<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_01_2123218</id>
	<title>What Google's Chromium OS Is Reaching For</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1259662620000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>MojoKid sends in a piece that takes a step back from Google's much-analyzed OS to look at what it is trying to accomplish. <i>"Last week, Google open-sourced its Chromium OS project, more than a year before the operating system is scheduled for release. In doing so, Google hopes a variety of developers and companies will become involved in the project, and has pledged to release regular updates as well as a comprehensive log of bug reports and fixes. This article takes a look at Google's <a href="http://hothardware.com/News/Chrome-Detailing-Previewing-Googles-New-Operating-System/">design vision for Chromium</a>, the unique benefits it offers, and a bit of why Google is throwing its hat into this particular ring in the first place. Chromium, after all, is a Linux-based OS entering the smartbook/netbook market at a time when the product segment is already being well served by a variety of Linux distros, XP, and Windows 7. In the midst of all these options, do we need another operating system? We just might."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>MojoKid sends in a piece that takes a step back from Google 's much-analyzed OS to look at what it is trying to accomplish .
" Last week , Google open-sourced its Chromium OS project , more than a year before the operating system is scheduled for release .
In doing so , Google hopes a variety of developers and companies will become involved in the project , and has pledged to release regular updates as well as a comprehensive log of bug reports and fixes .
This article takes a look at Google 's design vision for Chromium , the unique benefits it offers , and a bit of why Google is throwing its hat into this particular ring in the first place .
Chromium , after all , is a Linux-based OS entering the smartbook/netbook market at a time when the product segment is already being well served by a variety of Linux distros , XP , and Windows 7 .
In the midst of all these options , do we need another operating system ?
We just might .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MojoKid sends in a piece that takes a step back from Google's much-analyzed OS to look at what it is trying to accomplish.
"Last week, Google open-sourced its Chromium OS project, more than a year before the operating system is scheduled for release.
In doing so, Google hopes a variety of developers and companies will become involved in the project, and has pledged to release regular updates as well as a comprehensive log of bug reports and fixes.
This article takes a look at Google's design vision for Chromium, the unique benefits it offers, and a bit of why Google is throwing its hat into this particular ring in the first place.
Chromium, after all, is a Linux-based OS entering the smartbook/netbook market at a time when the product segment is already being well served by a variety of Linux distros, XP, and Windows 7.
In the midst of all these options, do we need another operating system?
We just might.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290438</id>
	<title>Remember when Google became a search engine?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259668860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Chromium, after all, is a Linux-based OS entering the smartbook/netbook market at a time when the product segment is already being well served by a variety of Linux distros, XP, and Windows 7."</p><p>Remember when Google entered the search engine space? It was being well served by Yahoo, Dogpile, MSN, Excite and a bunch of other search engine vendors... I mean really, how could they improve internet searching?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Chromium , after all , is a Linux-based OS entering the smartbook/netbook market at a time when the product segment is already being well served by a variety of Linux distros , XP , and Windows 7 .
" Remember when Google entered the search engine space ?
It was being well served by Yahoo , Dogpile , MSN , Excite and a bunch of other search engine vendors... I mean really , how could they improve internet searching ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Chromium, after all, is a Linux-based OS entering the smartbook/netbook market at a time when the product segment is already being well served by a variety of Linux distros, XP, and Windows 7.
"Remember when Google entered the search engine space?
It was being well served by Yahoo, Dogpile, MSN, Excite and a bunch of other search engine vendors... I mean really, how could they improve internet searching?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30298404</id>
	<title>Re:A bad trade off.</title>
	<author>ElSupreme</author>
	<datestamp>1259602020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But I can already do this. I have an OLPC.<br>
<br>
Oh and printing, or pencil and paper copying, is the only way to use a recipe.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But I can already do this .
I have an OLPC .
Oh and printing , or pencil and paper copying , is the only way to use a recipe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But I can already do this.
I have an OLPC.
Oh and printing, or pencil and paper copying, is the only way to use a recipe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290360</id>
	<title>The Network is the Computer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259668500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sun called, they want their concept back.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sun called , they want their concept back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sun called, they want their concept back.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30291104</id>
	<title>Re:The real reason</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259671980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>HOLY SHIT!</p><p>Have you patented this???</p><p>This is a brilliant scheme to get rich for all these years I've spent sitting on my ass idly surfing the net!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HOLY SHIT ! Have you patented this ? ?
? This is a brilliant scheme to get rich for all these years I 've spent sitting on my ass idly surfing the net !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HOLY SHIT!Have you patented this??
?This is a brilliant scheme to get rich for all these years I've spent sitting on my ass idly surfing the net!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290464</id>
	<title>Re:Diversity is good.</title>
	<author>blueskies</author>
	<datestamp>1259668980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because if there is anything OS developers really want to work on, it is cut and polish.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because if there is anything OS developers really want to work on , it is cut and polish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because if there is anything OS developers really want to work on, it is cut and polish.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290824</id>
	<title>Re:RTFA</title>
	<author>thickdiick</author>
	<datestamp>1259670660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why would you read a link for a story whose title ends in a preposition?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would you read a link for a story whose title ends in a preposition ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would you read a link for a story whose title ends in a preposition?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30294202</id>
	<title>Re:Diversity is good.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259695320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't understand how this is a "new OS".</p><p>If it's a Linux-based OS then that tells me the kernel is Linux, so then any other specialization or customization still makes it yet another Linux derivative or Linux distribution.</p><p>(Or is it a "new OS" in the same way that MacOS is considered to be a separate OS despite having a BSD-like kernel?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand how this is a " new OS " .If it 's a Linux-based OS then that tells me the kernel is Linux , so then any other specialization or customization still makes it yet another Linux derivative or Linux distribution .
( Or is it a " new OS " in the same way that MacOS is considered to be a separate OS despite having a BSD-like kernel ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand how this is a "new OS".If it's a Linux-based OS then that tells me the kernel is Linux, so then any other specialization or customization still makes it yet another Linux derivative or Linux distribution.
(Or is it a "new OS" in the same way that MacOS is considered to be a separate OS despite having a BSD-like kernel?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290024</id>
	<title>Re:RTFA</title>
	<author>palegray.net</author>
	<datestamp>1259666820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you look at the original submission (which is what I did), you can <a href="http://hothardware.com/News/Chrome-Detailing-Previewing-Googles-New-Operating-System/" title="hothardware.com">find the link there</a> [hothardware.com]. That said, somebody really ought to fix it in the summary.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you look at the original submission ( which is what I did ) , you can find the link there [ hothardware.com ] .
That said , somebody really ought to fix it in the summary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you look at the original submission (which is what I did), you can find the link there [hothardware.com].
That said, somebody really ought to fix it in the summary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290928</id>
	<title>Re:Que? No comprede! Chromium OS doesn't make sens</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259671080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>no easy way to block advertising</p></div><p> <a href="http://qux.us/adthwart" title="qux.us" rel="nofollow">There's an ad-blocking extension</a> [qux.us] for Chrome that uses the same filter list as AdBlock Plus usually does.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>no easy way to block advertising There 's an ad-blocking extension [ qux.us ] for Chrome that uses the same filter list as AdBlock Plus usually does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no easy way to block advertising There's an ad-blocking extension [qux.us] for Chrome that uses the same filter list as AdBlock Plus usually does.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290000</id>
	<title>Re:Diversity is good.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259666760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I actually disagree, not because of a dislike of google but because while diversity is good, fragmentation is bad. There is not an unlimited supply of skilled OS developers despite what people may think and even less of a supply of those willing to freely contribute to projects. Fragmentation means all projects suffer just a little more of not being able to put the much needed cut and polish in or those extra needed features. from what I can see the chromium OS brings little more than extra fragmentation to an ecosystem already suffering from fragmentation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually disagree , not because of a dislike of google but because while diversity is good , fragmentation is bad .
There is not an unlimited supply of skilled OS developers despite what people may think and even less of a supply of those willing to freely contribute to projects .
Fragmentation means all projects suffer just a little more of not being able to put the much needed cut and polish in or those extra needed features .
from what I can see the chromium OS brings little more than extra fragmentation to an ecosystem already suffering from fragmentation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually disagree, not because of a dislike of google but because while diversity is good, fragmentation is bad.
There is not an unlimited supply of skilled OS developers despite what people may think and even less of a supply of those willing to freely contribute to projects.
Fragmentation means all projects suffer just a little more of not being able to put the much needed cut and polish in or those extra needed features.
from what I can see the chromium OS brings little more than extra fragmentation to an ecosystem already suffering from fragmentation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30292352</id>
	<title>Re:I want it - not for me, but...</title>
	<author>Buelldozer</author>
	<datestamp>1259679000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Install Microsoft Steady State for her. That will reduce the need for antivirus software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Install Microsoft Steady State for her .
That will reduce the need for antivirus software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Install Microsoft Steady State for her.
That will reduce the need for antivirus software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290178</id>
	<title>Wait A Minute?! You're Praising 'Choice'!?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259667660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Way to put your karma on the line and really add something to the conversation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Way to put your karma on the line and really add something to the conversation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Way to put your karma on the line and really add something to the conversation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290276</id>
	<title>Niche Product</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259668080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can seriously see the advantages of Chrome OS in an ultra-portable device. . .     netbook, smartbook, Crunchpad-like gadget. . .    Simplicity and efficiency and speed are needed there, and it could have a real advantage.</p><p>NO WAY can I see it replacing my OS on my primary desktop computer (currently an iMac BTW).  I can't see web apps replacing:  Second Life, iTunes, Aperture, GIMP, my word processors and text editors, games, and a number of other programs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can seriously see the advantages of Chrome OS in an ultra-portable device .
. .
netbook , smartbook , Crunchpad-like gadget .
. .
Simplicity and efficiency and speed are needed there , and it could have a real advantage.NO WAY can I see it replacing my OS on my primary desktop computer ( currently an iMac BTW ) .
I ca n't see web apps replacing : Second Life , iTunes , Aperture , GIMP , my word processors and text editors , games , and a number of other programs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can seriously see the advantages of Chrome OS in an ultra-portable device.
. .
netbook, smartbook, Crunchpad-like gadget.
. .
Simplicity and efficiency and speed are needed there, and it could have a real advantage.NO WAY can I see it replacing my OS on my primary desktop computer (currently an iMac BTW).
I can't see web apps replacing:  Second Life, iTunes, Aperture, GIMP, my word processors and text editors, games, and a number of other programs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30295634</id>
	<title>fight the clunkyness</title>
	<author>bazorg</author>
	<datestamp>1259583660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is a matter of user expectation that I think might be the most valuable legacy from the ChromeOS. Today, a lot of the stuff we use is clunky. Enterprise applications that walk over any UI guidelines, intranet sites that works so-so depending on the browser used; web applications that actually do not degrade to work in small screens or not-so-broadband connections.. there's probably more examples if you think about it.<p>If a large number of people start using these Google terminals and this allows them to see their files and favourite internet services working nicely, regardless of using the netbook, the fat PC with Firefox or Safari or any unknown PC at an internet cafe, this will be clearly a good thing. Users will expect to see the same kind of quality on desktop applications, on enterprise applications and importantly, on their intranet and enterprise applications.</p><p>Some of the applications I currently use that frustrate me the most are MS applications that simply lag behind the free stuff that I use at home on free internet services. The way my company is unable to make Sharepoint present simple lists of files and allow changing individual items without refreshing the whole thing is frustrating and worse than everything that I use for fun on Facebook; Dynamics CRM would be nice and usable for 2005 standars, but now its navigation requires more clicks and menus than everything that I find acceptable; hell, even using MS Office with files stored remotely is a pain, with all the warnings and confirmations.</p><p>I'm counting on google and mobile telcos to subsidize the hardware and take these netbooks to the broad market. People will have new expectations about usability, about what is basic and what is advanced use of their computers. Desktop software developers will have to adapt, because their stuff cannot possibly be less clunky than free browser based applications running on cheap hardware.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a matter of user expectation that I think might be the most valuable legacy from the ChromeOS .
Today , a lot of the stuff we use is clunky .
Enterprise applications that walk over any UI guidelines , intranet sites that works so-so depending on the browser used ; web applications that actually do not degrade to work in small screens or not-so-broadband connections.. there 's probably more examples if you think about it.If a large number of people start using these Google terminals and this allows them to see their files and favourite internet services working nicely , regardless of using the netbook , the fat PC with Firefox or Safari or any unknown PC at an internet cafe , this will be clearly a good thing .
Users will expect to see the same kind of quality on desktop applications , on enterprise applications and importantly , on their intranet and enterprise applications.Some of the applications I currently use that frustrate me the most are MS applications that simply lag behind the free stuff that I use at home on free internet services .
The way my company is unable to make Sharepoint present simple lists of files and allow changing individual items without refreshing the whole thing is frustrating and worse than everything that I use for fun on Facebook ; Dynamics CRM would be nice and usable for 2005 standars , but now its navigation requires more clicks and menus than everything that I find acceptable ; hell , even using MS Office with files stored remotely is a pain , with all the warnings and confirmations.I 'm counting on google and mobile telcos to subsidize the hardware and take these netbooks to the broad market .
People will have new expectations about usability , about what is basic and what is advanced use of their computers .
Desktop software developers will have to adapt , because their stuff can not possibly be less clunky than free browser based applications running on cheap hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a matter of user expectation that I think might be the most valuable legacy from the ChromeOS.
Today, a lot of the stuff we use is clunky.
Enterprise applications that walk over any UI guidelines, intranet sites that works so-so depending on the browser used; web applications that actually do not degrade to work in small screens or not-so-broadband connections.. there's probably more examples if you think about it.If a large number of people start using these Google terminals and this allows them to see their files and favourite internet services working nicely, regardless of using the netbook, the fat PC with Firefox or Safari or any unknown PC at an internet cafe, this will be clearly a good thing.
Users will expect to see the same kind of quality on desktop applications, on enterprise applications and importantly, on their intranet and enterprise applications.Some of the applications I currently use that frustrate me the most are MS applications that simply lag behind the free stuff that I use at home on free internet services.
The way my company is unable to make Sharepoint present simple lists of files and allow changing individual items without refreshing the whole thing is frustrating and worse than everything that I use for fun on Facebook; Dynamics CRM would be nice and usable for 2005 standars, but now its navigation requires more clicks and menus than everything that I find acceptable; hell, even using MS Office with files stored remotely is a pain, with all the warnings and confirmations.I'm counting on google and mobile telcos to subsidize the hardware and take these netbooks to the broad market.
People will have new expectations about usability, about what is basic and what is advanced use of their computers.
Desktop software developers will have to adapt, because their stuff cannot possibly be less clunky than free browser based applications running on cheap hardware.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290130</id>
	<title>Que? No comprede! Chromium OS doesn't make sense.</title>
	<author>Orion Blastar</author>
	<datestamp>1259667420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not just bundle Chrome with any Linux distro. That way Google can make Chrome the default web browser for Linux by making it open sourced (I think it already is) and bundled with as many Linux distros as possible.</p><p>Why should I use Chromium OS when I can download any Linux distro and install Chrome on it.</p><p>What makes Chrome better than say Firefox? When I did web site testing I didn't see a speed difference between Firefox and Chrome. Chrome doesn't have as many plug-ins as Firefox has, no easy way to block advertising (you have to right click on each ad and choose "block" instead of using Adblock Plus and subscribe to a list that automatically blocks ads for you) and having to right click on every ad that pops up is tiresome work and gets really annoying.</p><p>All of Google's web services work in Firefox just as well as they work in Chrome. So why is there a need for Chrome or even Chromium OS? What benefits and features can Chrome and Chromium OS give me that Linux and Firefox cannot?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not just bundle Chrome with any Linux distro .
That way Google can make Chrome the default web browser for Linux by making it open sourced ( I think it already is ) and bundled with as many Linux distros as possible.Why should I use Chromium OS when I can download any Linux distro and install Chrome on it.What makes Chrome better than say Firefox ?
When I did web site testing I did n't see a speed difference between Firefox and Chrome .
Chrome does n't have as many plug-ins as Firefox has , no easy way to block advertising ( you have to right click on each ad and choose " block " instead of using Adblock Plus and subscribe to a list that automatically blocks ads for you ) and having to right click on every ad that pops up is tiresome work and gets really annoying.All of Google 's web services work in Firefox just as well as they work in Chrome .
So why is there a need for Chrome or even Chromium OS ?
What benefits and features can Chrome and Chromium OS give me that Linux and Firefox can not ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not just bundle Chrome with any Linux distro.
That way Google can make Chrome the default web browser for Linux by making it open sourced (I think it already is) and bundled with as many Linux distros as possible.Why should I use Chromium OS when I can download any Linux distro and install Chrome on it.What makes Chrome better than say Firefox?
When I did web site testing I didn't see a speed difference between Firefox and Chrome.
Chrome doesn't have as many plug-ins as Firefox has, no easy way to block advertising (you have to right click on each ad and choose "block" instead of using Adblock Plus and subscribe to a list that automatically blocks ads for you) and having to right click on every ad that pops up is tiresome work and gets really annoying.All of Google's web services work in Firefox just as well as they work in Chrome.
So why is there a need for Chrome or even Chromium OS?
What benefits and features can Chrome and Chromium OS give me that Linux and Firefox cannot?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30291818</id>
	<title>Network Computer v2.0?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259675640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is happening now, it has happened before, it will surely happen again.</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network\_Computer</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is happening now , it has happened before , it will surely happen again.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network \ _Computer</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is happening now, it has happened before, it will surely happen again.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network\_Computer</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290338</id>
	<title>Chrome's killer app</title>
	<author>Radical Moderate</author>
	<datestamp>1259668440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>...is convenience.  I would say RTFA, but you actually have to watch the video to get it...Chrome OS will boot into the browser in a few seconds, compared to XP taking about a minute to boot and then another 30 seconds of housekeeping before Firefox launches (YMMV).  That's a game changer.  And before people start whining about how it won't slice bread and do everything else they want a computer to do, it doesn't have to.  I would guess at least half of home users just do web browsing, email,  light word processing, iTunes and photo management. All easy to do in a browser, and that's a pretty big market to go after.  <br> <br>No, it's not a gaming rig.  And most people don't care, or they wouldn't be buying PCs with Intel video chips in them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...is convenience .
I would say RTFA , but you actually have to watch the video to get it...Chrome OS will boot into the browser in a few seconds , compared to XP taking about a minute to boot and then another 30 seconds of housekeeping before Firefox launches ( YMMV ) .
That 's a game changer .
And before people start whining about how it wo n't slice bread and do everything else they want a computer to do , it does n't have to .
I would guess at least half of home users just do web browsing , email , light word processing , iTunes and photo management .
All easy to do in a browser , and that 's a pretty big market to go after .
No , it 's not a gaming rig .
And most people do n't care , or they would n't be buying PCs with Intel video chips in them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...is convenience.
I would say RTFA, but you actually have to watch the video to get it...Chrome OS will boot into the browser in a few seconds, compared to XP taking about a minute to boot and then another 30 seconds of housekeeping before Firefox launches (YMMV).
That's a game changer.
And before people start whining about how it won't slice bread and do everything else they want a computer to do, it doesn't have to.
I would guess at least half of home users just do web browsing, email,  light word processing, iTunes and photo management.
All easy to do in a browser, and that's a pretty big market to go after.
No, it's not a gaming rig.
And most people don't care, or they wouldn't be buying PCs with Intel video chips in them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290266</id>
	<title>Re:Diversity is good.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259668020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't worry about fragmentation. No good developer would waste their time with Chromium OS.</p><p>The only developers they're attracting are those fools who fall for every single new development, but never actually produce anything useful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't worry about fragmentation .
No good developer would waste their time with Chromium OS.The only developers they 're attracting are those fools who fall for every single new development , but never actually produce anything useful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't worry about fragmentation.
No good developer would waste their time with Chromium OS.The only developers they're attracting are those fools who fall for every single new development, but never actually produce anything useful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289944</id>
	<title>Re:RTFA</title>
	<author>Barryke</author>
	<datestamp>1259666580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hothardware.com/News/Chrome-Detailing-Previewing-Googles-New-Operating-System/" title="hothardware.com" rel="nofollow">http://hothardware.com/News/Chrome-Detailing-Previewing-Googles-New-Operating-System/</a> [hothardware.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //hothardware.com/News/Chrome-Detailing-Previewing-Googles-New-Operating-System/ [ hothardware.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://hothardware.com/News/Chrome-Detailing-Previewing-Googles-New-Operating-System/ [hothardware.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30292858</id>
	<title>Re:Niche Product</title>
	<author>eric\_brissette</author>
	<datestamp>1259682840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lots of people don't use their computers for doing anything beyond posting on Facebook, tending their FarmVille crops, and watching cute cat video compilations on YouTube.</p><p>I can see how ChromeOS would be perfect for many many people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lots of people do n't use their computers for doing anything beyond posting on Facebook , tending their FarmVille crops , and watching cute cat video compilations on YouTube.I can see how ChromeOS would be perfect for many many people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lots of people don't use their computers for doing anything beyond posting on Facebook, tending their FarmVille crops, and watching cute cat video compilations on YouTube.I can see how ChromeOS would be perfect for many many people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289958</id>
	<title>Re:The real reason</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259666700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obviously, Google is planning on copying Scientology and making all of us their slaves. We will all be forced to view advertisements on web pages without ever being paid for our work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously , Google is planning on copying Scientology and making all of us their slaves .
We will all be forced to view advertisements on web pages without ever being paid for our work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously, Google is planning on copying Scientology and making all of us their slaves.
We will all be forced to view advertisements on web pages without ever being paid for our work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30292492</id>
	<title>Wow! What an about face!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259680020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I remember stories about how MS would send some data back to the mothership and everyone here would howl that it was bullshit even if it was anonymous. Now we have the same people welcoming the idea of keeping all their data on the servers of a private company?<br> <br>I'm really floored by this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember stories about how MS would send some data back to the mothership and everyone here would howl that it was bullshit even if it was anonymous .
Now we have the same people welcoming the idea of keeping all their data on the servers of a private company ?
I 'm really floored by this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember stories about how MS would send some data back to the mothership and everyone here would howl that it was bullshit even if it was anonymous.
Now we have the same people welcoming the idea of keeping all their data on the servers of a private company?
I'm really floored by this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30292594</id>
	<title>The Cambrian explosion view</title>
	<author>Owlyn</author>
	<datestamp>1259680740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just my opinion for what it's worth.  What gets me is the either/or evaluation of cloud computing.  It's either good or bad, dumb or smart, the future or a dead end.  What I see is the diversification of the technology landscape, not a monolithic movement in any direction.  For some people, cloud computing is the ticket.  It's all they need and they are going to love it.  For others (like me), I like my island PC, enjoy tinkering with it, but will selectively use elements of cloud computing, such as Gmail.  Others will have nothing to do with the 'cloud' for either ideological or need-based reasons.  The technology is allowing us to do more things, not fewer things.  What we will see is people doing more things differently as it suits them.  I think the Chrome OS has a future, as does the Linux desktop, Windows and the Mac.  The Xbox, the Wii and the Playstation are not the end of the gaming PC, but just an increase in the many ways technology will be used for people to amuse themselves.  At some point in the future (in some Darwinian fashion) a selective pressure may simplify the technology landscape.  There will be winners and losers.  But at this point we are in a Cambrian explosion of diversification and multiplicity of options, and this is going to continue for some time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just my opinion for what it 's worth .
What gets me is the either/or evaluation of cloud computing .
It 's either good or bad , dumb or smart , the future or a dead end .
What I see is the diversification of the technology landscape , not a monolithic movement in any direction .
For some people , cloud computing is the ticket .
It 's all they need and they are going to love it .
For others ( like me ) , I like my island PC , enjoy tinkering with it , but will selectively use elements of cloud computing , such as Gmail .
Others will have nothing to do with the 'cloud ' for either ideological or need-based reasons .
The technology is allowing us to do more things , not fewer things .
What we will see is people doing more things differently as it suits them .
I think the Chrome OS has a future , as does the Linux desktop , Windows and the Mac .
The Xbox , the Wii and the Playstation are not the end of the gaming PC , but just an increase in the many ways technology will be used for people to amuse themselves .
At some point in the future ( in some Darwinian fashion ) a selective pressure may simplify the technology landscape .
There will be winners and losers .
But at this point we are in a Cambrian explosion of diversification and multiplicity of options , and this is going to continue for some time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just my opinion for what it's worth.
What gets me is the either/or evaluation of cloud computing.
It's either good or bad, dumb or smart, the future or a dead end.
What I see is the diversification of the technology landscape, not a monolithic movement in any direction.
For some people, cloud computing is the ticket.
It's all they need and they are going to love it.
For others (like me), I like my island PC, enjoy tinkering with it, but will selectively use elements of cloud computing, such as Gmail.
Others will have nothing to do with the 'cloud' for either ideological or need-based reasons.
The technology is allowing us to do more things, not fewer things.
What we will see is people doing more things differently as it suits them.
I think the Chrome OS has a future, as does the Linux desktop, Windows and the Mac.
The Xbox, the Wii and the Playstation are not the end of the gaming PC, but just an increase in the many ways technology will be used for people to amuse themselves.
At some point in the future (in some Darwinian fashion) a selective pressure may simplify the technology landscape.
There will be winners and losers.
But at this point we are in a Cambrian explosion of diversification and multiplicity of options, and this is going to continue for some time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290350</id>
	<title>Re:The real reason</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259668440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Chromium OS is there so Google doesn't break GPL and other licenses.</p></div></blockquote><p>Despite mostly being flamebait this part of your post raises the question of why there isn't an equivalent to GPL for web applications. Don't tell me Affereo GPL because the <a href="http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/agpl-3.0.html#section13" title="fsf.org" rel="nofollow">AGPL only varies from the GPL by section 13</a> [fsf.org] which says that <b>if</b> webapps include a method of retrieving source code it can't be removed, but it <b>doesn't</b> say that users of the software get the right to the source code like the GPL does, and it <b>doesn't</b> say that applications that build upon webapps have any obligations.

</p><p>So the AGPL is really like the LGPL, not the GPL, and it should be renamed the ALGPL. It also means we don't have <b>any</b> equivalent to the GPL for web apps because the AGPL doesn't propagate across networks and it can be easily subverted by adding proprietary code to a network library.</p><p>Copyright-wise even Microsoft understand that there's no difference between the local PC bus and the network by saying the Microsoft Office (and most of their applications) can't be made available to the public internet. You can't sell a remote desktop version of Microsoft Office because they propagate licensing conditions to the network. Copyright licenses can go whereever copyright goes, and copyright exists locally or across networks.

</p><p>What we should have is a genuine GPL across the network, not the AGPL. If people do make network software they need to be able to provide GPL-style freedoms across the network but right now there is no license for this.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Chromium OS is there so Google does n't break GPL and other licenses.Despite mostly being flamebait this part of your post raises the question of why there is n't an equivalent to GPL for web applications .
Do n't tell me Affereo GPL because the AGPL only varies from the GPL by section 13 [ fsf.org ] which says that if webapps include a method of retrieving source code it ca n't be removed , but it does n't say that users of the software get the right to the source code like the GPL does , and it does n't say that applications that build upon webapps have any obligations .
So the AGPL is really like the LGPL , not the GPL , and it should be renamed the ALGPL .
It also means we do n't have any equivalent to the GPL for web apps because the AGPL does n't propagate across networks and it can be easily subverted by adding proprietary code to a network library.Copyright-wise even Microsoft understand that there 's no difference between the local PC bus and the network by saying the Microsoft Office ( and most of their applications ) ca n't be made available to the public internet .
You ca n't sell a remote desktop version of Microsoft Office because they propagate licensing conditions to the network .
Copyright licenses can go whereever copyright goes , and copyright exists locally or across networks .
What we should have is a genuine GPL across the network , not the AGPL .
If people do make network software they need to be able to provide GPL-style freedoms across the network but right now there is no license for this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chromium OS is there so Google doesn't break GPL and other licenses.Despite mostly being flamebait this part of your post raises the question of why there isn't an equivalent to GPL for web applications.
Don't tell me Affereo GPL because the AGPL only varies from the GPL by section 13 [fsf.org] which says that if webapps include a method of retrieving source code it can't be removed, but it doesn't say that users of the software get the right to the source code like the GPL does, and it doesn't say that applications that build upon webapps have any obligations.
So the AGPL is really like the LGPL, not the GPL, and it should be renamed the ALGPL.
It also means we don't have any equivalent to the GPL for web apps because the AGPL doesn't propagate across networks and it can be easily subverted by adding proprietary code to a network library.Copyright-wise even Microsoft understand that there's no difference between the local PC bus and the network by saying the Microsoft Office (and most of their applications) can't be made available to the public internet.
You can't sell a remote desktop version of Microsoft Office because they propagate licensing conditions to the network.
Copyright licenses can go whereever copyright goes, and copyright exists locally or across networks.
What we should have is a genuine GPL across the network, not the AGPL.
If people do make network software they need to be able to provide GPL-style freedoms across the network but right now there is no license for this.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30297752</id>
	<title>The real question...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259598960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real question is who Apple will hire to play the "Hi, i'm a Chromium," part in their inevitable ads.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real question is who Apple will hire to play the " Hi , i 'm a Chromium , " part in their inevitable ads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real question is who Apple will hire to play the "Hi, i'm a Chromium," part in their inevitable ads.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30294166</id>
	<title>Re:The real reason</title>
	<author>srhill</author>
	<datestamp>1259694780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Go ahead. Stop using any Google services for 24 hours. On a work day. <br> <br>

See? You're already a google-junkie. Just wait, any time now you'll attach that Google neural-cloud-adword-gmail-access thingy to your brain-stem (Google Think(tm) Beta). It will sound like a good idea at the time too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Go ahead .
Stop using any Google services for 24 hours .
On a work day .
See ? You 're already a google-junkie .
Just wait , any time now you 'll attach that Google neural-cloud-adword-gmail-access thingy to your brain-stem ( Google Think ( tm ) Beta ) .
It will sound like a good idea at the time too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go ahead.
Stop using any Google services for 24 hours.
On a work day.
See? You're already a google-junkie.
Just wait, any time now you'll attach that Google neural-cloud-adword-gmail-access thingy to your brain-stem (Google Think(tm) Beta).
It will sound like a good idea at the time too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290046</id>
	<title>Re:The real reason</title>
	<author>ITJC68</author>
	<datestamp>1259667000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>For some people that use those services this will be good for them. If and when it gets installed as a default OS for a laptop or netbook remains to be seen. I have been looking at the netbooks but couldn't stomach getting one with XP. 7 might be ok if they tune down its resource requirements or turn some of the eye candy off. Competition is usually a good thing but this is more of Google trying to stomp on Microsoft some as they have been trying everything to get into search more with bing and making it default on their browsers. When a user doesn't have a choice of OS, browser and search engine then we can all scream that it is a conspiracy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For some people that use those services this will be good for them .
If and when it gets installed as a default OS for a laptop or netbook remains to be seen .
I have been looking at the netbooks but could n't stomach getting one with XP .
7 might be ok if they tune down its resource requirements or turn some of the eye candy off .
Competition is usually a good thing but this is more of Google trying to stomp on Microsoft some as they have been trying everything to get into search more with bing and making it default on their browsers .
When a user does n't have a choice of OS , browser and search engine then we can all scream that it is a conspiracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For some people that use those services this will be good for them.
If and when it gets installed as a default OS for a laptop or netbook remains to be seen.
I have been looking at the netbooks but couldn't stomach getting one with XP.
7 might be ok if they tune down its resource requirements or turn some of the eye candy off.
Competition is usually a good thing but this is more of Google trying to stomp on Microsoft some as they have been trying everything to get into search more with bing and making it default on their browsers.
When a user doesn't have a choice of OS, browser and search engine then we can all scream that it is a conspiracy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290644</id>
	<title>How Can Someone Possibly Be That Stupid?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259669820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Why not just bundle Chrome with any Linux distro"</p><p>My god, it's late 2009. I can see your average dumbass teenage Slashdot poster asking something that stupid back in 1999. But today???</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Why not just bundle Chrome with any Linux distro " My god , it 's late 2009 .
I can see your average dumbass teenage Slashdot poster asking something that stupid back in 1999 .
But today ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Why not just bundle Chrome with any Linux distro"My god, it's late 2009.
I can see your average dumbass teenage Slashdot poster asking something that stupid back in 1999.
But today??
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30292884</id>
	<title>Re:Niche Product</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259683020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally I see it as a great nerf for viruses. Install vm chromium. Let granny surf and click whatever she wants. She gets a Trojan? So what. That dies when she closes the "browser". The promised low boot times make it competitive with current browsers. Not having a hdd don't matter at all.   Sandboxing at it's finest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally I see it as a great nerf for viruses .
Install vm chromium .
Let granny surf and click whatever she wants .
She gets a Trojan ?
So what .
That dies when she closes the " browser " .
The promised low boot times make it competitive with current browsers .
Not having a hdd do n't matter at all .
Sandboxing at it 's finest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally I see it as a great nerf for viruses.
Install vm chromium.
Let granny surf and click whatever she wants.
She gets a Trojan?
So what.
That dies when she closes the "browser".
The promised low boot times make it competitive with current browsers.
Not having a hdd don't matter at all.
Sandboxing at it's finest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30291174</id>
	<title>Re:A bad trade off.</title>
	<author>molecular</author>
	<datestamp>1259672340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Googles approach here has been tried many times in the past and I am betting this attempt will end like all the others in complete failure.</p></div><p>I bet 10 euros against that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Googles approach here has been tried many times in the past and I am betting this attempt will end like all the others in complete failure.I bet 10 euros against that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Googles approach here has been tried many times in the past and I am betting this attempt will end like all the others in complete failure.I bet 10 euros against that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30292892</id>
	<title>Re:The Network is the Computer</title>
	<author>moosesocks</author>
	<datestamp>1259683140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sun is a lot like a modern day PARC or Bell Labs.  They had some absolutely incredible ideas, with great brains behind them to make the technology work.  Unfortunately, they were <i>hopeless</i> at marketing these ideas.</p><p>I'm noticing Google begin to trend in this direction, which isn't surprising given that they now employ most of the well-known alumni of the three aforementioned companies.  However, Google's past successes (as well as some of their more promising projects such as the Go language) give me some hope.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sun is a lot like a modern day PARC or Bell Labs .
They had some absolutely incredible ideas , with great brains behind them to make the technology work .
Unfortunately , they were hopeless at marketing these ideas.I 'm noticing Google begin to trend in this direction , which is n't surprising given that they now employ most of the well-known alumni of the three aforementioned companies .
However , Google 's past successes ( as well as some of their more promising projects such as the Go language ) give me some hope .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sun is a lot like a modern day PARC or Bell Labs.
They had some absolutely incredible ideas, with great brains behind them to make the technology work.
Unfortunately, they were hopeless at marketing these ideas.I'm noticing Google begin to trend in this direction, which isn't surprising given that they now employ most of the well-known alumni of the three aforementioned companies.
However, Google's past successes (as well as some of their more promising projects such as the Go language) give me some hope.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290980</id>
	<title>Re:A bad trade off.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259671320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or you press "Print".</p><p>And if you really like the recipe, you three hole punch it, and put it into a binder for future use.</p><p>Because a piece of paper is WAY cheaper than a $200 netbook.</p><p>Yeesh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or you press " Print " .And if you really like the recipe , you three hole punch it , and put it into a binder for future use.Because a piece of paper is WAY cheaper than a $ 200 netbook.Yeesh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or you press "Print".And if you really like the recipe, you three hole punch it, and put it into a binder for future use.Because a piece of paper is WAY cheaper than a $200 netbook.Yeesh.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30291000</id>
	<title>Re:Why Chromium?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259671440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I, for one, welcome the our future Microsoft Labs Chair Overlords.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I , for one , welcome the our future Microsoft Labs Chair Overlords .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I, for one, welcome the our future Microsoft Labs Chair Overlords.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290162</id>
	<title>Re:A bad trade off.</title>
	<author>bloodhawk</author>
	<datestamp>1259667540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Googles approach here has been tried many times in the past and I am betting this attempt will end like all the others in complete failure. It is not that they are doing anything wrong, it is simply they are a solution looking for a problem that doesn't exist, i.e. there is no mass market desire out there for a limited machine that you MUST be connected to the web to work and cannot install applications on or store your data on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Googles approach here has been tried many times in the past and I am betting this attempt will end like all the others in complete failure .
It is not that they are doing anything wrong , it is simply they are a solution looking for a problem that does n't exist , i.e .
there is no mass market desire out there for a limited machine that you MUST be connected to the web to work and can not install applications on or store your data on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Googles approach here has been tried many times in the past and I am betting this attempt will end like all the others in complete failure.
It is not that they are doing anything wrong, it is simply they are a solution looking for a problem that doesn't exist, i.e.
there is no mass market desire out there for a limited machine that you MUST be connected to the web to work and cannot install applications on or store your data on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290556</id>
	<title>Re:Why Chromium?</title>
	<author>wile\_e8</author>
	<datestamp>1259669520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a Ubuntu user, I'd just be happy if it force a version of Silverlight for Linux that actually works (Yes, I've tried Moonlight.  No, it doesn't work for any of the streaming sports broadcasts I'd like to watch).  If making it pisses off Microsoft, everybody wins.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a Ubuntu user , I 'd just be happy if it force a version of Silverlight for Linux that actually works ( Yes , I 've tried Moonlight .
No , it does n't work for any of the streaming sports broadcasts I 'd like to watch ) .
If making it pisses off Microsoft , everybody wins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a Ubuntu user, I'd just be happy if it force a version of Silverlight for Linux that actually works (Yes, I've tried Moonlight.
No, it doesn't work for any of the streaming sports broadcasts I'd like to watch).
If making it pisses off Microsoft, everybody wins.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290238</id>
	<title>Re:Que? No comprede! Chromium OS doesn't make sens</title>
	<author>LOLLinux</author>
	<datestamp>1259667900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why not just bundle Chrome with any Linux distro. That way Google can make Chrome the default web browser for Linux by making it open sourced (I think it already is) and bundled with as many Linux distros as possible.</p></div><p>Because that doesn't allow them to restrict the machine to your Google account and only allow you to use Google services?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not just bundle Chrome with any Linux distro .
That way Google can make Chrome the default web browser for Linux by making it open sourced ( I think it already is ) and bundled with as many Linux distros as possible.Because that does n't allow them to restrict the machine to your Google account and only allow you to use Google services ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not just bundle Chrome with any Linux distro.
That way Google can make Chrome the default web browser for Linux by making it open sourced (I think it already is) and bundled with as many Linux distros as possible.Because that doesn't allow them to restrict the machine to your Google account and only allow you to use Google services?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290346</id>
	<title>Re:A bad trade off.</title>
	<author>peragrin</author>
	<datestamp>1259668440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't seem to understand chromeOS at all like most here on slashdot.   This isn't supposed to ever be your only computer/OS.  The hardware and OS for this is based on the fac tthat you already have two or three "desktop" style computers and want something that is easy to use.</p><p>While cooking isn't a slashdotter trait, Say you come across a really great recipe at your desk, but now you want to go make it?  well since it is online you could transfer it to your smart phone and squint at the screen as you try to make it.  You could take your expensive laptop into the kitchen but if that is stupid as kitchens have all sorts of nasty liquids and powders in them that can cause harm.  You might be willing to risk your hardware, but how about the data on the hard drive that just got trashed?</p><p>So now you can take a cheap(~$200 netbook maybe)  computer there access that data remotely(run your own webserver if you want).  and if you do destroy it only the hardware has to be dealt with.</p><p>personally the PC needs a major redesign anyways.  Every computer should have two HD's one for the OS and one for the user files and applications.  The OS system should always be mounted read only.  While not eliminating attacks it would help slow the spread of malware if a reboot would undo most of them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't seem to understand chromeOS at all like most here on slashdot .
This is n't supposed to ever be your only computer/OS .
The hardware and OS for this is based on the fac tthat you already have two or three " desktop " style computers and want something that is easy to use.While cooking is n't a slashdotter trait , Say you come across a really great recipe at your desk , but now you want to go make it ?
well since it is online you could transfer it to your smart phone and squint at the screen as you try to make it .
You could take your expensive laptop into the kitchen but if that is stupid as kitchens have all sorts of nasty liquids and powders in them that can cause harm .
You might be willing to risk your hardware , but how about the data on the hard drive that just got trashed ? So now you can take a cheap ( ~ $ 200 netbook maybe ) computer there access that data remotely ( run your own webserver if you want ) .
and if you do destroy it only the hardware has to be dealt with.personally the PC needs a major redesign anyways .
Every computer should have two HD 's one for the OS and one for the user files and applications .
The OS system should always be mounted read only .
While not eliminating attacks it would help slow the spread of malware if a reboot would undo most of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't seem to understand chromeOS at all like most here on slashdot.
This isn't supposed to ever be your only computer/OS.
The hardware and OS for this is based on the fac tthat you already have two or three "desktop" style computers and want something that is easy to use.While cooking isn't a slashdotter trait, Say you come across a really great recipe at your desk, but now you want to go make it?
well since it is online you could transfer it to your smart phone and squint at the screen as you try to make it.
You could take your expensive laptop into the kitchen but if that is stupid as kitchens have all sorts of nasty liquids and powders in them that can cause harm.
You might be willing to risk your hardware, but how about the data on the hard drive that just got trashed?So now you can take a cheap(~$200 netbook maybe)  computer there access that data remotely(run your own webserver if you want).
and if you do destroy it only the hardware has to be dealt with.personally the PC needs a major redesign anyways.
Every computer should have two HD's one for the OS and one for the user files and applications.
The OS system should always be mounted read only.
While not eliminating attacks it would help slow the spread of malware if a reboot would undo most of them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30298480</id>
	<title>Re:No, pissing off MS is not important</title>
	<author>ElSupreme</author>
	<datestamp>1259602380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hey at least<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.docx and the other Office file formats are an ISO standard. Open for anyone to implement now.<br>
As for the rest of MSFT software well some you can use, others you cant.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey at least .docx and the other Office file formats are an ISO standard .
Open for anyone to implement now .
As for the rest of MSFT software well some you can use , others you cant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey at least .docx and the other Office file formats are an ISO standard.
Open for anyone to implement now.
As for the rest of MSFT software well some you can use, others you cant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30291318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30295326</id>
	<title>Re:Diversity is good.</title>
	<author>micheas</author>
	<datestamp>1259579820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You do realize that chromium-os is more or less a special live cd of ubuntu right? (You basically have to install ubuntu in a jail to build it.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do realize that chromium-os is more or less a special live cd of ubuntu right ?
( You basically have to install ubuntu in a jail to build it .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do realize that chromium-os is more or less a special live cd of ubuntu right?
(You basically have to install ubuntu in a jail to build it.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30293876</id>
	<title>Re:More, more!</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1259691840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The more the merrier!</i> </p><p>This isn't how it looks to the retailer who has to decide how much shelf space to give the Chromium netbook.</p><p>How much he can afford to spend on advertising, service and support for another entry at the low end of the market.</p><p>Near the end of its last flirtation with Linux, Walmart.com found it necessary to black flag each Linux netbook it offered with a yellow-bordered bold-faced warning that your Windows software wouldn't run.</p><p>The best evidence that returns had become a problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The more the merrier !
This is n't how it looks to the retailer who has to decide how much shelf space to give the Chromium netbook.How much he can afford to spend on advertising , service and support for another entry at the low end of the market.Near the end of its last flirtation with Linux , Walmart.com found it necessary to black flag each Linux netbook it offered with a yellow-bordered bold-faced warning that your Windows software would n't run.The best evidence that returns had become a problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The more the merrier!
This isn't how it looks to the retailer who has to decide how much shelf space to give the Chromium netbook.How much he can afford to spend on advertising, service and support for another entry at the low end of the market.Near the end of its last flirtation with Linux, Walmart.com found it necessary to black flag each Linux netbook it offered with a yellow-bordered bold-faced warning that your Windows software wouldn't run.The best evidence that returns had become a problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289884</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290050</id>
	<title>Link doesn't work</title>
	<author>David Lazaro</author>
	<datestamp>1259667000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The link doesn't work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The link does n't work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The link doesn't work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30296014</id>
	<title>Re:Televisions, the next frontier!</title>
	<author>MtViewGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1259588100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Given that 1080p TV's have 1920x1080 resolution, they actually become very nice computer monitors. As such, making Chrome OS part of the operating system for a set top box for cable TV (or eventually a set top box for DirecTV or Dish Network) makes a lot of sense--imagine the Chrome OS interface controlling everything on your DirecTV set top box, including the built-in DVR, through essentially a browser interface.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Given that 1080p TV 's have 1920x1080 resolution , they actually become very nice computer monitors .
As such , making Chrome OS part of the operating system for a set top box for cable TV ( or eventually a set top box for DirecTV or Dish Network ) makes a lot of sense--imagine the Chrome OS interface controlling everything on your DirecTV set top box , including the built-in DVR , through essentially a browser interface .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given that 1080p TV's have 1920x1080 resolution, they actually become very nice computer monitors.
As such, making Chrome OS part of the operating system for a set top box for cable TV (or eventually a set top box for DirecTV or Dish Network) makes a lot of sense--imagine the Chrome OS interface controlling everything on your DirecTV set top box, including the built-in DVR, through essentially a browser interface.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30291318</id>
	<title>No, pissing off MS is not important</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259672940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If nothing else, it really pisses off Microsoft! In and of itself, doesn't that make it well worth it?</p></div></blockquote><p>No.</p><p>As a user, one of the most horrific problems with Microsoft (and Apple) is that when you use their products, you lose control.  The computer isn't really <em>yours</em> anymore, and it is not working primarily in your interests; it's working for Microsoft.  A lot of the time, it will do what you want, because MS wants you to be fairly happy as long as your interests do not conflict with theirs.  But when there is a conflict, then Microsoft's app will respect DRM flags, encourage you to save data in a format that competing apps cannot read, etc.</p><p>Google's is "pissing off Microsoft" by offering people a platform where they surrender control to Google instead of surrendering control to Microsoft.  Sure, it's nice to see Microsoft lose, but it doesn't mean <em>we</em> win.</p><p>I win when my applications work for me.  And I do that by running Free Software applications on my computer, not by running a Free OS and Free Terminal/Browser as a UI for Google's proprietary app.</p><p>At least with MS shit, people were eventually able to reverse-engineer file formats and protocols.  GOOD FUCKING LUCK reverse-engineering a file that is on Google's servers.</p><p>I think Google is shaping up to be the next enemy, just as bad as the old one.  I got free of MS about 10 years ago and I'm not going to re-enslave myself.  Just Say No.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If nothing else , it really pisses off Microsoft !
In and of itself , does n't that make it well worth it ? No.As a user , one of the most horrific problems with Microsoft ( and Apple ) is that when you use their products , you lose control .
The computer is n't really yours anymore , and it is not working primarily in your interests ; it 's working for Microsoft .
A lot of the time , it will do what you want , because MS wants you to be fairly happy as long as your interests do not conflict with theirs .
But when there is a conflict , then Microsoft 's app will respect DRM flags , encourage you to save data in a format that competing apps can not read , etc.Google 's is " pissing off Microsoft " by offering people a platform where they surrender control to Google instead of surrendering control to Microsoft .
Sure , it 's nice to see Microsoft lose , but it does n't mean we win.I win when my applications work for me .
And I do that by running Free Software applications on my computer , not by running a Free OS and Free Terminal/Browser as a UI for Google 's proprietary app.At least with MS shit , people were eventually able to reverse-engineer file formats and protocols .
GOOD FUCKING LUCK reverse-engineering a file that is on Google 's servers.I think Google is shaping up to be the next enemy , just as bad as the old one .
I got free of MS about 10 years ago and I 'm not going to re-enslave myself .
Just Say No .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If nothing else, it really pisses off Microsoft!
In and of itself, doesn't that make it well worth it?No.As a user, one of the most horrific problems with Microsoft (and Apple) is that when you use their products, you lose control.
The computer isn't really yours anymore, and it is not working primarily in your interests; it's working for Microsoft.
A lot of the time, it will do what you want, because MS wants you to be fairly happy as long as your interests do not conflict with theirs.
But when there is a conflict, then Microsoft's app will respect DRM flags, encourage you to save data in a format that competing apps cannot read, etc.Google's is "pissing off Microsoft" by offering people a platform where they surrender control to Google instead of surrendering control to Microsoft.
Sure, it's nice to see Microsoft lose, but it doesn't mean we win.I win when my applications work for me.
And I do that by running Free Software applications on my computer, not by running a Free OS and Free Terminal/Browser as a UI for Google's proprietary app.At least with MS shit, people were eventually able to reverse-engineer file formats and protocols.
GOOD FUCKING LUCK reverse-engineering a file that is on Google's servers.I think Google is shaping up to be the next enemy, just as bad as the old one.
I got free of MS about 10 years ago and I'm not going to re-enslave myself.
Just Say No.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290368</id>
	<title>Re:Diversity is good.</title>
	<author>V!NCENT</author>
	<datestamp>1259668500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I for one would wish that a fork would come into existence that would:<br>-Let it run on all Linux supported HW and not just Google approved HW<br>-Use the full potentional of a cloud OS but used local storage first and upload later<br>-Has a one-click-USB-storage-backup-solution-X(tm)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I for one would wish that a fork would come into existence that would : -Let it run on all Linux supported HW and not just Google approved HW-Use the full potentional of a cloud OS but used local storage first and upload later-Has a one-click-USB-storage-backup-solution-X ( tm )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I for one would wish that a fork would come into existence that would:-Let it run on all Linux supported HW and not just Google approved HW-Use the full potentional of a cloud OS but used local storage first and upload later-Has a one-click-USB-storage-backup-solution-X(tm)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30295782</id>
	<title>Re:A bad trade off.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259585340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>there is no mass market desire out there for a limited machine that you MUST be connected to the web to work and cannot install applications on or store your data on.</i></p><p>Well it's just as well that's not what ChromeOS is then, isn't it?</p><p>Gears will allow you to run web apps while disconnected.<br>Local storage will be available (on an SSD) and Google have stated that you will be able to (e.g.) store/play multimedia files while disconnected.</p><p>Note you are the 1,000,000th person to have made almost exactly this observation so far, so you win this week's stupid prize.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>there is no mass market desire out there for a limited machine that you MUST be connected to the web to work and can not install applications on or store your data on.Well it 's just as well that 's not what ChromeOS is then , is n't it ? Gears will allow you to run web apps while disconnected.Local storage will be available ( on an SSD ) and Google have stated that you will be able to ( e.g .
) store/play multimedia files while disconnected.Note you are the 1,000,000th person to have made almost exactly this observation so far , so you win this week 's stupid prize .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there is no mass market desire out there for a limited machine that you MUST be connected to the web to work and cannot install applications on or store your data on.Well it's just as well that's not what ChromeOS is then, isn't it?Gears will allow you to run web apps while disconnected.Local storage will be available (on an SSD) and Google have stated that you will be able to (e.g.
) store/play multimedia files while disconnected.Note you are the 1,000,000th person to have made almost exactly this observation so far, so you win this week's stupid prize.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290264</id>
	<title>Re:A bad trade off.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259668020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is one thing you can do with Chromium that you can't do elsewhere - not have to actually deal with things like programs, files, etc. (A second thing might be boot time, if that's actually any better.) From experience with recently setting up computers for some... unskilled folks, I can say that there is a very large market for computers that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/do/ go out of their way to remove things. The fewer options you have, the less you can do wrong. And a lot of people don't get a lot out of their computer because they fear doing something wrong with all that freedom.</p><p>I think the bet that Google is making is that enough people will want to make that sacrifice - privacy, security, reliability - in exchange for having the computer act like a more limited appliance. You or I might think "not being able to write programs or manage our own data" is a bad thing, but a fair number of people will see that as "not be confused with a bunch of programs, and have someone more competent than I manage my data."</p><p>I wouldn't use it, but I'm sure folks like my parents and grandparents would prefer it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is one thing you can do with Chromium that you ca n't do elsewhere - not have to actually deal with things like programs , files , etc .
( A second thing might be boot time , if that 's actually any better .
) From experience with recently setting up computers for some... unskilled folks , I can say that there is a very large market for computers that /do/ go out of their way to remove things .
The fewer options you have , the less you can do wrong .
And a lot of people do n't get a lot out of their computer because they fear doing something wrong with all that freedom.I think the bet that Google is making is that enough people will want to make that sacrifice - privacy , security , reliability - in exchange for having the computer act like a more limited appliance .
You or I might think " not being able to write programs or manage our own data " is a bad thing , but a fair number of people will see that as " not be confused with a bunch of programs , and have someone more competent than I manage my data .
" I would n't use it , but I 'm sure folks like my parents and grandparents would prefer it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is one thing you can do with Chromium that you can't do elsewhere - not have to actually deal with things like programs, files, etc.
(A second thing might be boot time, if that's actually any better.
) From experience with recently setting up computers for some... unskilled folks, I can say that there is a very large market for computers that /do/ go out of their way to remove things.
The fewer options you have, the less you can do wrong.
And a lot of people don't get a lot out of their computer because they fear doing something wrong with all that freedom.I think the bet that Google is making is that enough people will want to make that sacrifice - privacy, security, reliability - in exchange for having the computer act like a more limited appliance.
You or I might think "not being able to write programs or manage our own data" is a bad thing, but a fair number of people will see that as "not be confused with a bunch of programs, and have someone more competent than I manage my data.
"I wouldn't use it, but I'm sure folks like my parents and grandparents would prefer it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290508</id>
	<title>Re:Que? No comprede! Chromium OS doesn't make sens</title>
	<author>KarlHammar</author>
	<datestamp>1259669280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
Before stating that Chromium OS does not make sense and cannot be motivated, it would be fitting if you at least read up on what the goals of the project are. My understanding of it is that Chromium OS is intended for netbooks with an extremely fast boot time and a new take on system security (using mirrored system partitions that are updated one at a time, and so on). You may want to look through the Chromium OS web site (http://www.chromium.org/chromium-os), especially the videos related to security and boot speed. In short: Chromium OS might not be a better replacement for your current Linux/Firefox environment, but it may be a fitting solution for a different type of need. I can certainly imagine a ChromeOS-based laptop as a second computer, to bring on the road with me. Especially if it has some sort of 3G broadband built in.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Before stating that Chromium OS does not make sense and can not be motivated , it would be fitting if you at least read up on what the goals of the project are .
My understanding of it is that Chromium OS is intended for netbooks with an extremely fast boot time and a new take on system security ( using mirrored system partitions that are updated one at a time , and so on ) .
You may want to look through the Chromium OS web site ( http : //www.chromium.org/chromium-os ) , especially the videos related to security and boot speed .
In short : Chromium OS might not be a better replacement for your current Linux/Firefox environment , but it may be a fitting solution for a different type of need .
I can certainly imagine a ChromeOS-based laptop as a second computer , to bring on the road with me .
Especially if it has some sort of 3G broadband built in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Before stating that Chromium OS does not make sense and cannot be motivated, it would be fitting if you at least read up on what the goals of the project are.
My understanding of it is that Chromium OS is intended for netbooks with an extremely fast boot time and a new take on system security (using mirrored system partitions that are updated one at a time, and so on).
You may want to look through the Chromium OS web site (http://www.chromium.org/chromium-os), especially the videos related to security and boot speed.
In short: Chromium OS might not be a better replacement for your current Linux/Firefox environment, but it may be a fitting solution for a different type of need.
I can certainly imagine a ChromeOS-based laptop as a second computer, to bring on the road with me.
Especially if it has some sort of 3G broadband built in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290336</id>
	<title>Televisions, the next frontier!</title>
	<author>hemp</author>
	<datestamp>1259668440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am convinced that Google will work make Chrome in the TV market.  Quick boot time and lack of local apps all point to a non-traditional platform.</p><p>Throw in Youtube and Hulu and you have why Comcast is buying NBC.  Cable providers will quickly become irrelevant in a few years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am convinced that Google will work make Chrome in the TV market .
Quick boot time and lack of local apps all point to a non-traditional platform.Throw in Youtube and Hulu and you have why Comcast is buying NBC .
Cable providers will quickly become irrelevant in a few years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am convinced that Google will work make Chrome in the TV market.
Quick boot time and lack of local apps all point to a non-traditional platform.Throw in Youtube and Hulu and you have why Comcast is buying NBC.
Cable providers will quickly become irrelevant in a few years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290018</id>
	<title>Why Chromium?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259666820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>In the midst of all these options, do we need another operating system? We just might.</i> If nothing else, it really pisses off Microsoft! In and of itself, doesn't that make it well worth it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the midst of all these options , do we need another operating system ?
We just might .
If nothing else , it really pisses off Microsoft !
In and of itself , does n't that make it well worth it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the midst of all these options, do we need another operating system?
We just might.
If nothing else, it really pisses off Microsoft!
In and of itself, doesn't that make it well worth it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30291966</id>
	<title>Re:I want it - not for me, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259676600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't seem so hard: Stable linux distro (Debian?), readonly root fs, $HOME mounted with noexec, autologin enabled and fullscreen Chrome. You could probably do a custom CD in an hour or two.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't seem so hard : Stable linux distro ( Debian ?
) , readonly root fs , $ HOME mounted with noexec , autologin enabled and fullscreen Chrome .
You could probably do a custom CD in an hour or two .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't seem so hard: Stable linux distro (Debian?
), readonly root fs, $HOME mounted with noexec, autologin enabled and fullscreen Chrome.
You could probably do a custom CD in an hour or two.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30292490</id>
	<title>Like the iPhone</title>
	<author>obarthelemy</author>
	<datestamp>1259679960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the reasoning is the same as with the iPhone... and definitely does NOT apply to the slashdot crowd: think of your parents, siblings, non-geed friends...</p><p>The General Public is willing to sacrifice a lot of flexibility and confidentiality for<br>- ease of use<br>- ease of maintenance<br>- money<br>- coolness</p><p>This may seem anathema to us geeks... but when I get the monthly "my PC's not working" from my dad (ie: a video driver update messed the screen resolution and the icons are no longer in their usual place ^^), I understand how the concept can work in the marketplace. Confidentiality is a very vague concept, as long as no one gets their credit card number; Flexibility is of no import if they can do even only 50\% of what they want to do... right now they can do only 30\% because computers are so hard... and they're not even aware of the 10\% they're missing. My dad has an nice digital camera, but still hasn't ventured into posting pics online...</p><p>So I think Chrome OS will be a success. Mainly through MS and Linux fault: even with Apple hammering the point home again and again and again, they never focused on catering to our moms and dads and nieces and nephews.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the reasoning is the same as with the iPhone... and definitely does NOT apply to the slashdot crowd : think of your parents , siblings , non-geed friends...The General Public is willing to sacrifice a lot of flexibility and confidentiality for- ease of use- ease of maintenance- money- coolnessThis may seem anathema to us geeks... but when I get the monthly " my PC 's not working " from my dad ( ie : a video driver update messed the screen resolution and the icons are no longer in their usual place ^ ^ ) , I understand how the concept can work in the marketplace .
Confidentiality is a very vague concept , as long as no one gets their credit card number ; Flexibility is of no import if they can do even only 50 \ % of what they want to do... right now they can do only 30 \ % because computers are so hard... and they 're not even aware of the 10 \ % they 're missing .
My dad has an nice digital camera , but still has n't ventured into posting pics online...So I think Chrome OS will be a success .
Mainly through MS and Linux fault : even with Apple hammering the point home again and again and again , they never focused on catering to our moms and dads and nieces and nephews .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the reasoning is the same as with the iPhone... and definitely does NOT apply to the slashdot crowd: think of your parents, siblings, non-geed friends...The General Public is willing to sacrifice a lot of flexibility and confidentiality for- ease of use- ease of maintenance- money- coolnessThis may seem anathema to us geeks... but when I get the monthly "my PC's not working" from my dad (ie: a video driver update messed the screen resolution and the icons are no longer in their usual place ^^), I understand how the concept can work in the marketplace.
Confidentiality is a very vague concept, as long as no one gets their credit card number; Flexibility is of no import if they can do even only 50\% of what they want to do... right now they can do only 30\% because computers are so hard... and they're not even aware of the 10\% they're missing.
My dad has an nice digital camera, but still hasn't ventured into posting pics online...So I think Chrome OS will be a success.
Mainly through MS and Linux fault: even with Apple hammering the point home again and again and again, they never focused on catering to our moms and dads and nieces and nephews.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30292536</id>
	<title>Re:A bad trade off.</title>
	<author>jo42</author>
	<datestamp>1259680320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All normal people will print out the recipe on their ink jet printer and take the printed copy to the kitchen to make it.</p><p>Only a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.tard would take a netbook or laptop into the kitchen and gunge up the keyboard with ingredients.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All normal people will print out the recipe on their ink jet printer and take the printed copy to the kitchen to make it.Only a /.tard would take a netbook or laptop into the kitchen and gunge up the keyboard with ingredients .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All normal people will print out the recipe on their ink jet printer and take the printed copy to the kitchen to make it.Only a /.tard would take a netbook or laptop into the kitchen and gunge up the keyboard with ingredients.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30293884</id>
	<title>The Future of Consumer Computing is in your Pocket</title>
	<author>Ryyuajnin</author>
	<datestamp>1259691900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Chrome OS/Android. To Google, it is a seed of the future.
<br> <br>
The Intelligent, Long-sighted, Deep-pocketed folks over at Google KNOW that consumer computing hardware of the future will shrink into an small device that will fit into your pocket, or maybe even on your key ring.
<br> <br>
This device could easily find its self immersed in an intimate relationship with almost every aspect of your life, enhancing, and binding with almost any technology that you use in your day to day life. At first, it will just be your Home computer delivered into your pocket. Wireless docking with your Internet/peripherals/power will set you free, and an new era of technology will be born.
<br> <br>
Next will be stuff like your car... and then your eye glasses... and HD Television... and so on and so on. In 20 years, This device that you today call your phone, could very likely end up knowing you better than your own Mother.
<br> <br>
For all we know, Google may be the womb of the Singularity, and Android is simply a graft.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Chrome OS/Android .
To Google , it is a seed of the future .
The Intelligent , Long-sighted , Deep-pocketed folks over at Google KNOW that consumer computing hardware of the future will shrink into an small device that will fit into your pocket , or maybe even on your key ring .
This device could easily find its self immersed in an intimate relationship with almost every aspect of your life , enhancing , and binding with almost any technology that you use in your day to day life .
At first , it will just be your Home computer delivered into your pocket .
Wireless docking with your Internet/peripherals/power will set you free , and an new era of technology will be born .
Next will be stuff like your car... and then your eye glasses... and HD Television... and so on and so on .
In 20 years , This device that you today call your phone , could very likely end up knowing you better than your own Mother .
For all we know , Google may be the womb of the Singularity , and Android is simply a graft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chrome OS/Android.
To Google, it is a seed of the future.
The Intelligent, Long-sighted, Deep-pocketed folks over at Google KNOW that consumer computing hardware of the future will shrink into an small device that will fit into your pocket, or maybe even on your key ring.
This device could easily find its self immersed in an intimate relationship with almost every aspect of your life, enhancing, and binding with almost any technology that you use in your day to day life.
At first, it will just be your Home computer delivered into your pocket.
Wireless docking with your Internet/peripherals/power will set you free, and an new era of technology will be born.
Next will be stuff like your car... and then your eye glasses... and HD Television... and so on and so on.
In 20 years, This device that you today call your phone, could very likely end up knowing you better than your own Mother.
For all we know, Google may be the womb of the Singularity, and Android is simply a graft.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30292602</id>
	<title>Re:Televisions, the next frontier!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259680800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Very good point.</p><p>Embedded systems are about to be ubiquitous: my current TV has an Opera browser, also my PS3 and my Nintendo DSi have the Opera browser embedded.</p><p>Chromium might be a step forward compared to Opera in providing a modern personal computer experience on those systems.<br>But it's kind of alarming that Google ignores UPnP for such systems (which as a platform already integrates XHTML and browsing experiences) and instead wants us to see (YouTube player or any web player) as a full-featured Media Player.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Very good point.Embedded systems are about to be ubiquitous : my current TV has an Opera browser , also my PS3 and my Nintendo DSi have the Opera browser embedded.Chromium might be a step forward compared to Opera in providing a modern personal computer experience on those systems.But it 's kind of alarming that Google ignores UPnP for such systems ( which as a platform already integrates XHTML and browsing experiences ) and instead wants us to see ( YouTube player or any web player ) as a full-featured Media Player .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very good point.Embedded systems are about to be ubiquitous: my current TV has an Opera browser, also my PS3 and my Nintendo DSi have the Opera browser embedded.Chromium might be a step forward compared to Opera in providing a modern personal computer experience on those systems.But it's kind of alarming that Google ignores UPnP for such systems (which as a platform already integrates XHTML and browsing experiences) and instead wants us to see (YouTube player or any web player) as a full-featured Media Player.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290296</id>
	<title>Re:A bad trade off.</title>
	<author>frank\_adrian314159</author>
	<datestamp>1259668140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>That isn't a bad thing but they are doing it by limiting what you can do with it.</i> </p><p>In most circles, limiting functionality to what the majority of targeted customers need, rather than trying to satisfy the needs of any and all potential customers is seen as economical engineering design.  Tell me why every Windows user needs administrative tools allowing them to add users to their system.  Or why I need an event viewer, even if I have no idea what a system event is or how to deal with it.</p><p>The bottom line is that most computer systems are over-featured and under-designed for most users.  In fact, one might see most of the superfluous features creating more potential security, misconfiguration, and difficulty of use issues than their (supposedly inherent) usefulness provides.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is n't a bad thing but they are doing it by limiting what you can do with it .
In most circles , limiting functionality to what the majority of targeted customers need , rather than trying to satisfy the needs of any and all potential customers is seen as economical engineering design .
Tell me why every Windows user needs administrative tools allowing them to add users to their system .
Or why I need an event viewer , even if I have no idea what a system event is or how to deal with it.The bottom line is that most computer systems are over-featured and under-designed for most users .
In fact , one might see most of the superfluous features creating more potential security , misconfiguration , and difficulty of use issues than their ( supposedly inherent ) usefulness provides .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That isn't a bad thing but they are doing it by limiting what you can do with it.
In most circles, limiting functionality to what the majority of targeted customers need, rather than trying to satisfy the needs of any and all potential customers is seen as economical engineering design.
Tell me why every Windows user needs administrative tools allowing them to add users to their system.
Or why I need an event viewer, even if I have no idea what a system event is or how to deal with it.The bottom line is that most computer systems are over-featured and under-designed for most users.
In fact, one might see most of the superfluous features creating more potential security, misconfiguration, and difficulty of use issues than their (supposedly inherent) usefulness provides.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30295100</id>
	<title>Build it into monitors, TVs or KVM switches</title>
	<author>DeBaas</author>
	<datestamp>1259576760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would love to have this in my monitor. Turn it on, within a couple of seconds I can do most things while I wait for the computer to boot, fsck etc. Especially when I'm tinkering around with the desktop and have to deal with reboots. Just make sure that it shares keyboard and mouse with the desktop. (sort of a build in KVM in the Monitor)<br>I think there will be many times that I wouldn't even boot the desktop anymore. Especially If I just want to do some quick email checking etc.</p><p>In a (HD)TV this would also be great. Headers of new mail running at the bottom of the screen just like breaking news in news channels. If such an email triggers you, just put Chrome OS full screen and (if combined with a wireless keyboard), read the whole mail, maybe look something up on the internet etc.</p><p>If you add virtualisation, you could also use it in your dekstop. Chrome OS as the host, and then run vms of full desktops as you please but you would still be online quickly while you wait for vms to load</p><p>It is not gonna replace my desktop OS. But I see a lot of potential!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would love to have this in my monitor .
Turn it on , within a couple of seconds I can do most things while I wait for the computer to boot , fsck etc .
Especially when I 'm tinkering around with the desktop and have to deal with reboots .
Just make sure that it shares keyboard and mouse with the desktop .
( sort of a build in KVM in the Monitor ) I think there will be many times that I would n't even boot the desktop anymore .
Especially If I just want to do some quick email checking etc.In a ( HD ) TV this would also be great .
Headers of new mail running at the bottom of the screen just like breaking news in news channels .
If such an email triggers you , just put Chrome OS full screen and ( if combined with a wireless keyboard ) , read the whole mail , maybe look something up on the internet etc.If you add virtualisation , you could also use it in your dekstop .
Chrome OS as the host , and then run vms of full desktops as you please but you would still be online quickly while you wait for vms to loadIt is not gon na replace my desktop OS .
But I see a lot of potential !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would love to have this in my monitor.
Turn it on, within a couple of seconds I can do most things while I wait for the computer to boot, fsck etc.
Especially when I'm tinkering around with the desktop and have to deal with reboots.
Just make sure that it shares keyboard and mouse with the desktop.
(sort of a build in KVM in the Monitor)I think there will be many times that I wouldn't even boot the desktop anymore.
Especially If I just want to do some quick email checking etc.In a (HD)TV this would also be great.
Headers of new mail running at the bottom of the screen just like breaking news in news channels.
If such an email triggers you, just put Chrome OS full screen and (if combined with a wireless keyboard), read the whole mail, maybe look something up on the internet etc.If you add virtualisation, you could also use it in your dekstop.
Chrome OS as the host, and then run vms of full desktops as you please but you would still be online quickly while you wait for vms to loadIt is not gonna replace my desktop OS.
But I see a lot of potential!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30291376</id>
	<title>Re:Que? No comprede! Chromium OS doesn't make sens</title>
	<author>yelvington</author>
	<datestamp>1259673300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What makes Chrome better than say Firefox? When I did web site testing I didn't see a speed difference between Firefox and Chrome.</p></div><p>I'm a longtime Firefox fan, but I've been running the developer preview of Chrome on Linux for the last several weeks. The speed difference is <em>awesome.</em> Chrome is up and running and off to the races before the Fox gets out of bed. I didn't expect to be impressed, but now I've switched my desktop and my laptop to use Chrome as the default browser.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> What benefits and features can Chrome and Chromium OS give me that Linux and Firefox cannot? What benefits and features can Chrome and Chromium OS give me that Linux and Firefox cannot?</p></div><p>Google is pushing a Web-centric world where there are no desktops and no local apps. If you love your local apps, you're not going to like that.</p><p>But in Google's world you would be liberated from software updates, application vulnerabilities, incompatible file formats, the special hell of device drivers, and the occasional moment of "oh crap, I left that report on the computer at home." Everything would Just Work, everywhere, and you would get to it from any computer and/or that blister-packed $150 netpad you picked up from Walmart (ARM cpu, touchscreen, no hard disk) or your phone or somebody else's computer.</p><p>Yeah, you'd need the Internet to make it work. As if computers were interesting/useful without it? And don't forget that Gears can erase the distinction between "online" and "offline" for many applications, including for example Google Docs.</p><p>Naturally the makers of $2400 computers and $800 software suites aren't going to like that world. I'm not sure I would, either, but I'm certainly not opposed to having the choice.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What makes Chrome better than say Firefox ?
When I did web site testing I did n't see a speed difference between Firefox and Chrome.I 'm a longtime Firefox fan , but I 've been running the developer preview of Chrome on Linux for the last several weeks .
The speed difference is awesome .
Chrome is up and running and off to the races before the Fox gets out of bed .
I did n't expect to be impressed , but now I 've switched my desktop and my laptop to use Chrome as the default browser .
What benefits and features can Chrome and Chromium OS give me that Linux and Firefox can not ?
What benefits and features can Chrome and Chromium OS give me that Linux and Firefox can not ? Google is pushing a Web-centric world where there are no desktops and no local apps .
If you love your local apps , you 're not going to like that.But in Google 's world you would be liberated from software updates , application vulnerabilities , incompatible file formats , the special hell of device drivers , and the occasional moment of " oh crap , I left that report on the computer at home .
" Everything would Just Work , everywhere , and you would get to it from any computer and/or that blister-packed $ 150 netpad you picked up from Walmart ( ARM cpu , touchscreen , no hard disk ) or your phone or somebody else 's computer.Yeah , you 'd need the Internet to make it work .
As if computers were interesting/useful without it ?
And do n't forget that Gears can erase the distinction between " online " and " offline " for many applications , including for example Google Docs.Naturally the makers of $ 2400 computers and $ 800 software suites are n't going to like that world .
I 'm not sure I would , either , but I 'm certainly not opposed to having the choice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What makes Chrome better than say Firefox?
When I did web site testing I didn't see a speed difference between Firefox and Chrome.I'm a longtime Firefox fan, but I've been running the developer preview of Chrome on Linux for the last several weeks.
The speed difference is awesome.
Chrome is up and running and off to the races before the Fox gets out of bed.
I didn't expect to be impressed, but now I've switched my desktop and my laptop to use Chrome as the default browser.
What benefits and features can Chrome and Chromium OS give me that Linux and Firefox cannot?
What benefits and features can Chrome and Chromium OS give me that Linux and Firefox cannot?Google is pushing a Web-centric world where there are no desktops and no local apps.
If you love your local apps, you're not going to like that.But in Google's world you would be liberated from software updates, application vulnerabilities, incompatible file formats, the special hell of device drivers, and the occasional moment of "oh crap, I left that report on the computer at home.
" Everything would Just Work, everywhere, and you would get to it from any computer and/or that blister-packed $150 netpad you picked up from Walmart (ARM cpu, touchscreen, no hard disk) or your phone or somebody else's computer.Yeah, you'd need the Internet to make it work.
As if computers were interesting/useful without it?
And don't forget that Gears can erase the distinction between "online" and "offline" for many applications, including for example Google Docs.Naturally the makers of $2400 computers and $800 software suites aren't going to like that world.
I'm not sure I would, either, but I'm certainly not opposed to having the choice.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290502</id>
	<title>I want it - not for me, but...</title>
	<author>RobertB-DC</author>
	<datestamp>1259669220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I want Chromium OS to come out NOW*, if not sooner.  Not for me -- I can install Puppy Linux and play around with dependencies and the like, learning from my mistakes.  Heck, I can even run Windows without getting more than a virus or two per decade.</p><p>No, I want it for the sweet little old lady who lived a few doors down in my old apartment complex.  She doesn't know the first thing about computers.  She sends email like a whirling dervish of glurge -- I had to set up my Gmail to filter messages from her into a special folder, which gets several messages a day of "inspirational" forwards (half of which actually end up in the spam folder), her original poetry (kinda sweet, actually), and bizarre, rabid anti-Obama hate messages (massive pile of WTF).</p><p>Even after several rounds of explanation, she doesn't know the difference between "a computer" and "the internet".  The concept of an "operating system" is absolutely impossible to comprehend -- it has no meaning.  She doesn't *need* desktop applications -- she doesn't even know that they *are* desktop applications.</p><p>I set her up with a Puppy Linux installation, but that computer died and her family bought her a $40 box with some old, unpatched version of Windows on it.  It met the expected fate, and she called me to ask what to do next.  I recommended a $99 XP box from Micro Center, and set it up for her with "her" login lacking Admin rights (no installing software without going to the password-protected "Admin" login!).  And because she really doesn't do anything but play online games, check the lottery, and send massive volumes of email, I put Google Chrome in her Startup folder -- maximized.</p><p>But I still got a call over the holiday... from her daughter, asking about anti-virus software.  A good investment, but this sweet lady is on a fixed income, and I doubt she'll be able to come up with $40 a year for <a href="http://www.f-secure.com/en\_US/products/home-office/antivirus/" title="f-secure.com">F-Secure Antivirus</a> [f-secure.com].  More likely, she would buy it but never renew it, so she'd just be delaying the inevitable.</p><p>Please, Google... give me Chromium OS, for the sweet lady in the downstairs apartment.  She needs it.  And I need it, so that I can go back to deleting the latest "news" about the coming Obamapocalypse.</p><p>* Yes, I know it's Open Source, I could compile my own.  With the time I have available for such a project (none), the chances of me doing it right are about as high as getting that sweet lady to quit worrying about Obama's birth certificate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I want Chromium OS to come out NOW * , if not sooner .
Not for me -- I can install Puppy Linux and play around with dependencies and the like , learning from my mistakes .
Heck , I can even run Windows without getting more than a virus or two per decade.No , I want it for the sweet little old lady who lived a few doors down in my old apartment complex .
She does n't know the first thing about computers .
She sends email like a whirling dervish of glurge -- I had to set up my Gmail to filter messages from her into a special folder , which gets several messages a day of " inspirational " forwards ( half of which actually end up in the spam folder ) , her original poetry ( kinda sweet , actually ) , and bizarre , rabid anti-Obama hate messages ( massive pile of WTF ) .Even after several rounds of explanation , she does n't know the difference between " a computer " and " the internet " .
The concept of an " operating system " is absolutely impossible to comprehend -- it has no meaning .
She does n't * need * desktop applications -- she does n't even know that they * are * desktop applications.I set her up with a Puppy Linux installation , but that computer died and her family bought her a $ 40 box with some old , unpatched version of Windows on it .
It met the expected fate , and she called me to ask what to do next .
I recommended a $ 99 XP box from Micro Center , and set it up for her with " her " login lacking Admin rights ( no installing software without going to the password-protected " Admin " login ! ) .
And because she really does n't do anything but play online games , check the lottery , and send massive volumes of email , I put Google Chrome in her Startup folder -- maximized.But I still got a call over the holiday... from her daughter , asking about anti-virus software .
A good investment , but this sweet lady is on a fixed income , and I doubt she 'll be able to come up with $ 40 a year for F-Secure Antivirus [ f-secure.com ] .
More likely , she would buy it but never renew it , so she 'd just be delaying the inevitable.Please , Google... give me Chromium OS , for the sweet lady in the downstairs apartment .
She needs it .
And I need it , so that I can go back to deleting the latest " news " about the coming Obamapocalypse .
* Yes , I know it 's Open Source , I could compile my own .
With the time I have available for such a project ( none ) , the chances of me doing it right are about as high as getting that sweet lady to quit worrying about Obama 's birth certificate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want Chromium OS to come out NOW*, if not sooner.
Not for me -- I can install Puppy Linux and play around with dependencies and the like, learning from my mistakes.
Heck, I can even run Windows without getting more than a virus or two per decade.No, I want it for the sweet little old lady who lived a few doors down in my old apartment complex.
She doesn't know the first thing about computers.
She sends email like a whirling dervish of glurge -- I had to set up my Gmail to filter messages from her into a special folder, which gets several messages a day of "inspirational" forwards (half of which actually end up in the spam folder), her original poetry (kinda sweet, actually), and bizarre, rabid anti-Obama hate messages (massive pile of WTF).Even after several rounds of explanation, she doesn't know the difference between "a computer" and "the internet".
The concept of an "operating system" is absolutely impossible to comprehend -- it has no meaning.
She doesn't *need* desktop applications -- she doesn't even know that they *are* desktop applications.I set her up with a Puppy Linux installation, but that computer died and her family bought her a $40 box with some old, unpatched version of Windows on it.
It met the expected fate, and she called me to ask what to do next.
I recommended a $99 XP box from Micro Center, and set it up for her with "her" login lacking Admin rights (no installing software without going to the password-protected "Admin" login!).
And because she really doesn't do anything but play online games, check the lottery, and send massive volumes of email, I put Google Chrome in her Startup folder -- maximized.But I still got a call over the holiday... from her daughter, asking about anti-virus software.
A good investment, but this sweet lady is on a fixed income, and I doubt she'll be able to come up with $40 a year for F-Secure Antivirus [f-secure.com].
More likely, she would buy it but never renew it, so she'd just be delaying the inevitable.Please, Google... give me Chromium OS, for the sweet lady in the downstairs apartment.
She needs it.
And I need it, so that I can go back to deleting the latest "news" about the coming Obamapocalypse.
* Yes, I know it's Open Source, I could compile my own.
With the time I have available for such a project (none), the chances of me doing it right are about as high as getting that sweet lady to quit worrying about Obama's birth certificate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290736</id>
	<title>Re:Que? No comprede! Chromium OS doesn't make sens</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1259670300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find Chrome to be twice as fast as Firefox in terms of startup time (both first time (from HD) and subsequent (from RAM)). Chrome OS, in its finished form, will have a similar advantage (3 sec bootup vs. 10-100). Also, I find the Chrome browser's UI better - it doesn't waste 6 lines of screen space like Firefox.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find Chrome to be twice as fast as Firefox in terms of startup time ( both first time ( from HD ) and subsequent ( from RAM ) ) .
Chrome OS , in its finished form , will have a similar advantage ( 3 sec bootup vs. 10-100 ) . Also , I find the Chrome browser 's UI better - it does n't waste 6 lines of screen space like Firefox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find Chrome to be twice as fast as Firefox in terms of startup time (both first time (from HD) and subsequent (from RAM)).
Chrome OS, in its finished form, will have a similar advantage (3 sec bootup vs. 10-100). Also, I find the Chrome browser's UI better - it doesn't waste 6 lines of screen space like Firefox.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289988</id>
	<title>A bad trade off.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259666760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is going in a more Apple way than Apple. Google is going to try to make something that will just work. That isn't a bad thing but they are doing it by limiting what you can do with it.<br>As far as features go what can you do with with this OS you can not do with with Linux, OS/X, or WIndows7 with Chrome installed?<br>Nothing that I can see so far.<br>What can you do with those other OS's? Simple you can write code and run software native. I can install apps! Better yet I can sell apps.<br>I see this a  Google's big flop. I could be wrong but I think they blew this one.<br>Now if they just made a good Netbook version of Linux and installed an App store I think it could have been a killer. Maybe Android with an apps store if they would give me a c++ compiler for there java vm ISA and ported QT and GTK.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is going in a more Apple way than Apple .
Google is going to try to make something that will just work .
That is n't a bad thing but they are doing it by limiting what you can do with it.As far as features go what can you do with with this OS you can not do with with Linux , OS/X , or WIndows7 with Chrome installed ? Nothing that I can see so far.What can you do with those other OS 's ?
Simple you can write code and run software native .
I can install apps !
Better yet I can sell apps.I see this a Google 's big flop .
I could be wrong but I think they blew this one.Now if they just made a good Netbook version of Linux and installed an App store I think it could have been a killer .
Maybe Android with an apps store if they would give me a c + + compiler for there java vm ISA and ported QT and GTK .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is going in a more Apple way than Apple.
Google is going to try to make something that will just work.
That isn't a bad thing but they are doing it by limiting what you can do with it.As far as features go what can you do with with this OS you can not do with with Linux, OS/X, or WIndows7 with Chrome installed?Nothing that I can see so far.What can you do with those other OS's?
Simple you can write code and run software native.
I can install apps!
Better yet I can sell apps.I see this a  Google's big flop.
I could be wrong but I think they blew this one.Now if they just made a good Netbook version of Linux and installed an App store I think it could have been a killer.
Maybe Android with an apps store if they would give me a c++ compiler for there java vm ISA and ported QT and GTK.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289888</id>
	<title>Diversity is good.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259666340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Regardless of how many existing approaches there might be to a given problem, another "hat in the ring" is a good thing. Things change fast in tech, and who knows where Chromium might go in the future? Diversity fosters competition and improvements.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Regardless of how many existing approaches there might be to a given problem , another " hat in the ring " is a good thing .
Things change fast in tech , and who knows where Chromium might go in the future ?
Diversity fosters competition and improvements .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Regardless of how many existing approaches there might be to a given problem, another "hat in the ring" is a good thing.
Things change fast in tech, and who knows where Chromium might go in the future?
Diversity fosters competition and improvements.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30293256</id>
	<title>Smells like an Apple play</title>
	<author>invisik</author>
	<datestamp>1259686560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This sounds like an Apple move.  Create an OS you control on (mostly) controlled  hardware.. but then add the kicker of then controlling the other end of the internet as well.</p><p>It works, sure.  It's just as annoying though--you're stuffed into their box instead of Apple's.  Open source or not, Google is at the head.</p><p>I think if I had to change from a Microsoft environment I'd switch to a full Linux distro (I've done it before).  More flexibility.</p><p>-m</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This sounds like an Apple move .
Create an OS you control on ( mostly ) controlled hardware.. but then add the kicker of then controlling the other end of the internet as well.It works , sure .
It 's just as annoying though--you 're stuffed into their box instead of Apple 's .
Open source or not , Google is at the head.I think if I had to change from a Microsoft environment I 'd switch to a full Linux distro ( I 've done it before ) .
More flexibility.-m</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sounds like an Apple move.
Create an OS you control on (mostly) controlled  hardware.. but then add the kicker of then controlling the other end of the internet as well.It works, sure.
It's just as annoying though--you're stuffed into their box instead of Apple's.
Open source or not, Google is at the head.I think if I had to change from a Microsoft environment I'd switch to a full Linux distro (I've done it before).
More flexibility.-m</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30294046</id>
	<title>Re:Diversity is good.</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1259693640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Classic authoritarian mistake of thinking, if I just kill off some dudes pet project, then he will do exactly what I want.</i> </p><p>What you want is to see him dead and buried.</p><p>But it may be enough to get his pet projects removed from the default Ubuntu distro.</p><p>Say good-bye to the GIMP.</p><p> Say hello to light-weight photo editing apps with an attractive and serviceable UI. Something along the lines of Paint.NET.</p><p>Shed the GIMP's excess baggage along the way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Classic authoritarian mistake of thinking , if I just kill off some dudes pet project , then he will do exactly what I want .
What you want is to see him dead and buried.But it may be enough to get his pet projects removed from the default Ubuntu distro.Say good-bye to the GIMP .
Say hello to light-weight photo editing apps with an attractive and serviceable UI .
Something along the lines of Paint.NET.Shed the GIMP 's excess baggage along the way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Classic authoritarian mistake of thinking, if I just kill off some dudes pet project, then he will do exactly what I want.
What you want is to see him dead and buried.But it may be enough to get his pet projects removed from the default Ubuntu distro.Say good-bye to the GIMP.
Say hello to light-weight photo editing apps with an attractive and serviceable UI.
Something along the lines of Paint.NET.Shed the GIMP's excess baggage along the way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30303940</id>
	<title>Re:A bad trade off.</title>
	<author>LWATCDR</author>
	<datestamp>1259580060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And why couldn't that $200 netbook run Linux so that I could install applications and Chrome or Firefox to use the net apps?<br>Also just what newbe has their own web server at home?<br>Also just how bad is your smart phone that you think you would have a hard time reading a recipe?</p><p>Of course I could also just copy it to my ebook reader if my phone is too hard to read.</p><p>Also you do know that "keeping recipes" was one of those things people said they could do with their Apple Is in the late 70s right?</p><p>There is nothing that Chrome can do that another OS can't. That is my big complaint about it. You can not install apps so it becomes just a terminal.</p><p>I do love that I got modded down as a troll for daring to say that an OS that will not let you install apps is limited. If Microsoft or Apple suggested the same thing I would have gotten at least a 3.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And why could n't that $ 200 netbook run Linux so that I could install applications and Chrome or Firefox to use the net apps ? Also just what newbe has their own web server at home ? Also just how bad is your smart phone that you think you would have a hard time reading a recipe ? Of course I could also just copy it to my ebook reader if my phone is too hard to read.Also you do know that " keeping recipes " was one of those things people said they could do with their Apple Is in the late 70s right ? There is nothing that Chrome can do that another OS ca n't .
That is my big complaint about it .
You can not install apps so it becomes just a terminal.I do love that I got modded down as a troll for daring to say that an OS that will not let you install apps is limited .
If Microsoft or Apple suggested the same thing I would have gotten at least a 3 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And why couldn't that $200 netbook run Linux so that I could install applications and Chrome or Firefox to use the net apps?Also just what newbe has their own web server at home?Also just how bad is your smart phone that you think you would have a hard time reading a recipe?Of course I could also just copy it to my ebook reader if my phone is too hard to read.Also you do know that "keeping recipes" was one of those things people said they could do with their Apple Is in the late 70s right?There is nothing that Chrome can do that another OS can't.
That is my big complaint about it.
You can not install apps so it becomes just a terminal.I do love that I got modded down as a troll for daring to say that an OS that will not let you install apps is limited.
If Microsoft or Apple suggested the same thing I would have gotten at least a 3.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30293922</id>
	<title>Re:The real reason</title>
	<author>nomagnettowomen</author>
	<datestamp>1259692320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have a device like this. It is in my pocket when I am at work and at my bedside when I sleep. It is my iPod. It has a non-Windows operating system and a non-traditional user interface. It has a ton of applications, and around half of them need the internet (is that pronounced "c-l-o-u-d" now?)  It has more than a few games, which seem to consume a similar amount of user-lifetime-hours that the fancy graphics intensive games consume.

It runs google apps - I can edit google docs, and see google maps, and check out google earth. I didn't know I wanted one until my wife gave it to me, now she might divorce me because I love it more than her.

Although not perfect (can't print, devoid of flash games, typing could be improved), it proves that there is a market for the kind of handy internet appliance that keeps being advertised as the Next Big Thing.


My point, and I did indeed have one, is that this market cares less about OS features than the average reader of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/..</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a device like this .
It is in my pocket when I am at work and at my bedside when I sleep .
It is my iPod .
It has a non-Windows operating system and a non-traditional user interface .
It has a ton of applications , and around half of them need the internet ( is that pronounced " c-l-o-u-d " now ?
) It has more than a few games , which seem to consume a similar amount of user-lifetime-hours that the fancy graphics intensive games consume .
It runs google apps - I can edit google docs , and see google maps , and check out google earth .
I did n't know I wanted one until my wife gave it to me , now she might divorce me because I love it more than her .
Although not perfect ( ca n't print , devoid of flash games , typing could be improved ) , it proves that there is a market for the kind of handy internet appliance that keeps being advertised as the Next Big Thing .
My point , and I did indeed have one , is that this market cares less about OS features than the average reader of /. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a device like this.
It is in my pocket when I am at work and at my bedside when I sleep.
It is my iPod.
It has a non-Windows operating system and a non-traditional user interface.
It has a ton of applications, and around half of them need the internet (is that pronounced "c-l-o-u-d" now?
)  It has more than a few games, which seem to consume a similar amount of user-lifetime-hours that the fancy graphics intensive games consume.
It runs google apps - I can edit google docs, and see google maps, and check out google earth.
I didn't know I wanted one until my wife gave it to me, now she might divorce me because I love it more than her.
Although not perfect (can't print, devoid of flash games, typing could be improved), it proves that there is a market for the kind of handy internet appliance that keeps being advertised as the Next Big Thing.
My point, and I did indeed have one, is that this market cares less about OS features than the average reader of /..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30295978</id>
	<title>Re:Niche Product</title>
	<author>MtViewGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1259587620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In fact, Chrome OS is designed specifically for lower-end products where people have close access to an 802.11g/n Wi-Fi link, for example in schools or the numerous Wi-Fi hot spots in public gathering places. It's not designed to work a lot offline like you get with machines loaded with real Linux distrubutions, Windows XP/7, or even MacOS X 10.6.x.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In fact , Chrome OS is designed specifically for lower-end products where people have close access to an 802.11g/n Wi-Fi link , for example in schools or the numerous Wi-Fi hot spots in public gathering places .
It 's not designed to work a lot offline like you get with machines loaded with real Linux distrubutions , Windows XP/7 , or even MacOS X 10.6.x .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In fact, Chrome OS is designed specifically for lower-end products where people have close access to an 802.11g/n Wi-Fi link, for example in schools or the numerous Wi-Fi hot spots in public gathering places.
It's not designed to work a lot offline like you get with machines loaded with real Linux distrubutions, Windows XP/7, or even MacOS X 10.6.x.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290490</id>
	<title>Don't like some "features"</title>
	<author>ZDRuX</author>
	<datestamp>1259669160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the article:<br> <br>

<i>To summarize the sales pitch: Chromium gets rid of all the crusty old legacy garbage, moves storage online where it's both universally available and backed up, provides a platform that finally integrates browser and OS, all while providing a fabulous, multimedia-rich online experience. <b>Everything you currently do offline will be available online, seamlessly provided by a content platform that presents a universal, standards-based framework rather than a hodgepodge of browsers, security bugs, and broken standards support.</b> </i>(Emphasis mine)<br> <br>
I'm not sure I like the idea of having no harddrives on my next computer and having everything I write stored off-site in someone's data center, but then again my daily fashion includes a hat made wholly out of tinfoil, as do most of the users here.<br> <br>
This may be good for public terminals and older-type folk, but certainly not for us nerds.</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article : To summarize the sales pitch : Chromium gets rid of all the crusty old legacy garbage , moves storage online where it 's both universally available and backed up , provides a platform that finally integrates browser and OS , all while providing a fabulous , multimedia-rich online experience .
Everything you currently do offline will be available online , seamlessly provided by a content platform that presents a universal , standards-based framework rather than a hodgepodge of browsers , security bugs , and broken standards support .
( Emphasis mine ) I 'm not sure I like the idea of having no harddrives on my next computer and having everything I write stored off-site in someone 's data center , but then again my daily fashion includes a hat made wholly out of tinfoil , as do most of the users here .
This may be good for public terminals and older-type folk , but certainly not for us nerds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article: 

To summarize the sales pitch: Chromium gets rid of all the crusty old legacy garbage, moves storage online where it's both universally available and backed up, provides a platform that finally integrates browser and OS, all while providing a fabulous, multimedia-rich online experience.
Everything you currently do offline will be available online, seamlessly provided by a content platform that presents a universal, standards-based framework rather than a hodgepodge of browsers, security bugs, and broken standards support.
(Emphasis mine) 
I'm not sure I like the idea of having no harddrives on my next computer and having everything I write stored off-site in someone's data center, but then again my daily fashion includes a hat made wholly out of tinfoil, as do most of the users here.
This may be good for public terminals and older-type folk, but certainly not for us nerds.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290290</id>
	<title>Re:Diversity is good.</title>
	<author>vlm</author>
	<datestamp>1259668140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Fragmentation means all projects suffer just a little more of not being able to put the much needed cut and polish in or those extra needed features.</p></div><p>Classic authoritarian mistake of thinking, if I just kill off some dudes pet project, then he will do exactly what I want.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fragmentation means all projects suffer just a little more of not being able to put the much needed cut and polish in or those extra needed features.Classic authoritarian mistake of thinking , if I just kill off some dudes pet project , then he will do exactly what I want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fragmentation means all projects suffer just a little more of not being able to put the much needed cut and polish in or those extra needed features.Classic authoritarian mistake of thinking, if I just kill off some dudes pet project, then he will do exactly what I want.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30291512</id>
	<title>How presumptuous</title>
	<author>sensei moreh</author>
	<datestamp>1259674080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If computers are basically Internet portals and almost everything we do takes place online,...</p></div><p>If a premise is false, the conclusion must be false. In (at least my particular) case, the premise is false.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If computers are basically Internet portals and almost everything we do takes place online,...If a premise is false , the conclusion must be false .
In ( at least my particular ) case , the premise is false .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If computers are basically Internet portals and almost everything we do takes place online,...If a premise is false, the conclusion must be false.
In (at least my particular) case, the premise is false.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30291034</id>
	<title>Re:Que? No comprede! Chromium OS doesn't make sens</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259671620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why not just bundle Chrome with any Linux distro. That way Google can make Chrome the default web browser for Linux by making it open sourced (I think it already is) and bundled with as many Linux distros as possible.</p></div><p>Please google "chrome os", or read the article, or watch the video in the article, any of which would answer this question.  How on earth do comments which ask questions that are so easy to answer get modded "insightful"?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Why should I use Chromium OS when I can download any Linux distro and install Chrome on it.</p></div><p>Linux is my OS of choice, but I understand why a company looking to make a product for people who are not hard-core geeks would not choose it.  The video in the middle of the linked article mentions several features and capabilities aimed at users who put ease of use in front of flexibility.  For example, all system files live on a partition that is wiped and re-imaged on boot if it has been modified (unless a user disables this feature).  This way malware and bugs that corrupt the system will be fixed by a reboot.  I don't want this, but it is a good idea for users who don't read slashdot and want their computer to Just Work.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>What makes Chrome better than say Firefox? When I did web site testing I didn't see a speed difference between Firefox and Chrome.</p></div><p>   I find that hard to believe.  Have you noticed the speed difference between Firefox 2.0 and 3.0?  And the huge speedup from 3.0 to 3.5?  Competition is a wonderful thing for users.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Chrome doesn't have as many plug-ins as Firefox has,</p></div><p>True.  Firefox's design allows virtually anything to be changed by an extension.  CHrome's extension model is far more limited, but extensions do not slow the browser down nearly as much.  If you prefer a browser that is more customizable, no sane person would suggest that you not use one.  By the same token, stop whining that someone with different preferences and goals than you would choose speed and UI consistency.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> no easy way to block advertising (you have to right click on each ad and choose "block" instead of using Adblock Plus and subscribe to a list that automatically blocks ads for you) and having to right click on every ad that pops up is tiresome work and gets really annoying.</p></div><p>If you don't like the ad blockers for chrome, write a better one, or suggest new features to the authors of the half dozen ad blockers already written.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>All of Google's web services work in Firefox just as well as they work in Chrome. So why is there a need for Chrome or even Chromium OS? What benefits and features can Chrome and Chromium OS give me that Linux and Firefox cannot?</p></div><p>I know this is slashdot, but it just blows my mind that you are smart enough to use linux and too dumb to read the article before asking the question that the article intends to answer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not just bundle Chrome with any Linux distro .
That way Google can make Chrome the default web browser for Linux by making it open sourced ( I think it already is ) and bundled with as many Linux distros as possible.Please google " chrome os " , or read the article , or watch the video in the article , any of which would answer this question .
How on earth do comments which ask questions that are so easy to answer get modded " insightful " ? Why should I use Chromium OS when I can download any Linux distro and install Chrome on it.Linux is my OS of choice , but I understand why a company looking to make a product for people who are not hard-core geeks would not choose it .
The video in the middle of the linked article mentions several features and capabilities aimed at users who put ease of use in front of flexibility .
For example , all system files live on a partition that is wiped and re-imaged on boot if it has been modified ( unless a user disables this feature ) .
This way malware and bugs that corrupt the system will be fixed by a reboot .
I do n't want this , but it is a good idea for users who do n't read slashdot and want their computer to Just Work.What makes Chrome better than say Firefox ?
When I did web site testing I did n't see a speed difference between Firefox and Chrome .
I find that hard to believe .
Have you noticed the speed difference between Firefox 2.0 and 3.0 ?
And the huge speedup from 3.0 to 3.5 ?
Competition is a wonderful thing for users.Chrome does n't have as many plug-ins as Firefox has,True .
Firefox 's design allows virtually anything to be changed by an extension .
CHrome 's extension model is far more limited , but extensions do not slow the browser down nearly as much .
If you prefer a browser that is more customizable , no sane person would suggest that you not use one .
By the same token , stop whining that someone with different preferences and goals than you would choose speed and UI consistency .
no easy way to block advertising ( you have to right click on each ad and choose " block " instead of using Adblock Plus and subscribe to a list that automatically blocks ads for you ) and having to right click on every ad that pops up is tiresome work and gets really annoying.If you do n't like the ad blockers for chrome , write a better one , or suggest new features to the authors of the half dozen ad blockers already written.All of Google 's web services work in Firefox just as well as they work in Chrome .
So why is there a need for Chrome or even Chromium OS ?
What benefits and features can Chrome and Chromium OS give me that Linux and Firefox can not ? I know this is slashdot , but it just blows my mind that you are smart enough to use linux and too dumb to read the article before asking the question that the article intends to answer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not just bundle Chrome with any Linux distro.
That way Google can make Chrome the default web browser for Linux by making it open sourced (I think it already is) and bundled with as many Linux distros as possible.Please google "chrome os", or read the article, or watch the video in the article, any of which would answer this question.
How on earth do comments which ask questions that are so easy to answer get modded "insightful"?Why should I use Chromium OS when I can download any Linux distro and install Chrome on it.Linux is my OS of choice, but I understand why a company looking to make a product for people who are not hard-core geeks would not choose it.
The video in the middle of the linked article mentions several features and capabilities aimed at users who put ease of use in front of flexibility.
For example, all system files live on a partition that is wiped and re-imaged on boot if it has been modified (unless a user disables this feature).
This way malware and bugs that corrupt the system will be fixed by a reboot.
I don't want this, but it is a good idea for users who don't read slashdot and want their computer to Just Work.What makes Chrome better than say Firefox?
When I did web site testing I didn't see a speed difference between Firefox and Chrome.
I find that hard to believe.
Have you noticed the speed difference between Firefox 2.0 and 3.0?
And the huge speedup from 3.0 to 3.5?
Competition is a wonderful thing for users.Chrome doesn't have as many plug-ins as Firefox has,True.
Firefox's design allows virtually anything to be changed by an extension.
CHrome's extension model is far more limited, but extensions do not slow the browser down nearly as much.
If you prefer a browser that is more customizable, no sane person would suggest that you not use one.
By the same token, stop whining that someone with different preferences and goals than you would choose speed and UI consistency.
no easy way to block advertising (you have to right click on each ad and choose "block" instead of using Adblock Plus and subscribe to a list that automatically blocks ads for you) and having to right click on every ad that pops up is tiresome work and gets really annoying.If you don't like the ad blockers for chrome, write a better one, or suggest new features to the authors of the half dozen ad blockers already written.All of Google's web services work in Firefox just as well as they work in Chrome.
So why is there a need for Chrome or even Chromium OS?
What benefits and features can Chrome and Chromium OS give me that Linux and Firefox cannot?I know this is slashdot, but it just blows my mind that you are smart enough to use linux and too dumb to read the article before asking the question that the article intends to answer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30292998</id>
	<title>Re:The Network is the Computer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259684220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Intel called, they want their product design back</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Intel called , they want their product design back</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Intel called, they want their product design back</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30291624</id>
	<title>Re:Niche Product</title>
	<author>whoop</author>
	<datestamp>1259674740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's funny, but that's just what <a href="http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2009/11/google-chrome-os-use-cases.html" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">Google</a> [blogspot.com]says it's for too.  Why Slashdotters <b>INSIST</b> every new thing completely replace everything that's come before it is beyond me.  So what you can't do high-end video editing with ChromeOS?  It's for sitting on the couch and reading Slashdot, dammit!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's funny , but that 's just what Google [ blogspot.com ] says it 's for too .
Why Slashdotters INSIST every new thing completely replace everything that 's come before it is beyond me .
So what you ca n't do high-end video editing with ChromeOS ?
It 's for sitting on the couch and reading Slashdot , dammit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's funny, but that's just what Google [blogspot.com]says it's for too.
Why Slashdotters INSIST every new thing completely replace everything that's come before it is beyond me.
So what you can't do high-end video editing with ChromeOS?
It's for sitting on the couch and reading Slashdot, dammit!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290294</id>
	<title>Re:The real reason</title>
	<author>mrsteveman1</author>
	<datestamp>1259668140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wish people would.....know something......anything....about the subject before making such statements.</p><p>Yes, in normal operation the system will heal itself, that's the point and it's what i expect the OS to do. You forgot to mention that there is a developer mode. You can install your own kernel, do whatever you want, and at most you'll get a warning that the system is out of spec or modified. They aren't locking anyone out of their own system, there's no TPM, and Google specifically says that one is not required to do what they're doing in firmware. Besides that the only app is the browser, and unless they're planning to completely remove extensions from the Chrome OS version, those will be there, and you can do quite a bit with them.</p><p>And the picture you paint of Google dangling some code out in public to get the community to do their work for them, is absurd.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish people would.....know something......anything....about the subject before making such statements.Yes , in normal operation the system will heal itself , that 's the point and it 's what i expect the OS to do .
You forgot to mention that there is a developer mode .
You can install your own kernel , do whatever you want , and at most you 'll get a warning that the system is out of spec or modified .
They are n't locking anyone out of their own system , there 's no TPM , and Google specifically says that one is not required to do what they 're doing in firmware .
Besides that the only app is the browser , and unless they 're planning to completely remove extensions from the Chrome OS version , those will be there , and you can do quite a bit with them.And the picture you paint of Google dangling some code out in public to get the community to do their work for them , is absurd .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish people would.....know something......anything....about the subject before making such statements.Yes, in normal operation the system will heal itself, that's the point and it's what i expect the OS to do.
You forgot to mention that there is a developer mode.
You can install your own kernel, do whatever you want, and at most you'll get a warning that the system is out of spec or modified.
They aren't locking anyone out of their own system, there's no TPM, and Google specifically says that one is not required to do what they're doing in firmware.
Besides that the only app is the browser, and unless they're planning to completely remove extensions from the Chrome OS version, those will be there, and you can do quite a bit with them.And the picture you paint of Google dangling some code out in public to get the community to do their work for them, is absurd.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289850</id>
	<title>The real reason</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1259666280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Chromium OS is there so Google doesn't break GPL and other licenses. But it's also there to get some open source for their at no cost (*other than the maintenance cost inspecting patches and so on). Really, think about it. It's released full year before actually going out, giving the 'nice' image for open source developers and just waiting them to jump in. So that Google can cash in later (while still obviously keeping the Chromium OS open and free, because it doesn't hurt their bottom line and then they're compatible with GPL and so on)</p><p>It's quite common knowledge that Chrome OS will be locked down. There's even *already* been announcements that it will be the worst piece of *DRM* ever in front of security. If *anything* is changed in the system, the OS downloads it and replaces it again. The basic things you have running is basically Chrome OS, which nicely integrates you to Google services. And even before that, because in order to use the OS you will be required to sign-in with your Google Account. Yes, no local user accounts. Just your Google-wide account.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Chromium OS is there so Google does n't break GPL and other licenses .
But it 's also there to get some open source for their at no cost ( * other than the maintenance cost inspecting patches and so on ) .
Really , think about it .
It 's released full year before actually going out , giving the 'nice ' image for open source developers and just waiting them to jump in .
So that Google can cash in later ( while still obviously keeping the Chromium OS open and free , because it does n't hurt their bottom line and then they 're compatible with GPL and so on ) It 's quite common knowledge that Chrome OS will be locked down .
There 's even * already * been announcements that it will be the worst piece of * DRM * ever in front of security .
If * anything * is changed in the system , the OS downloads it and replaces it again .
The basic things you have running is basically Chrome OS , which nicely integrates you to Google services .
And even before that , because in order to use the OS you will be required to sign-in with your Google Account .
Yes , no local user accounts .
Just your Google-wide account .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chromium OS is there so Google doesn't break GPL and other licenses.
But it's also there to get some open source for their at no cost (*other than the maintenance cost inspecting patches and so on).
Really, think about it.
It's released full year before actually going out, giving the 'nice' image for open source developers and just waiting them to jump in.
So that Google can cash in later (while still obviously keeping the Chromium OS open and free, because it doesn't hurt their bottom line and then they're compatible with GPL and so on)It's quite common knowledge that Chrome OS will be locked down.
There's even *already* been announcements that it will be the worst piece of *DRM* ever in front of security.
If *anything* is changed in the system, the OS downloads it and replaces it again.
The basic things you have running is basically Chrome OS, which nicely integrates you to Google services.
And even before that, because in order to use the OS you will be required to sign-in with your Google Account.
Yes, no local user accounts.
Just your Google-wide account.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289896</id>
	<title>RTFA</title>
	<author>houstonbofh</author>
	<datestamp>1259666340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder who will notice that the link doesn't work at all?  Oh, wait...  This is slashdot.  Never mind.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder who will notice that the link does n't work at all ?
Oh , wait... This is slashdot .
Never mind .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder who will notice that the link doesn't work at all?
Oh, wait...  This is slashdot.
Never mind.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30291164</id>
	<title>Just as</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259672280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Cloud computing" is a very very bad idea!  Once your data/documents are on someone else's computer or network, you loose all control over it, and over who has access to it.  As Google's new OS is aimed at creating a netbook that relies entirely on "cloud computing", it is not only un-necessary, but also a very bad idea!!</p><p>Sorry Google, my data will NOT be assimilated!  It will stay on my own computer, where it belongs!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Cloud computing " is a very very bad idea !
Once your data/documents are on someone else 's computer or network , you loose all control over it , and over who has access to it .
As Google 's new OS is aimed at creating a netbook that relies entirely on " cloud computing " , it is not only un-necessary , but also a very bad idea !
! Sorry Google , my data will NOT be assimilated !
It will stay on my own computer , where it belongs ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Cloud computing" is a very very bad idea!
Once your data/documents are on someone else's computer or network, you loose all control over it, and over who has access to it.
As Google's new OS is aimed at creating a netbook that relies entirely on "cloud computing", it is not only un-necessary, but also a very bad idea!
!Sorry Google, my data will NOT be assimilated!
It will stay on my own computer, where it belongs!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30295292</id>
	<title>Re:Niche Product</title>
	<author>trombonehero</author>
	<datestamp>1259579400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, Adobe is happy to for you to use their Web-based version of Photoshop:
<a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784\_3-9903446-7.html" title="cnet.com" rel="nofollow">http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784\_3-9903446-7.html</a> [cnet.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , Adobe is happy to for you to use their Web-based version of Photoshop : http : //news.cnet.com/8301-10784 \ _3-9903446-7.html [ cnet.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, Adobe is happy to for you to use their Web-based version of Photoshop:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784\_3-9903446-7.html [cnet.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289998</id>
	<title>Here's the link</title>
	<author>ZaSz-RH</author>
	<datestamp>1259666760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://hothardware.com/News/Chrome-Detailing-Previewing-Googles-New-Operating-System/" title="hothardware.com" rel="nofollow">http://hothardware.com/News/Chrome-Detailing-Previewing-Googles-New-Operating-System/</a> [hothardware.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //hothardware.com/News/Chrome-Detailing-Previewing-Googles-New-Operating-System/ [ hothardware.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://hothardware.com/News/Chrome-Detailing-Previewing-Googles-New-Operating-System/ [hothardware.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30297112</id>
	<title>Heck, yeah!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259595900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, so my wife and I bought a computer for her mother.  The other day, I was looking at it and noticed she had 90\% of the disk, free.   I asked her what she using the computer for and her response indicated she uses a $800.00 pc (includes monitor) for 1) email, 2) surfing, 3) playing an assortment of games like yahoogames, coffebreakarcade (typical web games).     Oh, and she constantly bitches about how long it takes for XP to boot up and the assortment of service patches which seem to always need to be installed.      So yeah, this options would be AWESOME for her and for ME (the family tech support dude).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , so my wife and I bought a computer for her mother .
The other day , I was looking at it and noticed she had 90 \ % of the disk , free .
I asked her what she using the computer for and her response indicated she uses a $ 800.00 pc ( includes monitor ) for 1 ) email , 2 ) surfing , 3 ) playing an assortment of games like yahoogames , coffebreakarcade ( typical web games ) .
Oh , and she constantly bitches about how long it takes for XP to boot up and the assortment of service patches which seem to always need to be installed .
So yeah , this options would be AWESOME for her and for ME ( the family tech support dude ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, so my wife and I bought a computer for her mother.
The other day, I was looking at it and noticed she had 90\% of the disk, free.
I asked her what she using the computer for and her response indicated she uses a $800.00 pc (includes monitor) for 1) email, 2) surfing, 3) playing an assortment of games like yahoogames, coffebreakarcade (typical web games).
Oh, and she constantly bitches about how long it takes for XP to boot up and the assortment of service patches which seem to always need to be installed.
So yeah, this options would be AWESOME for her and for ME (the family tech support dude).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30313642</id>
	<title>ChromeOS might succeed where windows keeps failing</title>
	<author>dudeeh</author>
	<datestamp>1259867940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As slashdotters love car analogies, I'll start with one. A car is a rather complex device, and yet every day millions of joe sixpacks are driving it around, more or less safely. Why? Several reasons, but the two most important ones are:</p><p>* the interface has been dumbed down tremendously<br>* you do not (in general) maintain it yourself</p><p>These two points have made it possible for every day people to drive a car without knowing the science behind it. Microsoft has been trying for years to do the same with windows, to dumb down the interface to the point that average users can not only use it, but to a certain degree maintain it.</p><p>However, the latter is simply impossible in my opinion. Computers are too complex to be dumbed down enough for joe sixpack, however chrome OS offers a nice solution. They simply give you an interface, but they relieve you of the maintenance. No longer will you be burdened with deciding whether or not clicking "ok" is going to crash your pc, no longer will you have to wonder whether renaming that "wav" file to "mp3" will actually work. They do the hard work, they maintain it and they offer you an interface that is easy enough for everyone to understand.</p><p>Note: i'm a linux-only kind of guy, so chrome os is NOT for me, but i can see the appeal for all those family  members that keep pestering me cause they got the latest fashionable virus</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As slashdotters love car analogies , I 'll start with one .
A car is a rather complex device , and yet every day millions of joe sixpacks are driving it around , more or less safely .
Why ? Several reasons , but the two most important ones are : * the interface has been dumbed down tremendously * you do not ( in general ) maintain it yourselfThese two points have made it possible for every day people to drive a car without knowing the science behind it .
Microsoft has been trying for years to do the same with windows , to dumb down the interface to the point that average users can not only use it , but to a certain degree maintain it.However , the latter is simply impossible in my opinion .
Computers are too complex to be dumbed down enough for joe sixpack , however chrome OS offers a nice solution .
They simply give you an interface , but they relieve you of the maintenance .
No longer will you be burdened with deciding whether or not clicking " ok " is going to crash your pc , no longer will you have to wonder whether renaming that " wav " file to " mp3 " will actually work .
They do the hard work , they maintain it and they offer you an interface that is easy enough for everyone to understand.Note : i 'm a linux-only kind of guy , so chrome os is NOT for me , but i can see the appeal for all those family members that keep pestering me cause they got the latest fashionable virus</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As slashdotters love car analogies, I'll start with one.
A car is a rather complex device, and yet every day millions of joe sixpacks are driving it around, more or less safely.
Why? Several reasons, but the two most important ones are:* the interface has been dumbed down tremendously* you do not (in general) maintain it yourselfThese two points have made it possible for every day people to drive a car without knowing the science behind it.
Microsoft has been trying for years to do the same with windows, to dumb down the interface to the point that average users can not only use it, but to a certain degree maintain it.However, the latter is simply impossible in my opinion.
Computers are too complex to be dumbed down enough for joe sixpack, however chrome OS offers a nice solution.
They simply give you an interface, but they relieve you of the maintenance.
No longer will you be burdened with deciding whether or not clicking "ok" is going to crash your pc, no longer will you have to wonder whether renaming that "wav" file to "mp3" will actually work.
They do the hard work, they maintain it and they offer you an interface that is easy enough for everyone to understand.Note: i'm a linux-only kind of guy, so chrome os is NOT for me, but i can see the appeal for all those family  members that keep pestering me cause they got the latest fashionable virus</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30295308</id>
	<title>Re:The real reason</title>
	<author>micheas</author>
	<datestamp>1259579580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Recompile for whatever architecture you want,...</p></div><p>With lots and lots of hacking, (or maybe just a little at this point. the V8 javascript engine is i386/amd64 only at this point, but there is an ongoing effort to port it to all of debian's architectures that at least complies last I checked.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Recompile for whatever architecture you want,...With lots and lots of hacking , ( or maybe just a little at this point .
the V8 javascript engine is i386/amd64 only at this point , but there is an ongoing effort to port it to all of debian 's architectures that at least complies last I checked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Recompile for whatever architecture you want,...With lots and lots of hacking, (or maybe just a little at this point.
the V8 javascript engine is i386/amd64 only at this point, but there is an ongoing effort to port it to all of debian's architectures that at least complies last I checked.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30291298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290328</id>
	<title>Re:The real reason</title>
	<author>Enderandrew</author>
	<datestamp>1259668380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There's even *already* been announcements that it will be the worst piece of *DRM* ever in front of security. If *anything* is changed in the system, the OS downloads it and replaces it again.</p></div><p>The core OS itself is being treated more like a piece of firmware than a traditional OS. You can update it. You can make changes to settings. You can install programs. But the core of the OS will repair itself if it thinks it is corrupted.</p><p>First off, Windows already does this. Secondly, this doesn't mean you can't intentionally change things. Lastly, since Chromium is completely open, you can remove this feature if you don't like it.</p><p>DRM stops you from making copies of material you own. This isn't DRM. It's a system recovery feature.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's even * already * been announcements that it will be the worst piece of * DRM * ever in front of security .
If * anything * is changed in the system , the OS downloads it and replaces it again.The core OS itself is being treated more like a piece of firmware than a traditional OS .
You can update it .
You can make changes to settings .
You can install programs .
But the core of the OS will repair itself if it thinks it is corrupted.First off , Windows already does this .
Secondly , this does n't mean you ca n't intentionally change things .
Lastly , since Chromium is completely open , you can remove this feature if you do n't like it.DRM stops you from making copies of material you own .
This is n't DRM .
It 's a system recovery feature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's even *already* been announcements that it will be the worst piece of *DRM* ever in front of security.
If *anything* is changed in the system, the OS downloads it and replaces it again.The core OS itself is being treated more like a piece of firmware than a traditional OS.
You can update it.
You can make changes to settings.
You can install programs.
But the core of the OS will repair itself if it thinks it is corrupted.First off, Windows already does this.
Secondly, this doesn't mean you can't intentionally change things.
Lastly, since Chromium is completely open, you can remove this feature if you don't like it.DRM stops you from making copies of material you own.
This isn't DRM.
It's a system recovery feature.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290934</id>
	<title>Re:A bad trade off.</title>
	<author>Raffaello</author>
	<datestamp>1259671080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or you could just print it for the cost of about 2 cents and have a hard copy which you really don't care if it gets splattered with tomato sauce. ChromeOS is a cloud solution in search of a problem. Thing is, cloud capabilities are a small proper subset of general purpose laptop/netbook capabilities, so why chain yourself to a crippled platform?</p><p>I get it that such limitations might work for the extremely light usage crowd (grandma and people who like to <i>pretend</i> to be working adults by using social media sites, etc.) but for real working adults, the cloud (sans local data retention under user control) is a catastrophic, organization-wide, data loss incident waiting to happen. But adding local data stores to the cloud just makes it a regular old OS with lame web apps and online backup, something which is already available in the current crop of mature, polished, debugged, mainstream OSes like Mac OS X, Windows, and Linux.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or you could just print it for the cost of about 2 cents and have a hard copy which you really do n't care if it gets splattered with tomato sauce .
ChromeOS is a cloud solution in search of a problem .
Thing is , cloud capabilities are a small proper subset of general purpose laptop/netbook capabilities , so why chain yourself to a crippled platform ? I get it that such limitations might work for the extremely light usage crowd ( grandma and people who like to pretend to be working adults by using social media sites , etc .
) but for real working adults , the cloud ( sans local data retention under user control ) is a catastrophic , organization-wide , data loss incident waiting to happen .
But adding local data stores to the cloud just makes it a regular old OS with lame web apps and online backup , something which is already available in the current crop of mature , polished , debugged , mainstream OSes like Mac OS X , Windows , and Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or you could just print it for the cost of about 2 cents and have a hard copy which you really don't care if it gets splattered with tomato sauce.
ChromeOS is a cloud solution in search of a problem.
Thing is, cloud capabilities are a small proper subset of general purpose laptop/netbook capabilities, so why chain yourself to a crippled platform?I get it that such limitations might work for the extremely light usage crowd (grandma and people who like to pretend to be working adults by using social media sites, etc.
) but for real working adults, the cloud (sans local data retention under user control) is a catastrophic, organization-wide, data loss incident waiting to happen.
But adding local data stores to the cloud just makes it a regular old OS with lame web apps and online backup, something which is already available in the current crop of mature, polished, debugged, mainstream OSes like Mac OS X, Windows, and Linux.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30296174</id>
	<title>And Chrome is *ten* times more responsive.</title>
	<author>spaceturtle</author>
	<datestamp>1259589420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I found Crome to be about ten times as responsive as Firefox in the BrowserResponsivenessBenchmark: <a href="http://www.ucc.asn.au/~mccabedj/BrowserResponsivenessBenchmark.html" title="ucc.asn.au">http://www.ucc.asn.au/~mccabedj/BrowserResponsivenessBenchmark.html</a> [ucc.asn.au] <p>

Their efforts in removing "Jank" from the UI thread seem to have paid off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I found Crome to be about ten times as responsive as Firefox in the BrowserResponsivenessBenchmark : http : //www.ucc.asn.au/ ~ mccabedj/BrowserResponsivenessBenchmark.html [ ucc.asn.au ] Their efforts in removing " Jank " from the UI thread seem to have paid off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I found Crome to be about ten times as responsive as Firefox in the BrowserResponsivenessBenchmark: http://www.ucc.asn.au/~mccabedj/BrowserResponsivenessBenchmark.html [ucc.asn.au] 

Their efforts in removing "Jank" from the UI thread seem to have paid off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290256</id>
	<title>Re:The real reason</title>
	<author>Crudely\_Indecent</author>
	<datestamp>1259667960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If *anything* is changed in the system, the OS downloads it and replaces it again.</p></div><p>Chances are, with the project open sourced, this will be circumvented.  Likewise, the restriction of no local users and no hard disks will most likely also be removed by the community.</p><p>That is, if the OS is worth running in the first place.  I think I'll stick with my *nixes</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If * anything * is changed in the system , the OS downloads it and replaces it again.Chances are , with the project open sourced , this will be circumvented .
Likewise , the restriction of no local users and no hard disks will most likely also be removed by the community.That is , if the OS is worth running in the first place .
I think I 'll stick with my * nixes</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If *anything* is changed in the system, the OS downloads it and replaces it again.Chances are, with the project open sourced, this will be circumvented.
Likewise, the restriction of no local users and no hard disks will most likely also be removed by the community.That is, if the OS is worth running in the first place.
I think I'll stick with my *nixes
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30292644</id>
	<title>Re:Televisions, the next frontier!</title>
	<author>Helios1182</author>
	<datestamp>1259681100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think this is actually an interesting idea.  Computers encompass much more than just laptops/desktops that we normally thing about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this is actually an interesting idea .
Computers encompass much more than just laptops/desktops that we normally thing about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this is actually an interesting idea.
Computers encompass much more than just laptops/desktops that we normally thing about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290304</id>
	<title>Re:Diversity is good.</title>
	<author>mrsteveman1</author>
	<datestamp>1259668200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The rest of the fragmentation is made up of nearly identical clones of Debian and Redhat. This is, out of the box, substantially different.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The rest of the fragmentation is made up of nearly identical clones of Debian and Redhat .
This is , out of the box , substantially different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The rest of the fragmentation is made up of nearly identical clones of Debian and Redhat.
This is, out of the box, substantially different.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30295722</id>
	<title>Re:The real reason</title>
	<author>slim</author>
	<datestamp>1259584740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's quite common knowledge that Chrome OS will be locked down. There's even *already* been announcements that it will be the worst piece of *DRM* ever in front of security. If *anything* is changed in the system, the OS downloads it and replaces it again.</p></div><p>Here's how it will actually work, showing how if you want to hack on your own hardware, you can:</p><p><a href="http://sites.google.com/a/chromium.org/dev/chromium-os/chromiumos-design-docs/firmware-boot-and-recovery" title="google.com">http://sites.google.com/a/chromium.org/dev/chromium-os/chromiumos-design-docs/firmware-boot-and-recovery</a> [google.com]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Pseudocode:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 1. Verify the partition table on the filesystem looks sane.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 2. Load kernel A from the filesystem.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 3. Verify signature of kernel.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 4. If signature is invalid:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 1. If this is kernel A, retry with kernel B.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 2. Else this is kernel B.  Both kernels are bad, so set the recovery-mode cookie non-volatile register and reboot into recovery firmware.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 5. If kernel was signed with a public key not known to the boot loader, this is a developer kernel:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 1. Initialize the display.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 2. Display scary developer mode warning to user. For example: "DEVELOPER MODE. If you don't know what this means, press X now, and we'll fix your system automatically. If you are a l33t h4x0r, wait 30 seconds or press ASCII 0x44."<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 3. Wait for keypress or 30-second delay before continuing.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 4. If key pressed was not D (ASCII 0x44), jump to Recovery Firmware.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 6. Continue booting the kernel.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's quite common knowledge that Chrome OS will be locked down .
There 's even * already * been announcements that it will be the worst piece of * DRM * ever in front of security .
If * anything * is changed in the system , the OS downloads it and replaces it again.Here 's how it will actually work , showing how if you want to hack on your own hardware , you can : http : //sites.google.com/a/chromium.org/dev/chromium-os/chromiumos-design-docs/firmware-boot-and-recovery [ google.com ] : Pseudocode :       1 .
Verify the partition table on the filesystem looks sane .
      2 .
Load kernel A from the filesystem .
      3 .
Verify signature of kernel .
      4 .
If signature is invalid :                   1 .
If this is kernel A , retry with kernel B .
                  2 .
Else this is kernel B. Both kernels are bad , so set the recovery-mode cookie non-volatile register and reboot into recovery firmware .
      5 .
If kernel was signed with a public key not known to the boot loader , this is a developer kernel :                   1 .
Initialize the display .
                  2 .
Display scary developer mode warning to user .
For example : " DEVELOPER MODE .
If you do n't know what this means , press X now , and we 'll fix your system automatically .
If you are a l33t h4x0r , wait 30 seconds or press ASCII 0x44 .
"                   3 .
Wait for keypress or 30-second delay before continuing .
                  4 .
If key pressed was not D ( ASCII 0x44 ) , jump to Recovery Firmware .
      6 .
Continue booting the kernel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's quite common knowledge that Chrome OS will be locked down.
There's even *already* been announcements that it will be the worst piece of *DRM* ever in front of security.
If *anything* is changed in the system, the OS downloads it and replaces it again.Here's how it will actually work, showing how if you want to hack on your own hardware, you can:http://sites.google.com/a/chromium.org/dev/chromium-os/chromiumos-design-docs/firmware-boot-and-recovery [google.com] :Pseudocode:
      1.
Verify the partition table on the filesystem looks sane.
      2.
Load kernel A from the filesystem.
      3.
Verify signature of kernel.
      4.
If signature is invalid:
                  1.
If this is kernel A, retry with kernel B.
                  2.
Else this is kernel B.  Both kernels are bad, so set the recovery-mode cookie non-volatile register and reboot into recovery firmware.
      5.
If kernel was signed with a public key not known to the boot loader, this is a developer kernel:
                  1.
Initialize the display.
                  2.
Display scary developer mode warning to user.
For example: "DEVELOPER MODE.
If you don't know what this means, press X now, and we'll fix your system automatically.
If you are a l33t h4x0r, wait 30 seconds or press ASCII 0x44.
"
                  3.
Wait for keypress or 30-second delay before continuing.
                  4.
If key pressed was not D (ASCII 0x44), jump to Recovery Firmware.
      6.
Continue booting the kernel.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289960</id>
	<title>Re:RTFA</title>
	<author>Trev311</author>
	<datestamp>1259666700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I wonder who will notice that the link doesn't work at all?  Oh, wait...  This is slashdot.  Never mind.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div><p>I can't read you insensitive clod!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder who will notice that the link does n't work at all ?
Oh , wait... This is slashdot .
Never mind .
: ) I ca n't read you insensitive clod !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder who will notice that the link doesn't work at all?
Oh, wait...  This is slashdot.
Never mind.
:)I can't read you insensitive clod!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289884</id>
	<title>More, more!</title>
	<author>indre1</author>
	<datestamp>1259666340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The more the merrier!</htmltext>
<tokenext>The more the merrier !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The more the merrier!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290610</id>
	<title>Re:A bad trade off.</title>
	<author>sago007</author>
	<datestamp>1259669700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even if all previous tries have failed is not a guarantee that it will fail again. Even if the technology is the same times change.</p><p>However Google might be out a little early. The question is of course if the Internet is ready to handle a secondary device? I have worked in some companies and the question being asked then moving things out of the house is: Is the Internet stable enough. Sometimes the answer is yes and sometimes it is no.</p><p>The biggest problem is of course that even if the Internet is 90\% of all needed functionality we still have the critical 10\% that is different for all users and therefore cannot be moved to the cloud.</p><p>Google admit that the new device can only be used as a secondary device because it lacks important functionality but one wonders if that is enough. The mobile technology suggests that people might want fewer devices not an extra.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if all previous tries have failed is not a guarantee that it will fail again .
Even if the technology is the same times change.However Google might be out a little early .
The question is of course if the Internet is ready to handle a secondary device ?
I have worked in some companies and the question being asked then moving things out of the house is : Is the Internet stable enough .
Sometimes the answer is yes and sometimes it is no.The biggest problem is of course that even if the Internet is 90 \ % of all needed functionality we still have the critical 10 \ % that is different for all users and therefore can not be moved to the cloud.Google admit that the new device can only be used as a secondary device because it lacks important functionality but one wonders if that is enough .
The mobile technology suggests that people might want fewer devices not an extra .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if all previous tries have failed is not a guarantee that it will fail again.
Even if the technology is the same times change.However Google might be out a little early.
The question is of course if the Internet is ready to handle a secondary device?
I have worked in some companies and the question being asked then moving things out of the house is: Is the Internet stable enough.
Sometimes the answer is yes and sometimes it is no.The biggest problem is of course that even if the Internet is 90\% of all needed functionality we still have the critical 10\% that is different for all users and therefore cannot be moved to the cloud.Google admit that the new device can only be used as a secondary device because it lacks important functionality but one wonders if that is enough.
The mobile technology suggests that people might want fewer devices not an extra.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30291298</id>
	<title>Re:The real reason</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1259672880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"It's quite common knowledge that Chrome OS will be locked down."</p><p>Sometimes common knowledge isn't all that accurate.  No matter WHAT you don't like about ChromeOS, you can fix it.  The source code is available.  Recompile for whatever architecture you want, use common Linux drivers, modify the conf files to your liking.  The same thing has been done with Slackware, Suse, Debian - there is really nothing new here.</p><p>Given a kernel and a browser, you can do just about anything you want under the hood.  Do it!!  It's open source!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It 's quite common knowledge that Chrome OS will be locked down .
" Sometimes common knowledge is n't all that accurate .
No matter WHAT you do n't like about ChromeOS , you can fix it .
The source code is available .
Recompile for whatever architecture you want , use common Linux drivers , modify the conf files to your liking .
The same thing has been done with Slackware , Suse , Debian - there is really nothing new here.Given a kernel and a browser , you can do just about anything you want under the hood .
Do it ! !
It 's open source !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It's quite common knowledge that Chrome OS will be locked down.
"Sometimes common knowledge isn't all that accurate.
No matter WHAT you don't like about ChromeOS, you can fix it.
The source code is available.
Recompile for whatever architecture you want, use common Linux drivers, modify the conf files to your liking.
The same thing has been done with Slackware, Suse, Debian - there is really nothing new here.Given a kernel and a browser, you can do just about anything you want under the hood.
Do it!!
It's open source!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289928</id>
	<title>Google Is Reaching</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259666460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>for Bill Gates' ass.</p><p>or more specifically Microsoft's ass.</p><p>Yours In Yasnogorsk,<br>Kilgore Trout</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>for Bill Gates ' ass.or more specifically Microsoft 's ass.Yours In Yasnogorsk,Kilgore Trout</tokentext>
<sentencetext>for Bill Gates' ass.or more specifically Microsoft's ass.Yours In Yasnogorsk,Kilgore Trout</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30292330</id>
	<title>Re:The Network is the Computer</title>
	<author>onefriedrice</author>
	<datestamp>1259678820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sun called, they want their concept back.</p></div><p>The distinction is perhaps less important now, but perhaps you mean Oracle.  It was Larry Ellison's vision that included "network computers" which are cut-down desktop machines which rely on central servers for software and storage.  He doesn't look kindly on so-called "cloud" computing today, though.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sun called , they want their concept back.The distinction is perhaps less important now , but perhaps you mean Oracle .
It was Larry Ellison 's vision that included " network computers " which are cut-down desktop machines which rely on central servers for software and storage .
He does n't look kindly on so-called " cloud " computing today , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sun called, they want their concept back.The distinction is perhaps less important now, but perhaps you mean Oracle.
It was Larry Ellison's vision that included "network computers" which are cut-down desktop machines which rely on central servers for software and storage.
He doesn't look kindly on so-called "cloud" computing today, though.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30293280</id>
	<title>Network computing capabilities</title>
	<author>Psaakyrn</author>
	<datestamp>1259686680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm more interested in Chrome OS being offered in multiple devices. If the cloud works as I think it should, it means that all those devices should interface in a similar form. For instance: Buy a music file, and your music player downloads directly, without having to go through your netbook (because for all intents and purposes, they are the same). Your GIMP program, detecting your other cloud devices aren't being utilized, borrows some computing power to do a heavy render. Your text editor is automatically "synced" between all your devices.</p><p>I believe though that in the end there still has to be some aspect of offline capability, but it would be offered in an auto-sync format, or in how offline web pages work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm more interested in Chrome OS being offered in multiple devices .
If the cloud works as I think it should , it means that all those devices should interface in a similar form .
For instance : Buy a music file , and your music player downloads directly , without having to go through your netbook ( because for all intents and purposes , they are the same ) .
Your GIMP program , detecting your other cloud devices are n't being utilized , borrows some computing power to do a heavy render .
Your text editor is automatically " synced " between all your devices.I believe though that in the end there still has to be some aspect of offline capability , but it would be offered in an auto-sync format , or in how offline web pages work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm more interested in Chrome OS being offered in multiple devices.
If the cloud works as I think it should, it means that all those devices should interface in a similar form.
For instance: Buy a music file, and your music player downloads directly, without having to go through your netbook (because for all intents and purposes, they are the same).
Your GIMP program, detecting your other cloud devices aren't being utilized, borrows some computing power to do a heavy render.
Your text editor is automatically "synced" between all your devices.I believe though that in the end there still has to be some aspect of offline capability, but it would be offered in an auto-sync format, or in how offline web pages work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30295772</id>
	<title>Re:Que? No comprede! Chromium OS doesn't make sens</title>
	<author>slim</author>
	<datestamp>1259585220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why should I use Chromium OS when I can download any Linux distro and install Chrome on it.</p></div><p>*You* probably don't need to.</p><p>You or I might say that Knoppix (or whatever) "just works". But I know people who could screw up Knoppix; I bet you do too.</p><p>The whole point of ChromeOS is that it takes "It just works" and "it keeps on just working" to new levels. And of course there are tradeoffs involved.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why should I use Chromium OS when I can download any Linux distro and install Chrome on it .
* You * probably do n't need to.You or I might say that Knoppix ( or whatever ) " just works " .
But I know people who could screw up Knoppix ; I bet you do too.The whole point of ChromeOS is that it takes " It just works " and " it keeps on just working " to new levels .
And of course there are tradeoffs involved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why should I use Chromium OS when I can download any Linux distro and install Chrome on it.
*You* probably don't need to.You or I might say that Knoppix (or whatever) "just works".
But I know people who could screw up Knoppix; I bet you do too.The whole point of ChromeOS is that it takes "It just works" and "it keeps on just working" to new levels.
And of course there are tradeoffs involved.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30291680</id>
	<title>Re:Televisions, the next frontier!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259675040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only problem is in locations that operate on download caps, not bandwidth (Australia for example).  Having everything in the cloud would chew through it at a spectacular pace, leaving you on 3kb/s in no time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only problem is in locations that operate on download caps , not bandwidth ( Australia for example ) .
Having everything in the cloud would chew through it at a spectacular pace , leaving you on 3kb/s in no time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only problem is in locations that operate on download caps, not bandwidth (Australia for example).
Having everything in the cloud would chew through it at a spectacular pace, leaving you on 3kb/s in no time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290336</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_2123218_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30291680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_2123218_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_2123218_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30298480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30291318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_2123218_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30291174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_2123218_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_2123218_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30298404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_2123218_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30291376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_2123218_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30303940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_2123218_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30292330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_2123218_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_2123218_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_2123218_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30292536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_2123218_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_2123218_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30295326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_2123218_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_2123218_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30296014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_2123218_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30292858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_2123218_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30291104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_2123218_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30294166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_2123218_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_2123218_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30294202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_2123218_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30291624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_2123218_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30292998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_2123218_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30292892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_2123218_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30295722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_2123218_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_2123218_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30294046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_2123218_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_2123218_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_2123218_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30295308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30291298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_2123218_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_2123218_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30293922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_2123218_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_2123218_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_2123218_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30291034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_2123218_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_2123218_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_2123218_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30291966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_2123218_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_2123218_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_2123218_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30291000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_2123218_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30293876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_2123218_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30295772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_2123218_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30292644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_2123218_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30295292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_2123218_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30295978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_2123218_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_2123218_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_2123218_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30292884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_2123218_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30292352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_2123218_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_2123218_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_2123218_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30295782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_2123218_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_2123218_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30296174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_2123218_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_2123218_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_2123218_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30292602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_2123218.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30293876
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_2123218.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30291298
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30295308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290256
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30295722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289958
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30291104
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30294166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290046
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30293922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290294
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_2123218.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30292892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30292330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30292998
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_2123218.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289896
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289960
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_2123218.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30292352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30291966
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_2123218.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30291164
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_2123218.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30296014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30292644
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30292602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30291680
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_2123218.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290438
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_2123218.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30295772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290736
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30296174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30291376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30291034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290644
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_2123218.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290264
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290346
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290934
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30292536
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290980
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30298404
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30303940
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290162
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290610
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30291174
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30295782
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_2123218.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30291318
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30298480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30291000
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_2123218.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30297112
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_2123218.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289998
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_2123218.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30292858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30291624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30295978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30292884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30295292
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_2123218.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30289888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30294202
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290000
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290290
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30294046
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30295326
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290266
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290464
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30290304
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_2123218.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_2123218.30291512
</commentlist>
</conversation>
