , and developing multiple technologies is the best way I can think of to mitigate the risks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Re Chrome OS vs. Android...It sounds like a wise strategy: survival of the fittest.I always knew that Google would eventually move into the OS space.
Being such an important move, Google is rightly cautious, and developing multiple technologies is the best way I can think of to mitigate the risks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194778</id>
	<title>Converge as code base or as products?</title>
	<author>MtHuurne</author>
	<datestamp>1258915440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The article seems to assume Android and Chrome OS will converge into a single product. That is one possible way for converging. But another possibility is that they would be built from the same code base, but still have a different UI for different size devices.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article seems to assume Android and Chrome OS will converge into a single product .
That is one possible way for converging .
But another possibility is that they would be built from the same code base , but still have a different UI for different size devices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article seems to assume Android and Chrome OS will converge into a single product.
That is one possible way for converging.
But another possibility is that they would be built from the same code base, but still have a different UI for different size devices.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30195364</id>
	<title>Chrome OS is a threat to Internet freedom</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258920360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We see a first version of "AEGIS" like bootstrap in a (soon) dominant operating system - with the pervasiveness of TPM chips currently and virtualization technologies one could have imagined this would happen. Unfortunately, this can have huge implications towards freedom and I am not going to bet on the fact that Google won't start censoring past information, or cooperate with governments. Read a bit about trusted computing and the censorship of past information/events. This is a strong weapon and I hoped the fears to have such a system available world-wide would never materialize. Shocking is that it is Google, the geeky darling, that is doing that. I expected that coming from Microsoft which already failed in the task with Vista.</p><p>Why is Google acting this way? The fact that such a system can be built is not a reason to build one. I guess we should start checking who is pulling the strings at Google. This starts more and more resemble a system for secret intelligence.</p><p>"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely"</p><p>Not a bright future for Internet freedom ahead...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We see a first version of " AEGIS " like bootstrap in a ( soon ) dominant operating system - with the pervasiveness of TPM chips currently and virtualization technologies one could have imagined this would happen .
Unfortunately , this can have huge implications towards freedom and I am not going to bet on the fact that Google wo n't start censoring past information , or cooperate with governments .
Read a bit about trusted computing and the censorship of past information/events .
This is a strong weapon and I hoped the fears to have such a system available world-wide would never materialize .
Shocking is that it is Google , the geeky darling , that is doing that .
I expected that coming from Microsoft which already failed in the task with Vista.Why is Google acting this way ?
The fact that such a system can be built is not a reason to build one .
I guess we should start checking who is pulling the strings at Google .
This starts more and more resemble a system for secret intelligence .
" Power tends to corrupt , and absolute power corrupts absolutely " Not a bright future for Internet freedom ahead.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We see a first version of "AEGIS" like bootstrap in a (soon) dominant operating system - with the pervasiveness of TPM chips currently and virtualization technologies one could have imagined this would happen.
Unfortunately, this can have huge implications towards freedom and I am not going to bet on the fact that Google won't start censoring past information, or cooperate with governments.
Read a bit about trusted computing and the censorship of past information/events.
This is a strong weapon and I hoped the fears to have such a system available world-wide would never materialize.
Shocking is that it is Google, the geeky darling, that is doing that.
I expected that coming from Microsoft which already failed in the task with Vista.Why is Google acting this way?
The fact that such a system can be built is not a reason to build one.
I guess we should start checking who is pulling the strings at Google.
This starts more and more resemble a system for secret intelligence.
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely"Not a bright future for Internet freedom ahead...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30201926</id>
	<title>And just like millions of Windows phones</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1258991280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...being a subset of Windows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...being a subset of Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...being a subset of Windows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30195476</id>
	<title>Re:Google is suffering from success</title>
	<author>Ramze</author>
	<datestamp>1258921320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You do have a point about the apparent fragmented strategies of Microsoft and Google. (I say apparent b/c we truly do not know their master plans, so perhaps the pieces will all fall into place one day and amaze us.)  However, not all big, expensive companies have such fragmented strategies and large R&amp;D departments.  Microsoft and Google are competing in areas with rapid change and innovation, so I can't blame them for trying to stay ahead of the game.  Often, R&amp;D leads nowhere... or failed products, but it's difficult to know which ones will succeed.  Much like a venture capitalist, large R&amp;D departments spend a chunk of change on lots of projects in the hopes that one out of 100 will become huge successes.  In short, they have both the cash and the NEED for the spagetti gun approach.  lol.  Not to mention, they learn quite a bit from their failures as well.

<p>
I think Google's just beginning to coalesce its many projects into one service... phone and/or netbook with andriod/chromeOS running chrome and accessing gmail, google calendar, google docs, google maps with GPS-like capabilities, etc. etc.   Microsoft is slowly but surely spreading its empire as well.   I never would've dreamed they'd be so successful with the XBOX.  They have plans for a multimedia set-top box as well.  Perhaps we simply don't know the 5 to 10 year plans these companies are reaching for and their releases simply seem fragmented b/c we don't know the long term plans.
</p><p>
As for dividends, I'm not sure why you prize them so highly.  You spend money to buy stock b/c you believe it to be a better investment than actual money in a savings or money market account, yet you'd rather get money in the form of dividends from the company stock than have the stock rise in value?  Every publicly traded company has a duty to "maximize shareholder wealth."   By giving out a dividend, a company is basically admitting that you could invest that money better than they could, so they're giving it to you.   It's insane... especially since they assume that company stock is a good investment and you should turn around and spend that money on buying more stock...  so why incur fees buying more stock instead of simply allowing your stock price to rise to reflect the cash/investments/whatever within the company?  If you believe the stock isn't a better investment than you could find elsewhere, then why not simply sell your stock and collect the money from the sale?!?!  Dividends often lead to trouble down the road b/c once you start paying one, people expect you to continue and will see a halt or lowering of dividends as a bad sign, thus lowering the value of the stock...  so once a company begins paying them out, they have to continue forever -- through good times and bad... even when it hurts their bottom lines.
</p><p>
I really don't understand why you would want a dividend....  if you want a return on investment in the form of a check, then perhaps a money market fund would be better.   The point of owning a stock is to own a piece of a company in the hopes that it will be successful and make your shares worth more for when you finally decide to cash out.  Typically, one should invest with an intent not to sell the stock for at least 5 to 10 years -- perhaps many decades for retirement.  (day traders should be shot imho)  With this in mind, one would want a good company to re-invest its profits within itself to grow bigger and even more profitable over that time.  If one doesn't have faith in an individual company, then probably an index fund would be best... but I digress.
</p><p>  Point being...  a company's profits are the shareholders' profits... whether they are re-invested or distributed as dividends.  If a company holds on to the money in the form of cash or equivalents, then the stock price will rise to reflect that... in which case, if you wanted cash, you could sell the stock at a higher price instead of getting a dividend...  however, the company should invest the money into R&amp;D or expansion, or some other strategy to yield even more profit down the road.  You're really better off choosing to either keep the stock without the dividend or selling the stock and putting your money elsewhere where you believe you'll make money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do have a point about the apparent fragmented strategies of Microsoft and Google .
( I say apparent b/c we truly do not know their master plans , so perhaps the pieces will all fall into place one day and amaze us .
) However , not all big , expensive companies have such fragmented strategies and large R&amp;D departments .
Microsoft and Google are competing in areas with rapid change and innovation , so I ca n't blame them for trying to stay ahead of the game .
Often , R&amp;D leads nowhere... or failed products , but it 's difficult to know which ones will succeed .
Much like a venture capitalist , large R&amp;D departments spend a chunk of change on lots of projects in the hopes that one out of 100 will become huge successes .
In short , they have both the cash and the NEED for the spagetti gun approach .
lol. Not to mention , they learn quite a bit from their failures as well .
I think Google 's just beginning to coalesce its many projects into one service... phone and/or netbook with andriod/chromeOS running chrome and accessing gmail , google calendar , google docs , google maps with GPS-like capabilities , etc .
etc. Microsoft is slowly but surely spreading its empire as well .
I never would 've dreamed they 'd be so successful with the XBOX .
They have plans for a multimedia set-top box as well .
Perhaps we simply do n't know the 5 to 10 year plans these companies are reaching for and their releases simply seem fragmented b/c we do n't know the long term plans .
As for dividends , I 'm not sure why you prize them so highly .
You spend money to buy stock b/c you believe it to be a better investment than actual money in a savings or money market account , yet you 'd rather get money in the form of dividends from the company stock than have the stock rise in value ?
Every publicly traded company has a duty to " maximize shareholder wealth .
" By giving out a dividend , a company is basically admitting that you could invest that money better than they could , so they 're giving it to you .
It 's insane... especially since they assume that company stock is a good investment and you should turn around and spend that money on buying more stock... so why incur fees buying more stock instead of simply allowing your stock price to rise to reflect the cash/investments/whatever within the company ?
If you believe the stock is n't a better investment than you could find elsewhere , then why not simply sell your stock and collect the money from the sale ? ! ? !
Dividends often lead to trouble down the road b/c once you start paying one , people expect you to continue and will see a halt or lowering of dividends as a bad sign , thus lowering the value of the stock... so once a company begins paying them out , they have to continue forever -- through good times and bad... even when it hurts their bottom lines .
I really do n't understand why you would want a dividend.... if you want a return on investment in the form of a check , then perhaps a money market fund would be better .
The point of owning a stock is to own a piece of a company in the hopes that it will be successful and make your shares worth more for when you finally decide to cash out .
Typically , one should invest with an intent not to sell the stock for at least 5 to 10 years -- perhaps many decades for retirement .
( day traders should be shot imho ) With this in mind , one would want a good company to re-invest its profits within itself to grow bigger and even more profitable over that time .
If one does n't have faith in an individual company , then probably an index fund would be best... but I digress .
Point being... a company 's profits are the shareholders ' profits... whether they are re-invested or distributed as dividends .
If a company holds on to the money in the form of cash or equivalents , then the stock price will rise to reflect that... in which case , if you wanted cash , you could sell the stock at a higher price instead of getting a dividend... however , the company should invest the money into R&amp;D or expansion , or some other strategy to yield even more profit down the road .
You 're really better off choosing to either keep the stock without the dividend or selling the stock and putting your money elsewhere where you believe you 'll make money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do have a point about the apparent fragmented strategies of Microsoft and Google.
(I say apparent b/c we truly do not know their master plans, so perhaps the pieces will all fall into place one day and amaze us.
)  However, not all big, expensive companies have such fragmented strategies and large R&amp;D departments.
Microsoft and Google are competing in areas with rapid change and innovation, so I can't blame them for trying to stay ahead of the game.
Often, R&amp;D leads nowhere... or failed products, but it's difficult to know which ones will succeed.
Much like a venture capitalist, large R&amp;D departments spend a chunk of change on lots of projects in the hopes that one out of 100 will become huge successes.
In short, they have both the cash and the NEED for the spagetti gun approach.
lol.  Not to mention, they learn quite a bit from their failures as well.
I think Google's just beginning to coalesce its many projects into one service... phone and/or netbook with andriod/chromeOS running chrome and accessing gmail, google calendar, google docs, google maps with GPS-like capabilities, etc.
etc.   Microsoft is slowly but surely spreading its empire as well.
I never would've dreamed they'd be so successful with the XBOX.
They have plans for a multimedia set-top box as well.
Perhaps we simply don't know the 5 to 10 year plans these companies are reaching for and their releases simply seem fragmented b/c we don't know the long term plans.
As for dividends, I'm not sure why you prize them so highly.
You spend money to buy stock b/c you believe it to be a better investment than actual money in a savings or money market account, yet you'd rather get money in the form of dividends from the company stock than have the stock rise in value?
Every publicly traded company has a duty to "maximize shareholder wealth.
"   By giving out a dividend, a company is basically admitting that you could invest that money better than they could, so they're giving it to you.
It's insane... especially since they assume that company stock is a good investment and you should turn around and spend that money on buying more stock...  so why incur fees buying more stock instead of simply allowing your stock price to rise to reflect the cash/investments/whatever within the company?
If you believe the stock isn't a better investment than you could find elsewhere, then why not simply sell your stock and collect the money from the sale?!?!
Dividends often lead to trouble down the road b/c once you start paying one, people expect you to continue and will see a halt or lowering of dividends as a bad sign, thus lowering the value of the stock...  so once a company begins paying them out, they have to continue forever -- through good times and bad... even when it hurts their bottom lines.
I really don't understand why you would want a dividend....  if you want a return on investment in the form of a check, then perhaps a money market fund would be better.
The point of owning a stock is to own a piece of a company in the hopes that it will be successful and make your shares worth more for when you finally decide to cash out.
Typically, one should invest with an intent not to sell the stock for at least 5 to 10 years -- perhaps many decades for retirement.
(day traders should be shot imho)  With this in mind, one would want a good company to re-invest its profits within itself to grow bigger and even more profitable over that time.
If one doesn't have faith in an individual company, then probably an index fund would be best... but I digress.
Point being...  a company's profits are the shareholders' profits... whether they are re-invested or distributed as dividends.
If a company holds on to the money in the form of cash or equivalents, then the stock price will rise to reflect that... in which case, if you wanted cash, you could sell the stock at a higher price instead of getting a dividend...  however, the company should invest the money into R&amp;D or expansion, or some other strategy to yield even more profit down the road.
You're really better off choosing to either keep the stock without the dividend or selling the stock and putting your money elsewhere where you believe you'll make money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194730</id>
	<title>Re:Google is suffering from success</title>
	<author>7213</author>
	<datestamp>1258915080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I do partly agree with you. Dividends should be paid from a "wildly profitable company", if it's in a strong long term position. That being said, and my apologies if I misinterpreted you, your attitude strikes me as a bit over the top. Dividends are gravy on the biscuit of increased stock valuation over the long term.</p><p>Google, TODAY, is profitable but without reinvestment of this type where will they be tommorow? We as investors and a society have gone way to far in the direction of short term gratification. We drive companies to constantly answer the "what have you done for me lately" question. Leading, far to often, to corporate leadership who sacrifice long term shareholder value for short term profits (which has been structured to drive there pay). I'm not sure if there's an Enron parallel to Godwin's law, but it would probably fit my comment right about now.</p><p>R&amp;D is an investment in future shareholder wealth, all investments entail risk, so hedging the companies bets with a spaghetti cannon isn't necisarily bad. If Android takes off &amp; chromeOS doesn't: they haven't needlessly bogged one down with the other (and vice versa). If both are wildly successful, merging shouldn't be too terribly hard if there's a value to be gained, given the profits both return.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do partly agree with you .
Dividends should be paid from a " wildly profitable company " , if it 's in a strong long term position .
That being said , and my apologies if I misinterpreted you , your attitude strikes me as a bit over the top .
Dividends are gravy on the biscuit of increased stock valuation over the long term.Google , TODAY , is profitable but without reinvestment of this type where will they be tommorow ?
We as investors and a society have gone way to far in the direction of short term gratification .
We drive companies to constantly answer the " what have you done for me lately " question .
Leading , far to often , to corporate leadership who sacrifice long term shareholder value for short term profits ( which has been structured to drive there pay ) .
I 'm not sure if there 's an Enron parallel to Godwin 's law , but it would probably fit my comment right about now.R&amp;D is an investment in future shareholder wealth , all investments entail risk , so hedging the companies bets with a spaghetti cannon is n't necisarily bad .
If Android takes off &amp; chromeOS does n't : they have n't needlessly bogged one down with the other ( and vice versa ) .
If both are wildly successful , merging should n't be too terribly hard if there 's a value to be gained , given the profits both return .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do partly agree with you.
Dividends should be paid from a "wildly profitable company", if it's in a strong long term position.
That being said, and my apologies if I misinterpreted you, your attitude strikes me as a bit over the top.
Dividends are gravy on the biscuit of increased stock valuation over the long term.Google, TODAY, is profitable but without reinvestment of this type where will they be tommorow?
We as investors and a society have gone way to far in the direction of short term gratification.
We drive companies to constantly answer the "what have you done for me lately" question.
Leading, far to often, to corporate leadership who sacrifice long term shareholder value for short term profits (which has been structured to drive there pay).
I'm not sure if there's an Enron parallel to Godwin's law, but it would probably fit my comment right about now.R&amp;D is an investment in future shareholder wealth, all investments entail risk, so hedging the companies bets with a spaghetti cannon isn't necisarily bad.
If Android takes off &amp; chromeOS doesn't: they haven't needlessly bogged one down with the other (and vice versa).
If both are wildly successful, merging shouldn't be too terribly hard if there's a value to be gained, given the profits both return.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30195112</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps they'll both converge on "cancelled"</title>
	<author>itsdapead</author>
	<datestamp>1258918320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>but frankly when compared to an iPhone it looks like a high school science fair project.</p></div><p>Fortunately, when compared with anything <i>other</i> than an iPhone, it looks pretty good.
</p><p>One problem is that, particularly in the case of the HTC phones, its being pushed out on decidedly sub-iPhone hardware that doesn't quite have the legs to do it justice. The larger screen on the iphone, in itself, is enough to swing it.
</p><p>(But I hope they fix the WiFi issues - no proxy server support and iffy automatic re-connection - and work out how a fscking "message waiting" LED is meant to work).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but frankly when compared to an iPhone it looks like a high school science fair project.Fortunately , when compared with anything other than an iPhone , it looks pretty good .
One problem is that , particularly in the case of the HTC phones , its being pushed out on decidedly sub-iPhone hardware that does n't quite have the legs to do it justice .
The larger screen on the iphone , in itself , is enough to swing it .
( But I hope they fix the WiFi issues - no proxy server support and iffy automatic re-connection - and work out how a fscking " message waiting " LED is meant to work ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but frankly when compared to an iPhone it looks like a high school science fair project.Fortunately, when compared with anything other than an iPhone, it looks pretty good.
One problem is that, particularly in the case of the HTC phones, its being pushed out on decidedly sub-iPhone hardware that doesn't quite have the legs to do it justice.
The larger screen on the iphone, in itself, is enough to swing it.
(But I hope they fix the WiFi issues - no proxy server support and iffy automatic re-connection - and work out how a fscking "message waiting" LED is meant to work).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30195106</id>
	<title>Re:First post</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1258918260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fuuusion-HA!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuuusion-HA !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuuusion-HA!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194660</id>
	<title>I have an idea</title>
	<author>pydev</author>
	<datestamp>1258914540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe they could also add an X11 server, Gtk+, and Python?  Just a thought.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe they could also add an X11 server , Gtk + , and Python ?
Just a thought .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe they could also add an X11 server, Gtk+, and Python?
Just a thought.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194360</id>
	<title>First post</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258912560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>with the new google os "Chromeiod"!</htmltext>
<tokenext>with the new google os " Chromeiod " !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>with the new google os "Chromeiod"!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30195480</id>
	<title>Merging now would be the wrong move</title>
	<author>dirkdodgers</author>
	<datestamp>1258921320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Android is a production product that must meet the needs of consumer devices today. Android's success as a production product today depends on its level of refinement and ability to function reliably on technology that exists today. Chrome OS's success as an R&amp;D platform today depends on it retaining the flexibility to make rapid, sweeping changes as an experimental testbed.</p><p>Google doesn't presume to know what the smart phone and mobile internet device markets will look like in 5 years time, other than that Google technology will be a big part of it. That's more than many other companies can say.</p><p>Those criticizing Google should recognize that were Chrome OS an R&amp;D product at any other company, we might hear about it through a few trade shows and blogs, but that would be it, and no sane commentator would be suggesting it be put into production or merged with a production platform.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Android is a production product that must meet the needs of consumer devices today .
Android 's success as a production product today depends on its level of refinement and ability to function reliably on technology that exists today .
Chrome OS 's success as an R&amp;D platform today depends on it retaining the flexibility to make rapid , sweeping changes as an experimental testbed.Google does n't presume to know what the smart phone and mobile internet device markets will look like in 5 years time , other than that Google technology will be a big part of it .
That 's more than many other companies can say.Those criticizing Google should recognize that were Chrome OS an R&amp;D product at any other company , we might hear about it through a few trade shows and blogs , but that would be it , and no sane commentator would be suggesting it be put into production or merged with a production platform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Android is a production product that must meet the needs of consumer devices today.
Android's success as a production product today depends on its level of refinement and ability to function reliably on technology that exists today.
Chrome OS's success as an R&amp;D platform today depends on it retaining the flexibility to make rapid, sweeping changes as an experimental testbed.Google doesn't presume to know what the smart phone and mobile internet device markets will look like in 5 years time, other than that Google technology will be a big part of it.
That's more than many other companies can say.Those criticizing Google should recognize that were Chrome OS an R&amp;D product at any other company, we might hear about it through a few trade shows and blogs, but that would be it, and no sane commentator would be suggesting it be put into production or merged with a production platform.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30195018</id>
	<title>Re:First post</title>
	<author>ceeam</author>
	<datestamp>1258917480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rather "My shiny metal OS".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rather " My shiny metal OS " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rather "My shiny metal OS".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30202042</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps they'll both converge on "cancelled"</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1258991880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, the Iphone does better compared to a phone you hate. I, and 98\% of the market, choose neither...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , the Iphone does better compared to a phone you hate .
I , and 98 \ % of the market , choose neither.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, the Iphone does better compared to a phone you hate.
I, and 98\% of the market, choose neither...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30195226</id>
	<title>Re:Google is suffering from success</title>
	<author>farble1670</author>
	<datestamp>1258919100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>are you suggesting that google share holders are not pleased? huh.</htmltext>
<tokenext>are you suggesting that google share holders are not pleased ?
huh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>are you suggesting that google share holders are not pleased?
huh.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30200840</id>
	<title>C native code?</title>
	<author>GNUPublicLicense</author>
	<datestamp>1258983240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Will we be able to code C native apps on their OSes?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Will we be able to code C native apps on their OSes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will we be able to code C native apps on their OSes?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30195310</id>
	<title>Re:Ever worked in R&amp;D?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258919880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So Google is not profitable enough to pay both salaries <i>and</i> dividends?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So Google is not profitable enough to pay both salaries and dividends ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So Google is not profitable enough to pay both salaries and dividends?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30195482</id>
	<title>Re:Google is suffering from success</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258921320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Much better to pump the money back to boost technology then to feed those shareholder goons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Much better to pump the money back to boost technology then to feed those shareholder goons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Much better to pump the money back to boost technology then to feed those shareholder goons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194614</id>
	<title>Ever worked in R&amp;D?</title>
	<author>Kupfernigk</author>
	<datestamp>1258914240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>You've just described it. If you try and manage all the R&amp;D and ensure everything fits together and is optimised - like the "pragmatometer" in C S Lewis's dystopic NICE - you kill creativity and slow everything down. Theoretical physics - there's a lot of duplication in different universities. Are you going to set up a supercommittee to eliminate it? Congratulations, you just killed physics.<p>If Google shareholders take windfall profits now and try to mature the company early, they will be killing exactly what makes it innovative. It is not in the long term interests of Google to do that. Remember long term? Before we had day traders and similar idiots trying to turn everything into a casino, we had companies like IBM that were hugely innovative and came up with things like relational databases. Real innovation requires long term commitment and a great deal of luck. You make your own luck by funding people like Cobb, or Mandelbrot, and wait for them to lay golden eggs. Can't do that if the shareholders are whining that they want all their (unearned) profits out, now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've just described it .
If you try and manage all the R&amp;D and ensure everything fits together and is optimised - like the " pragmatometer " in C S Lewis 's dystopic NICE - you kill creativity and slow everything down .
Theoretical physics - there 's a lot of duplication in different universities .
Are you going to set up a supercommittee to eliminate it ?
Congratulations , you just killed physics.If Google shareholders take windfall profits now and try to mature the company early , they will be killing exactly what makes it innovative .
It is not in the long term interests of Google to do that .
Remember long term ?
Before we had day traders and similar idiots trying to turn everything into a casino , we had companies like IBM that were hugely innovative and came up with things like relational databases .
Real innovation requires long term commitment and a great deal of luck .
You make your own luck by funding people like Cobb , or Mandelbrot , and wait for them to lay golden eggs .
Ca n't do that if the shareholders are whining that they want all their ( unearned ) profits out , now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've just described it.
If you try and manage all the R&amp;D and ensure everything fits together and is optimised - like the "pragmatometer" in C S Lewis's dystopic NICE - you kill creativity and slow everything down.
Theoretical physics - there's a lot of duplication in different universities.
Are you going to set up a supercommittee to eliminate it?
Congratulations, you just killed physics.If Google shareholders take windfall profits now and try to mature the company early, they will be killing exactly what makes it innovative.
It is not in the long term interests of Google to do that.
Remember long term?
Before we had day traders and similar idiots trying to turn everything into a casino, we had companies like IBM that were hugely innovative and came up with things like relational databases.
Real innovation requires long term commitment and a great deal of luck.
You make your own luck by funding people like Cobb, or Mandelbrot, and wait for them to lay golden eggs.
Can't do that if the shareholders are whining that they want all their (unearned) profits out, now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30196734</id>
	<title>Re:Which will win?</title>
	<author>AmberBlackCat</author>
	<datestamp>1258887720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think, Android will stay around and Chrome will die a slow death, because Android is being used in phones and Chrome is being used nowhere. Also, the battle for dominance in the (touchscreen phone that can run apps) market isn't as rough as the battle for dominance in the Linux market.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think , Android will stay around and Chrome will die a slow death , because Android is being used in phones and Chrome is being used nowhere .
Also , the battle for dominance in the ( touchscreen phone that can run apps ) market is n't as rough as the battle for dominance in the Linux market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think, Android will stay around and Chrome will die a slow death, because Android is being used in phones and Chrome is being used nowhere.
Also, the battle for dominance in the (touchscreen phone that can run apps) market isn't as rough as the battle for dominance in the Linux market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30203624</id>
	<title>Escaping the Telcos</title>
	<author>Doc Ruby</author>
	<datestamp>1259000460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure Google had to promise the telcos adopting Android phones that the telcos could "own" their version of the OS. Which means releasing ChromeOS to the public, untied to a given HW platform, vendor or distributor as a "different" OS lets the telco cartel keep plodding down that smug path. Especially now, in the first few years while telcos are just gearing up to sell and support Android phones, telcos could just drop it if their monopolies seem threatened.</p><p>But Google gets to release upgrades to each OS. Over time, Google can release converging versions of ChromeOS and Android. Within a couple years, the two OS'es can be identical except for their brands (and perhaps their bundled drivers, if indeed different kinds of HW tend to prefer one OS or the other). A single API for a single developer pool. Indeed, if that API has enough in common with the base GNU/Linux such that Android and ChromeOS are just another distro (or two flavors of one, like Ubuntu server vs desktop vs notebook) that developers can use third party libraries tools for a single target, Google will have run circles around the telcos. And Microsoft, and Apple, and Red Hat, and Ubuntu, and everyone else competing in the oddly rebootable OS market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure Google had to promise the telcos adopting Android phones that the telcos could " own " their version of the OS .
Which means releasing ChromeOS to the public , untied to a given HW platform , vendor or distributor as a " different " OS lets the telco cartel keep plodding down that smug path .
Especially now , in the first few years while telcos are just gearing up to sell and support Android phones , telcos could just drop it if their monopolies seem threatened.But Google gets to release upgrades to each OS .
Over time , Google can release converging versions of ChromeOS and Android .
Within a couple years , the two OS'es can be identical except for their brands ( and perhaps their bundled drivers , if indeed different kinds of HW tend to prefer one OS or the other ) .
A single API for a single developer pool .
Indeed , if that API has enough in common with the base GNU/Linux such that Android and ChromeOS are just another distro ( or two flavors of one , like Ubuntu server vs desktop vs notebook ) that developers can use third party libraries tools for a single target , Google will have run circles around the telcos .
And Microsoft , and Apple , and Red Hat , and Ubuntu , and everyone else competing in the oddly rebootable OS market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure Google had to promise the telcos adopting Android phones that the telcos could "own" their version of the OS.
Which means releasing ChromeOS to the public, untied to a given HW platform, vendor or distributor as a "different" OS lets the telco cartel keep plodding down that smug path.
Especially now, in the first few years while telcos are just gearing up to sell and support Android phones, telcos could just drop it if their monopolies seem threatened.But Google gets to release upgrades to each OS.
Over time, Google can release converging versions of ChromeOS and Android.
Within a couple years, the two OS'es can be identical except for their brands (and perhaps their bundled drivers, if indeed different kinds of HW tend to prefer one OS or the other).
A single API for a single developer pool.
Indeed, if that API has enough in common with the base GNU/Linux such that Android and ChromeOS are just another distro (or two flavors of one, like Ubuntu server vs desktop vs notebook) that developers can use third party libraries tools for a single target, Google will have run circles around the telcos.
And Microsoft, and Apple, and Red Hat, and Ubuntu, and everyone else competing in the oddly rebootable OS market.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194946</id>
	<title>Re:Which will win?</title>
	<author>HanzoSpam</author>
	<datestamp>1258916820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, in either case, it's probably a good thing for desktop Linux. Google is one of the only players in that arena that has sufficient market clout to propagate a standard, which might finally make it a viable target for commercial applications.</p><p>I think of it as a parallel to Mac OS X - OS X may be based on FreeBSD, but commercial application vendors don't target FreeBSD, they target Mac OS, because Apple has the market share and the mind share.  One of the big problems with desktop Linux has been that it's a moving target. Every time you turn around a different distro has been the darling of the community, first SLS, then Slackware, then Caldera, RedHat, Mandrake, Ubuntu, etc., and whether or not an application could be reliably migrated from one to the next has always been a hit or miss proposition. A predictable, standard Linux platform with a the clout of Google behind it would go a long, long way in making it a less volatile desktop platform for developers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , in either case , it 's probably a good thing for desktop Linux .
Google is one of the only players in that arena that has sufficient market clout to propagate a standard , which might finally make it a viable target for commercial applications.I think of it as a parallel to Mac OS X - OS X may be based on FreeBSD , but commercial application vendors do n't target FreeBSD , they target Mac OS , because Apple has the market share and the mind share .
One of the big problems with desktop Linux has been that it 's a moving target .
Every time you turn around a different distro has been the darling of the community , first SLS , then Slackware , then Caldera , RedHat , Mandrake , Ubuntu , etc. , and whether or not an application could be reliably migrated from one to the next has always been a hit or miss proposition .
A predictable , standard Linux platform with a the clout of Google behind it would go a long , long way in making it a less volatile desktop platform for developers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, in either case, it's probably a good thing for desktop Linux.
Google is one of the only players in that arena that has sufficient market clout to propagate a standard, which might finally make it a viable target for commercial applications.I think of it as a parallel to Mac OS X - OS X may be based on FreeBSD, but commercial application vendors don't target FreeBSD, they target Mac OS, because Apple has the market share and the mind share.
One of the big problems with desktop Linux has been that it's a moving target.
Every time you turn around a different distro has been the darling of the community, first SLS, then Slackware, then Caldera, RedHat, Mandrake, Ubuntu, etc., and whether or not an application could be reliably migrated from one to the next has always been a hit or miss proposition.
A predictable, standard Linux platform with a the clout of Google behind it would go a long, long way in making it a less volatile desktop platform for developers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194782</id>
	<title>Which is better?</title>
	<author>dandart</author>
	<datestamp>1258915440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I like Chrome, but I also like Android.<br> <br>But which is better? There's only one way to find out....<br> <br>FIIIIIIIIGHT!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like Chrome , but I also like Android .
But which is better ?
There 's only one way to find out... .
FIIIIIIIIGHT ! !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like Chrome, but I also like Android.
But which is better?
There's only one way to find out....
FIIIIIIIIGHT!!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30195444</id>
	<title>Chrome OS is an answer to a question...</title>
	<author>bhartman34</author>
	<datestamp>1258921080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>...no one should be asking.
<br> <br>

The whole point of mobile apps is that they're supposed to be for situations where you don't have a lot of hard drive capacity to be holding applications.  To condemn laptops to lives as portable dumb terminals makes no sense to me.  (And I've tried Chrome OS within VirtualBox, so I have at least some base of reference.)  You can get decent battery life without castrating a machine, and local storage gives you a much better experience.
<br> <br>
I understand that the current version of Chrome OS isn't how it's going to stay, but the design philosophy <i>itself</i> is absurd.  Google should release much more powerful Web apps if they want anyone to take the idea of a laptop Web OS seriously.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...no one should be asking .
The whole point of mobile apps is that they 're supposed to be for situations where you do n't have a lot of hard drive capacity to be holding applications .
To condemn laptops to lives as portable dumb terminals makes no sense to me .
( And I 've tried Chrome OS within VirtualBox , so I have at least some base of reference .
) You can get decent battery life without castrating a machine , and local storage gives you a much better experience .
I understand that the current version of Chrome OS is n't how it 's going to stay , but the design philosophy itself is absurd .
Google should release much more powerful Web apps if they want anyone to take the idea of a laptop Web OS seriously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...no one should be asking.
The whole point of mobile apps is that they're supposed to be for situations where you don't have a lot of hard drive capacity to be holding applications.
To condemn laptops to lives as portable dumb terminals makes no sense to me.
(And I've tried Chrome OS within VirtualBox, so I have at least some base of reference.
)  You can get decent battery life without castrating a machine, and local storage gives you a much better experience.
I understand that the current version of Chrome OS isn't how it's going to stay, but the design philosophy itself is absurd.
Google should release much more powerful Web apps if they want anyone to take the idea of a laptop Web OS seriously.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194418</id>
	<title>You did it wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258912860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I do it wrong</p><p>Laying here in the shadows of my room, I squint up at my love. My Ms. Portman. I am sore and tired after fucking her for eight solid hours. My chapped and aching dick is soaking in grits to relieve the pain. She gets on her knees and starts lapping the grits up out of the bowl. She places her beautiful hands on my penis and starts to lick the grits off my achy piece.<br>Massaging my nutsack she....</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; WAIT, I DO IT WRONG!</p><p>Yanking my dick out of her mouth I throw her to the ground and shove it in to her <a href="http://goatse.fr/" title="goatse.fr" rel="nofollow">gaping freshly fisted ass</a> [goatse.fr].</p><p>"OH BIG ASS SPORK!! Fuck my ass, fuck my ass good. DEEPER, my stallion, deeper!! Make a Beowulf cluster of sperm on my back!!"</p><p>"Imagine a Beowulf cluster of this baby!"</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; I DO IT WRONG!</p><p>I continue to hump her alabaster form. Glistening with beads of sweat, she bites her lip in delight as I tear her ass open with my engorged dick.</p><p>"Queen Amidala!!" I shreik as I near climax.</p><p>She looks up at me and screams, "You are so alive in me, unlike *BSD or VA Software!!! Fill me with seed!! Yes, Yes, Yess!!!!"</p><p>"For me you are calling, hhhmmm?"</p><p>"YODA?!? What the fuck, can't you see I am using the force here?"</p><p>He savagely kicks my Natalie aside, he pulls out his large green penis and impales me...</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; I DO IT WRONG!</p><p>All your sporkz are belong to the dead homiez!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do it wrongLaying here in the shadows of my room , I squint up at my love .
My Ms. Portman. I am sore and tired after fucking her for eight solid hours .
My chapped and aching dick is soaking in grits to relieve the pain .
She gets on her knees and starts lapping the grits up out of the bowl .
She places her beautiful hands on my penis and starts to lick the grits off my achy piece.Massaging my nutsack she... .     WAIT , I DO IT WRONG ! Yanking my dick out of her mouth I throw her to the ground and shove it in to her gaping freshly fisted ass [ goatse.fr ] .
" OH BIG ASS SPORK ! !
Fuck my ass , fuck my ass good .
DEEPER , my stallion , deeper ! !
Make a Beowulf cluster of sperm on my back ! !
" " Imagine a Beowulf cluster of this baby !
"     I DO IT WRONG ! I continue to hump her alabaster form .
Glistening with beads of sweat , she bites her lip in delight as I tear her ass open with my engorged dick .
" Queen Amidala ! !
" I shreik as I near climax.She looks up at me and screams , " You are so alive in me , unlike * BSD or VA Software ! ! !
Fill me with seed ! !
Yes , Yes , Yess ! ! ! !
" " For me you are calling , hhhmmm ? " " YODA ? ! ?
What the fuck , ca n't you see I am using the force here ?
" He savagely kicks my Natalie aside , he pulls out his large green penis and impales me.. .     I DO IT WRONG ! All your sporkz are belong to the dead homiez !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do it wrongLaying here in the shadows of my room, I squint up at my love.
My Ms. Portman. I am sore and tired after fucking her for eight solid hours.
My chapped and aching dick is soaking in grits to relieve the pain.
She gets on her knees and starts lapping the grits up out of the bowl.
She places her beautiful hands on my penis and starts to lick the grits off my achy piece.Massaging my nutsack she....
    WAIT, I DO IT WRONG!Yanking my dick out of her mouth I throw her to the ground and shove it in to her gaping freshly fisted ass [goatse.fr].
"OH BIG ASS SPORK!!
Fuck my ass, fuck my ass good.
DEEPER, my stallion, deeper!!
Make a Beowulf cluster of sperm on my back!!
""Imagine a Beowulf cluster of this baby!
"
    I DO IT WRONG!I continue to hump her alabaster form.
Glistening with beads of sweat, she bites her lip in delight as I tear her ass open with my engorged dick.
"Queen Amidala!!
" I shreik as I near climax.She looks up at me and screams, "You are so alive in me, unlike *BSD or VA Software!!!
Fill me with seed!!
Yes, Yes, Yess!!!!
""For me you are calling, hhhmmm?""YODA?!?
What the fuck, can't you see I am using the force here?
"He savagely kicks my Natalie aside, he pulls out his large green penis and impales me...
    I DO IT WRONG!All your sporkz are belong to the dead homiez!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194712</id>
	<title>Please desist with the google / chrome stories.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258914900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its funny google talks about "unique code" when they are using webkit and linux.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its funny google talks about " unique code " when they are using webkit and linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its funny google talks about "unique code" when they are using webkit and linux.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194878</id>
	<title>Re:Google is suffering from success</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258916280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>R&amp;D is the lifeblood of any truly successful tech company. The HPs, IBMs, Suns (pre-Oracle), etc., all got to where they are because they've been willing to pump massive amounts into R&amp;D. This compliments the work done by non-profit entities like universities. Sometimes, the work goes nowhere aside from a release paper and maybe some general schematics / prototypes. Other times, you get things like Linux, SQL/RDBMS, XML (based off of SGML), Java, HTTP / HTML, and the list goes on. Those R&amp;D projects that make it are usually wildly profitable - either in monetary terms for the private institution that sponsored the research, or the work profits society as a whole if some great bit of tech is released into the public sphere.</p><p>I'm no Google fanboy (well, I do have an Android phone, sue me), but a long-term approach where a company builds up its IP portfolio through good R&amp;D is ultimately more profitable for shareholders than nickle-&amp;-dime dividends in the short term.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>R&amp;D is the lifeblood of any truly successful tech company .
The HPs , IBMs , Suns ( pre-Oracle ) , etc. , all got to where they are because they 've been willing to pump massive amounts into R&amp;D .
This compliments the work done by non-profit entities like universities .
Sometimes , the work goes nowhere aside from a release paper and maybe some general schematics / prototypes .
Other times , you get things like Linux , SQL/RDBMS , XML ( based off of SGML ) , Java , HTTP / HTML , and the list goes on .
Those R&amp;D projects that make it are usually wildly profitable - either in monetary terms for the private institution that sponsored the research , or the work profits society as a whole if some great bit of tech is released into the public sphere.I 'm no Google fanboy ( well , I do have an Android phone , sue me ) , but a long-term approach where a company builds up its IP portfolio through good R&amp;D is ultimately more profitable for shareholders than nickle-&amp;-dime dividends in the short term .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>R&amp;D is the lifeblood of any truly successful tech company.
The HPs, IBMs, Suns (pre-Oracle), etc., all got to where they are because they've been willing to pump massive amounts into R&amp;D.
This compliments the work done by non-profit entities like universities.
Sometimes, the work goes nowhere aside from a release paper and maybe some general schematics / prototypes.
Other times, you get things like Linux, SQL/RDBMS, XML (based off of SGML), Java, HTTP / HTML, and the list goes on.
Those R&amp;D projects that make it are usually wildly profitable - either in monetary terms for the private institution that sponsored the research, or the work profits society as a whole if some great bit of tech is released into the public sphere.I'm no Google fanboy (well, I do have an Android phone, sue me), but a long-term approach where a company builds up its IP portfolio through good R&amp;D is ultimately more profitable for shareholders than nickle-&amp;-dime dividends in the short term.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30195286</id>
	<title>Both only cellphone level functionality.</title>
	<author>guidryp</author>
	<datestamp>1258919580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Both seem very limited and aimed at cellphones essentially. So it does seem they have huge overlap.</p><p>I was hoping Chrome OS would be more functional than Android (sort of lightweight Linux replacement) but it seems the opposite. It is just a browser. Yawn.</p><p>I really can't see the point of maintaining two cellphone "OS type" products.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Both seem very limited and aimed at cellphones essentially .
So it does seem they have huge overlap.I was hoping Chrome OS would be more functional than Android ( sort of lightweight Linux replacement ) but it seems the opposite .
It is just a browser .
Yawn.I really ca n't see the point of maintaining two cellphone " OS type " products .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Both seem very limited and aimed at cellphones essentially.
So it does seem they have huge overlap.I was hoping Chrome OS would be more functional than Android (sort of lightweight Linux replacement) but it seems the opposite.
It is just a browser.
Yawn.I really can't see the point of maintaining two cellphone "OS type" products.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30195078</id>
	<title>This is a huge push for Linux</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258918020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't this a huge impetus for Linux, one would imagine a lot of funding would move from Google to the various sub projects that go into making Linux, that in turn support Google's android and chromeos initiatives. Given this is one of the more important forums for Linux discussion one would thought there would be more indepth analysis of Google new love for Linux, on Linux, sadly we see the same old discussion we are seeing everywhere else from the google angle, but this benefits Linux.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't this a huge impetus for Linux , one would imagine a lot of funding would move from Google to the various sub projects that go into making Linux , that in turn support Google 's android and chromeos initiatives .
Given this is one of the more important forums for Linux discussion one would thought there would be more indepth analysis of Google new love for Linux , on Linux , sadly we see the same old discussion we are seeing everywhere else from the google angle , but this benefits Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't this a huge impetus for Linux, one would imagine a lot of funding would move from Google to the various sub projects that go into making Linux, that in turn support Google's android and chromeos initiatives.
Given this is one of the more important forums for Linux discussion one would thought there would be more indepth analysis of Google new love for Linux, on Linux, sadly we see the same old discussion we are seeing everywhere else from the google angle, but this benefits Linux.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30206460</id>
	<title>Re:Google is suffering from success</title>
	<author>hkmwbz</author>
	<datestamp>1258972920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The top bosses seem to be very aware of both Android and Chrome OS, so I'm not sure what you are saying.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The top bosses seem to be very aware of both Android and Chrome OS , so I 'm not sure what you are saying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The top bosses seem to be very aware of both Android and Chrome OS, so I'm not sure what you are saying.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194744</id>
	<title>Re:First post</title>
	<author>shipbrick</author>
	<datestamp>1258915140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>or Androme / Andromeos...</htmltext>
<tokenext>or Androme / Andromeos.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or Androme / Andromeos...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194446</id>
	<title>Just like iphone os being a subset of...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258913160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Leopard.  It makes a good deal of sense.  And if kept open, very very enticing.  You could alter your smartphone/desktop in almost limitless ways.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Leopard .
It makes a good deal of sense .
And if kept open , very very enticing .
You could alter your smartphone/desktop in almost limitless ways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Leopard.
It makes a good deal of sense.
And if kept open, very very enticing.
You could alter your smartphone/desktop in almost limitless ways.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30195036</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps they'll both converge on "cancelled"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258917660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You want to look at the Droid then.  I've got one and while there are a few little things that I wish they would improve on the whole it's much better than any other smart phone I've used.  It's core apps are far better than the iPhone, but I do miss the volume of games the AppStore has that the Android Market still hasn't caught up to yet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You want to look at the Droid then .
I 've got one and while there are a few little things that I wish they would improve on the whole it 's much better than any other smart phone I 've used .
It 's core apps are far better than the iPhone , but I do miss the volume of games the AppStore has that the Android Market still has n't caught up to yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You want to look at the Droid then.
I've got one and while there are a few little things that I wish they would improve on the whole it's much better than any other smart phone I've used.
It's core apps are far better than the iPhone, but I do miss the volume of games the AppStore has that the Android Market still hasn't caught up to yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30195466</id>
	<title>Not interested in Cloud Computing</title>
	<author>sfarber53</author>
	<datestamp>1258921200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the Chrome OS is only an access point into a Google (or other) cloud then it is of no interest to me and shouldn't be of interest to anyone else.  I haven't come this many years down the road of "personal" computing to hand over control of my apps and data to some faceless corporation.

Doesn't anybody else feel Big Brother tapping on their shoulder?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the Chrome OS is only an access point into a Google ( or other ) cloud then it is of no interest to me and should n't be of interest to anyone else .
I have n't come this many years down the road of " personal " computing to hand over control of my apps and data to some faceless corporation .
Does n't anybody else feel Big Brother tapping on their shoulder ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the Chrome OS is only an access point into a Google (or other) cloud then it is of no interest to me and shouldn't be of interest to anyone else.
I haven't come this many years down the road of "personal" computing to hand over control of my apps and data to some faceless corporation.
Doesn't anybody else feel Big Brother tapping on their shoulder?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30195410</id>
	<title>Re:I have an idea</title>
	<author>koiransuklaa</author>
	<datestamp>1258920720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Chrome OS does use X.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Chrome OS does use X .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chrome OS does use X.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194660</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1620243_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30195112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1620243_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30199330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30195444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1620243_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30195226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1620243_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30195036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1620243_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30195106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1620243_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30201926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1620243_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30195476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1620243_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30195482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1620243_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30197082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1620243_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1620243_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30206482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1620243_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1620243_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30195410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1620243_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30195310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1620243_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30195432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1620243_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30198952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1620243_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1620243_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30195018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1620243_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30195278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1620243_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30206460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1620243_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30195698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1620243_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1620243_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30196734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1620243_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1620243_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30202042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1620243_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30196760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1620243.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30195444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30199330
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1620243.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30196734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30195278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30198952
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30195432
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1620243.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30195466
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1620243.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30195286
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1620243.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194660
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30195410
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1620243.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30201926
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1620243.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30195112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30195036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30202042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30206482
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30196760
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1620243.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194614
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30195310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30195482
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30195476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30206460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30195226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30197082
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30195698
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1620243.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30195480
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1620243.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30195106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30195018
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1620243.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1620243.30194512
</commentlist>
</conversation>
