<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_05_0216258</id>
	<title>Microsoft Tweaks Browser Ballot As EU Deal Nears</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1260032820000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>CWmike writes <i>"Microsoft has <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9141782/Microsoft\_tweaks\_browser\_ballot\_as\_EU\_antitrust\_deal\_nears">revamped the browser ballot screen demanded by European Union antitrust regulators</a> and may get final approval as early as Dec. 15, a source familiar with the case has told Computerworld. As first reported by Bloomberg, Microsoft <a href="http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&amp;sid=aOWTBDHSR24I">modified the ballot screen</a> after rivals, including Opera Software and Mozilla, <a href="https://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/10/10/1218202/Why-Microsofts-EU-Ballot-Screen-Doesnt-Measure-Up">demanded changes</a>. Last month, Opera, Mozilla and Google <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9140389/Update\_Browser\_makers\_question\_Microsoft\_EU\_ballot\_plan">submitted change requests</a> to the European Commission, asking that the order of the browsers be randomized and that the ballot be displayed in its own application, not in Internet Explorer. According to the source, who asked not to be identified because the terms of the settlement have not been officially approved, the top five browsers &mdash; IE, Firefox, Chrome, Opera and Apple's Safari &mdash; will appear in random order each time the ballot is displayed."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>CWmike writes " Microsoft has revamped the browser ballot screen demanded by European Union antitrust regulators and may get final approval as early as Dec. 15 , a source familiar with the case has told Computerworld .
As first reported by Bloomberg , Microsoft modified the ballot screen after rivals , including Opera Software and Mozilla , demanded changes .
Last month , Opera , Mozilla and Google submitted change requests to the European Commission , asking that the order of the browsers be randomized and that the ballot be displayed in its own application , not in Internet Explorer .
According to the source , who asked not to be identified because the terms of the settlement have not been officially approved , the top five browsers    IE , Firefox , Chrome , Opera and Apple 's Safari    will appear in random order each time the ballot is displayed .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CWmike writes "Microsoft has revamped the browser ballot screen demanded by European Union antitrust regulators and may get final approval as early as Dec. 15, a source familiar with the case has told Computerworld.
As first reported by Bloomberg, Microsoft modified the ballot screen after rivals, including Opera Software and Mozilla, demanded changes.
Last month, Opera, Mozilla and Google submitted change requests to the European Commission, asking that the order of the browsers be randomized and that the ballot be displayed in its own application, not in Internet Explorer.
According to the source, who asked not to be identified because the terms of the settlement have not been officially approved, the top five browsers — IE, Firefox, Chrome, Opera and Apple's Safari — will appear in random order each time the ballot is displayed.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30334224</id>
	<title>Re:Sad</title>
	<author>obarthelemy</author>
	<datestamp>1260018540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Linux does not have 80+\% marketshare, more like 1\%: nobody cares about what they do. And they are not a convicted monopolist, so they can do whatever they want.</p><p>Starting heavy-handed supervision with the browser makes sense, since MS's prevalence was having a very clear negative impact in terms of security, standards compliance... and even features were not up to par.</p><p>I'm not against widening it after wards. Windows standard editor, media payer, image editing... are sorry pieces of crap. But, at least, they are not trying to (subvert) embrace and extend the Web.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux does not have 80 + \ % marketshare , more like 1 \ % : nobody cares about what they do .
And they are not a convicted monopolist , so they can do whatever they want.Starting heavy-handed supervision with the browser makes sense , since MS 's prevalence was having a very clear negative impact in terms of security , standards compliance... and even features were not up to par.I 'm not against widening it after wards .
Windows standard editor , media payer , image editing... are sorry pieces of crap .
But , at least , they are not trying to ( subvert ) embrace and extend the Web .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linux does not have 80+\% marketshare, more like 1\%: nobody cares about what they do.
And they are not a convicted monopolist, so they can do whatever they want.Starting heavy-handed supervision with the browser makes sense, since MS's prevalence was having a very clear negative impact in terms of security, standards compliance... and even features were not up to par.I'm not against widening it after wards.
Windows standard editor, media payer, image editing... are sorry pieces of crap.
But, at least, they are not trying to (subvert) embrace and extend the Web.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333034</id>
	<title>Open source had its chance here and blew it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259953560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
This would have been great for open source if Firefox 3 didn't suck.  (There are no less that 19 threads on the Firefox forums containing the phrase "Firefox 3 sucks".)  Firefox 2 was small, fast, and reliable. Firefox 3, even now, is less reliable than Firefox 2, slower, and a memory hog. Open source had its chance and blew it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This would have been great for open source if Firefox 3 did n't suck .
( There are no less that 19 threads on the Firefox forums containing the phrase " Firefox 3 sucks " .
) Firefox 2 was small , fast , and reliable .
Firefox 3 , even now , is less reliable than Firefox 2 , slower , and a memory hog .
Open source had its chance and blew it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
This would have been great for open source if Firefox 3 didn't suck.
(There are no less that 19 threads on the Firefox forums containing the phrase "Firefox 3 sucks".
)  Firefox 2 was small, fast, and reliable.
Firefox 3, even now, is less reliable than Firefox 2, slower, and a memory hog.
Open source had its chance and blew it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333338</id>
	<title>Happy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260045660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The object of this ballot system is to let users know that a choice even exists.  It's not to promote any specific competitor.  You seem to overlook the fact that there are people out there (and quite a few, I might add) that don't know they have a choice.  They don't know what a browser is.  They just know they click that specific icon to get on the internet.  They don't know there is an internet separate from the web.  A lot of computer users have very limited knowledge.</p><p>As to why they should know, that is everything to do with economics.  You can go read about that in depth, but the gist of it is that information is the lifeblood of a market (particularly an information market).  The more nuanced an understanding the average participant has of the marketplace, the healthier that market will be.  This is because as sophistication grows in the market, the options must become refined to compete.  To put that in terms of browsers, as more browsers compete they all become standards-compliant and have to differentiate on other factors such as speed, security, extensions, portability (both the browser and the data), and so on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The object of this ballot system is to let users know that a choice even exists .
It 's not to promote any specific competitor .
You seem to overlook the fact that there are people out there ( and quite a few , I might add ) that do n't know they have a choice .
They do n't know what a browser is .
They just know they click that specific icon to get on the internet .
They do n't know there is an internet separate from the web .
A lot of computer users have very limited knowledge.As to why they should know , that is everything to do with economics .
You can go read about that in depth , but the gist of it is that information is the lifeblood of a market ( particularly an information market ) .
The more nuanced an understanding the average participant has of the marketplace , the healthier that market will be .
This is because as sophistication grows in the market , the options must become refined to compete .
To put that in terms of browsers , as more browsers compete they all become standards-compliant and have to differentiate on other factors such as speed , security , extensions , portability ( both the browser and the data ) , and so on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The object of this ballot system is to let users know that a choice even exists.
It's not to promote any specific competitor.
You seem to overlook the fact that there are people out there (and quite a few, I might add) that don't know they have a choice.
They don't know what a browser is.
They just know they click that specific icon to get on the internet.
They don't know there is an internet separate from the web.
A lot of computer users have very limited knowledge.As to why they should know, that is everything to do with economics.
You can go read about that in depth, but the gist of it is that information is the lifeblood of a market (particularly an information market).
The more nuanced an understanding the average participant has of the marketplace, the healthier that market will be.
This is because as sophistication grows in the market, the options must become refined to compete.
To put that in terms of browsers, as more browsers compete they all become standards-compliant and have to differentiate on other factors such as speed, security, extensions, portability (both the browser and the data), and so on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30334176</id>
	<title>Re:Sad</title>
	<author>Lord Lode</author>
	<datestamp>1260017640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, it's weird, a browser ballot screen???

Wouldn't it make much more sense if they required IE to be distributed in a way similar to the other browsers? That is, no mentioning of IE at all anywhere in Windows. Users who want it can download it somewhere. And to be able to do that, a text-only browser is in Windows created only for the purpose of downloading software.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , it 's weird , a browser ballot screen ? ? ?
Would n't it make much more sense if they required IE to be distributed in a way similar to the other browsers ?
That is , no mentioning of IE at all anywhere in Windows .
Users who want it can download it somewhere .
And to be able to do that , a text-only browser is in Windows created only for the purpose of downloading software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, it's weird, a browser ballot screen???
Wouldn't it make much more sense if they required IE to be distributed in a way similar to the other browsers?
That is, no mentioning of IE at all anywhere in Windows.
Users who want it can download it somewhere.
And to be able to do that, a text-only browser is in Windows created only for the purpose of downloading software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333114</id>
	<title>Ballot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259954940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have chosen....<br>"FireFox 3.5".<br>Are you sure about your decision?<br>(Clicks on Yes)<br>You have clicked "No". Resulting to default browser. Now installing Microsoft Internet Explorer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have chosen.... " FireFox 3.5 " .Are you sure about your decision ?
( Clicks on Yes ) You have clicked " No " .
Resulting to default browser .
Now installing Microsoft Internet Explorer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have chosen...."FireFox 3.5".Are you sure about your decision?
(Clicks on Yes)You have clicked "No".
Resulting to default browser.
Now installing Microsoft Internet Explorer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333350</id>
	<title>Re:This is just stupid</title>
	<author>pizzach</author>
	<datestamp>1260045900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Polar example bad.  The only other program that mostly fits into the same category is Windows Media Player.  The others are stripped down very basic utilities.  Internet Explorer and WMP are not stripped down in any shape or form.</p><p>The other issue is that both programs have a much larger impact than the other ones you described.  There are very real reasons to look into.  Zero revenue is outside of the scope of the problem now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Polar example bad .
The only other program that mostly fits into the same category is Windows Media Player .
The others are stripped down very basic utilities .
Internet Explorer and WMP are not stripped down in any shape or form.The other issue is that both programs have a much larger impact than the other ones you described .
There are very real reasons to look into .
Zero revenue is outside of the scope of the problem now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Polar example bad.
The only other program that mostly fits into the same category is Windows Media Player.
The others are stripped down very basic utilities.
Internet Explorer and WMP are not stripped down in any shape or form.The other issue is that both programs have a much larger impact than the other ones you described.
There are very real reasons to look into.
Zero revenue is outside of the scope of the problem now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333084</id>
	<title>Re:Sad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259954400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Why stop at browsers then? We could breath new life into the text editor market, casual picture editing market, file compression market, file browser market, music player market, etc. These ALL existed! Where are their randomized ballot windows?</p></div></blockquote><p>Absolutely none of these are anywhere near as central to the average user's computer usage as the web browser is. And regardless, there's no problem with those anyway as Microsoft only packages minimally functional implementations of those programs with Windows which don't offer any real competition to more serious products in the same categories.</p><p>Furthermore, the quality or lack thereof of those bundled programs doesn't really affect much. So what if MS Paint doesn't have fancy filters? So what if Notepad doesn't have multiple kill buffers and advanced scripting capability? So what if Explorer doesn't have multiple panes? However, Internet Explorer's dominant position offers Microsoft significant influence over the development of the web, and held it back massively until Firefox started eating into its market share, and still does to a significant extent.</p><blockquote><div><p>Where do I sign up to have the VB 3 based browser I wrote in 8th grade added? We could all be using HyperMonkeyMarkup right now!</p></div></blockquote><p>You can bug the EU to make Microsoft include your browser in the ballot when far more people than just you use it. In case you didn't notice before jumping to the comment box to write your whiny rant, they're not putting every random asshat's pet project in there. They're only including the top browsers.</p><blockquote><div><p>If this is what the web browser market needs to be competitive, imagine what it could do for open source. There is redundancy up the wazoo, we could have random ballots for EVERY category. Then people will have the ultimate freedom, and those who merely pick the top of the list will randomly populate lopsided projects like Gnome/KDE, Linux/*BSD/OpenSolaris/Hurd, GIMP/MyFirstPictureEditor, MySQL/Postgres, vi/emacs. It makes PERFECT sense, Hurd+KDE+mono port of emacs has been in the shadows too long, time to send the clueless masses that way and even things out.</p><p>On a serious note, when has choice in Linux ever been randomized? What message would that send?</p></div></blockquote><p><i>Breaking fucking news</i>, the rules are different for monopolies, especially for abusive monopolies.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why stop at browsers then ?
We could breath new life into the text editor market , casual picture editing market , file compression market , file browser market , music player market , etc .
These ALL existed !
Where are their randomized ballot windows ? Absolutely none of these are anywhere near as central to the average user 's computer usage as the web browser is .
And regardless , there 's no problem with those anyway as Microsoft only packages minimally functional implementations of those programs with Windows which do n't offer any real competition to more serious products in the same categories.Furthermore , the quality or lack thereof of those bundled programs does n't really affect much .
So what if MS Paint does n't have fancy filters ?
So what if Notepad does n't have multiple kill buffers and advanced scripting capability ?
So what if Explorer does n't have multiple panes ?
However , Internet Explorer 's dominant position offers Microsoft significant influence over the development of the web , and held it back massively until Firefox started eating into its market share , and still does to a significant extent.Where do I sign up to have the VB 3 based browser I wrote in 8th grade added ?
We could all be using HyperMonkeyMarkup right now ! You can bug the EU to make Microsoft include your browser in the ballot when far more people than just you use it .
In case you did n't notice before jumping to the comment box to write your whiny rant , they 're not putting every random asshat 's pet project in there .
They 're only including the top browsers.If this is what the web browser market needs to be competitive , imagine what it could do for open source .
There is redundancy up the wazoo , we could have random ballots for EVERY category .
Then people will have the ultimate freedom , and those who merely pick the top of the list will randomly populate lopsided projects like Gnome/KDE , Linux/ * BSD/OpenSolaris/Hurd , GIMP/MyFirstPictureEditor , MySQL/Postgres , vi/emacs .
It makes PERFECT sense , Hurd + KDE + mono port of emacs has been in the shadows too long , time to send the clueless masses that way and even things out.On a serious note , when has choice in Linux ever been randomized ?
What message would that send ? Breaking fucking news , the rules are different for monopolies , especially for abusive monopolies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why stop at browsers then?
We could breath new life into the text editor market, casual picture editing market, file compression market, file browser market, music player market, etc.
These ALL existed!
Where are their randomized ballot windows?Absolutely none of these are anywhere near as central to the average user's computer usage as the web browser is.
And regardless, there's no problem with those anyway as Microsoft only packages minimally functional implementations of those programs with Windows which don't offer any real competition to more serious products in the same categories.Furthermore, the quality or lack thereof of those bundled programs doesn't really affect much.
So what if MS Paint doesn't have fancy filters?
So what if Notepad doesn't have multiple kill buffers and advanced scripting capability?
So what if Explorer doesn't have multiple panes?
However, Internet Explorer's dominant position offers Microsoft significant influence over the development of the web, and held it back massively until Firefox started eating into its market share, and still does to a significant extent.Where do I sign up to have the VB 3 based browser I wrote in 8th grade added?
We could all be using HyperMonkeyMarkup right now!You can bug the EU to make Microsoft include your browser in the ballot when far more people than just you use it.
In case you didn't notice before jumping to the comment box to write your whiny rant, they're not putting every random asshat's pet project in there.
They're only including the top browsers.If this is what the web browser market needs to be competitive, imagine what it could do for open source.
There is redundancy up the wazoo, we could have random ballots for EVERY category.
Then people will have the ultimate freedom, and those who merely pick the top of the list will randomly populate lopsided projects like Gnome/KDE, Linux/*BSD/OpenSolaris/Hurd, GIMP/MyFirstPictureEditor, MySQL/Postgres, vi/emacs.
It makes PERFECT sense, Hurd+KDE+mono port of emacs has been in the shadows too long, time to send the clueless masses that way and even things out.On a serious note, when has choice in Linux ever been randomized?
What message would that send?Breaking fucking news, the rules are different for monopolies, especially for abusive monopolies.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333052</id>
	<title>Re:We know what this is really about</title>
	<author>Arker</author>
	<datestamp>1259953920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If you have any idea what a "browser" is, and which browser you need, which most people simply don't, then you wouldn't need random order to "help you" in your choice. We know what this is really about: the other 4 browser makers hoping to gain some market share by confusing the Windows users.</p></div></blockquote><p>Err, no, they are hoping to gain some market share <i>of confused windows users.</i> A demographic that now goes nearly 100\% to IE, profitting MicroSoft, the authors of confusion. </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have any idea what a " browser " is , and which browser you need , which most people simply do n't , then you would n't need random order to " help you " in your choice .
We know what this is really about : the other 4 browser makers hoping to gain some market share by confusing the Windows users.Err , no , they are hoping to gain some market share of confused windows users .
A demographic that now goes nearly 100 \ % to IE , profitting MicroSoft , the authors of confusion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you have any idea what a "browser" is, and which browser you need, which most people simply don't, then you wouldn't need random order to "help you" in your choice.
We know what this is really about: the other 4 browser makers hoping to gain some market share by confusing the Windows users.Err, no, they are hoping to gain some market share of confused windows users.
A demographic that now goes nearly 100\% to IE, profitting MicroSoft, the authors of confusion. 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333098</id>
	<title>Re:Sad</title>
	<author>Stan Vassilev</author>
	<datestamp>1259954640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why stop at browsers then?</p></div><p>Wait, who said they would? At this point I'm firmly convinced that EU will continue to pursue their aggressive agenda against Microsoft, until their have a monetary incentive to do so (and a big monetary incentive at that). The sad truth is, the current outcome with the browser ballot is not what EU commission expected or hoped for, and they will seek for a formality that would allow them to fine Microsoft anyway. <br> <br>

And after that, come the other lawsuits. You better get ready for lots of new ballots, and Windows versions, because they're coming.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why stop at browsers then ? Wait , who said they would ?
At this point I 'm firmly convinced that EU will continue to pursue their aggressive agenda against Microsoft , until their have a monetary incentive to do so ( and a big monetary incentive at that ) .
The sad truth is , the current outcome with the browser ballot is not what EU commission expected or hoped for , and they will seek for a formality that would allow them to fine Microsoft anyway .
And after that , come the other lawsuits .
You better get ready for lots of new ballots , and Windows versions , because they 're coming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why stop at browsers then?Wait, who said they would?
At this point I'm firmly convinced that EU will continue to pursue their aggressive agenda against Microsoft, until their have a monetary incentive to do so (and a big monetary incentive at that).
The sad truth is, the current outcome with the browser ballot is not what EU commission expected or hoped for, and they will seek for a formality that would allow them to fine Microsoft anyway.
And after that, come the other lawsuits.
You better get ready for lots of new ballots, and Windows versions, because they're coming.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332960</id>
	<title>As a long time Opera user</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259952360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a long time Opera user, all this nonsense makes me want to just install Internet Explorer to spite the lot of them. (OK, as a web developer I know I will be installing all of them on my test computer)</p><p>The reason I have always prefered Opera is that I get all the functionality without having to install other plug-ins and programs. I'm getting too old to just keep tinkering with my setup. In my youth I probably spent 90\% of my time installing new stuff &amp; writing programs to streamline my system and only 10\% actually being productive. These days I want it to be 10\% tinkering and 90\% productivity.</p><p>So it annoys me that when I install Windows I now have to install mail and web programs because Microsoft were forced to separate them all.</p><p>People keep saying that people use Internet Explorer because they don't know any better (and don't know the opposition products), but I don't think that those people outside the geek community WANT to have to know about them. They just want to use a computer to do stuff. It is only as I have got older that I have really appreciated this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a long time Opera user , all this nonsense makes me want to just install Internet Explorer to spite the lot of them .
( OK , as a web developer I know I will be installing all of them on my test computer ) The reason I have always prefered Opera is that I get all the functionality without having to install other plug-ins and programs .
I 'm getting too old to just keep tinkering with my setup .
In my youth I probably spent 90 \ % of my time installing new stuff &amp; writing programs to streamline my system and only 10 \ % actually being productive .
These days I want it to be 10 \ % tinkering and 90 \ % productivity.So it annoys me that when I install Windows I now have to install mail and web programs because Microsoft were forced to separate them all.People keep saying that people use Internet Explorer because they do n't know any better ( and do n't know the opposition products ) , but I do n't think that those people outside the geek community WANT to have to know about them .
They just want to use a computer to do stuff .
It is only as I have got older that I have really appreciated this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a long time Opera user, all this nonsense makes me want to just install Internet Explorer to spite the lot of them.
(OK, as a web developer I know I will be installing all of them on my test computer)The reason I have always prefered Opera is that I get all the functionality without having to install other plug-ins and programs.
I'm getting too old to just keep tinkering with my setup.
In my youth I probably spent 90\% of my time installing new stuff &amp; writing programs to streamline my system and only 10\% actually being productive.
These days I want it to be 10\% tinkering and 90\% productivity.So it annoys me that when I install Windows I now have to install mail and web programs because Microsoft were forced to separate them all.People keep saying that people use Internet Explorer because they don't know any better (and don't know the opposition products), but I don't think that those people outside the geek community WANT to have to know about them.
They just want to use a computer to do stuff.
It is only as I have got older that I have really appreciated this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332906</id>
	<title>the way they want ballots to work in Redmond</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259951460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&lt;ul&gt;<br>&lt;li&gt;&lt;small&gt;Opera<br>&lt;li&gt;&lt;small&gt;Firefox<br>&lt;li&gt;&lt;large&gt;&lt;large&gt;&lt;large&gt;IE<br>&lt;li&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;font color=white&gt;Chrome<br>&lt;li&gt;Safari<br>&lt;/ul&gt;</p><p>Heh heh -- Newall</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OperaFirefoxIEChromeSafariHeh heh -- Newall</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OperaFirefoxIEChromeSafariHeh heh -- Newall</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333060</id>
	<title>Re:This is just stupid</title>
	<author>Dustie</author>
	<datestamp>1259953980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>How do you know that no part of the windows selling price is for development of IE? Do you think all the apps in Windows is made by programmers in their free time and the OS itself is made when they are at work? Notepad, freecell, IE. Non of them are free.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you know that no part of the windows selling price is for development of IE ?
Do you think all the apps in Windows is made by programmers in their free time and the OS itself is made when they are at work ?
Notepad , freecell , IE .
Non of them are free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you know that no part of the windows selling price is for development of IE?
Do you think all the apps in Windows is made by programmers in their free time and the OS itself is made when they are at work?
Notepad, freecell, IE.
Non of them are free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332974</id>
	<title>anti-free market</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259952720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The EU is really treating Microsoft unfairly.  Not to mention the amount of money spent on bureaucracy of the most inane kind.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The EU is really treating Microsoft unfairly .
Not to mention the amount of money spent on bureaucracy of the most inane kind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The EU is really treating Microsoft unfairly.
Not to mention the amount of money spent on bureaucracy of the most inane kind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333906</id>
	<title>Re:Sad</title>
	<author>cyber-vandal</author>
	<datestamp>1260012960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Try not to get too angry.  There are so many people on here who don't have the ability to run a google search to see why MS are so unpopular and just blindly believe it's because the ungrateful Yooroes who would all be speaking Kraut if it wasn't for Uncle Sam are punishing a successful US corp for being successful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Try not to get too angry .
There are so many people on here who do n't have the ability to run a google search to see why MS are so unpopular and just blindly believe it 's because the ungrateful Yooroes who would all be speaking Kraut if it was n't for Uncle Sam are punishing a successful US corp for being successful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try not to get too angry.
There are so many people on here who don't have the ability to run a google search to see why MS are so unpopular and just blindly believe it's because the ungrateful Yooroes who would all be speaking Kraut if it wasn't for Uncle Sam are punishing a successful US corp for being successful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30336814</id>
	<title>Re:We know what this is really about</title>
	<author>Zero\_\_Kelvin</author>
	<datestamp>1260041100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"We know what this is really about: the other 4 browser makers hoping to gain some market share by confusing the Windows users."</p></div></blockquote><p>How dare they gain market share by confusing Windows users!  Don't they know that violates a Microsoft patent on their business process !!!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" We know what this is really about : the other 4 browser makers hoping to gain some market share by confusing the Windows users .
" How dare they gain market share by confusing Windows users !
Do n't they know that violates a Microsoft patent on their business process ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We know what this is really about: the other 4 browser makers hoping to gain some market share by confusing the Windows users.
"How dare they gain market share by confusing Windows users!
Don't they know that violates a Microsoft patent on their business process !!
!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30334422</id>
	<title>Re:Hypocrites.</title>
	<author>Alef</author>
	<datestamp>1260022620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>But the premise of this whole debacle is that people are not given a choice of browser when they install an OS, and that is the reason that IE has such a large market share (since it's installed by default).</p></div></blockquote><p>
The choice has always been there, albeit more complicated to make. The issue has been that Microsoft has promoted their browser through their operating system monopoly, leading to unfair competition, not that people haven't been given a choice per se.</p><p>I personally don't think it is a big issue whether the ballot should be random or not. It sounds more like they are quibbling about details. But if the goal is to remove the leverage MS has through controlling the operating system, I'd say a random ballot ought to be more "fair" than letting MS pick the order. Sure, those who don't care will get a random browser, but why should MS be given the advantage of getting (more of) those users?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But the premise of this whole debacle is that people are not given a choice of browser when they install an OS , and that is the reason that IE has such a large market share ( since it 's installed by default ) .
The choice has always been there , albeit more complicated to make .
The issue has been that Microsoft has promoted their browser through their operating system monopoly , leading to unfair competition , not that people have n't been given a choice per se.I personally do n't think it is a big issue whether the ballot should be random or not .
It sounds more like they are quibbling about details .
But if the goal is to remove the leverage MS has through controlling the operating system , I 'd say a random ballot ought to be more " fair " than letting MS pick the order .
Sure , those who do n't care will get a random browser , but why should MS be given the advantage of getting ( more of ) those users ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the premise of this whole debacle is that people are not given a choice of browser when they install an OS, and that is the reason that IE has such a large market share (since it's installed by default).
The choice has always been there, albeit more complicated to make.
The issue has been that Microsoft has promoted their browser through their operating system monopoly, leading to unfair competition, not that people haven't been given a choice per se.I personally don't think it is a big issue whether the ballot should be random or not.
It sounds more like they are quibbling about details.
But if the goal is to remove the leverage MS has through controlling the operating system, I'd say a random ballot ought to be more "fair" than letting MS pick the order.
Sure, those who don't care will get a random browser, but why should MS be given the advantage of getting (more of) those users?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333840</id>
	<title>Re:We know what this is really about</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1260012060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not, really. IE will probably be listed as "Microsoft Internet Explorer" and people, familiar with the Microsoft name, will still go for that one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not , really .
IE will probably be listed as " Microsoft Internet Explorer " and people , familiar with the Microsoft name , will still go for that one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not, really.
IE will probably be listed as "Microsoft Internet Explorer" and people, familiar with the Microsoft name, will still go for that one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332852</id>
	<title>Opera...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259950860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Opera has no business on that list, but otherwise it sounds good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Opera has no business on that list , but otherwise it sounds good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Opera has no business on that list, but otherwise it sounds good.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333248</id>
	<title>Re:Open source had its chance here and blew it.</title>
	<author>TangoMargarine</author>
	<datestamp>1260043920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Open source had its chance and blew it.</p></div><p>So they'll never be able to optimise it, huh? It shall remain bloated forever.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Open source had its chance and blew it.So they 'll never be able to optimise it , huh ?
It shall remain bloated forever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Open source had its chance and blew it.So they'll never be able to optimise it, huh?
It shall remain bloated forever.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30334650</id>
	<title>Re:We know what this is really about</title>
	<author>IdleTime</author>
	<datestamp>1260026280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have a much easier solution to the problem:<br>
- Install some Linux distro.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a much easier solution to the problem : - Install some Linux distro .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a much easier solution to the problem:
- Install some Linux distro.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333668</id>
	<title>Re:Sad</title>
	<author>Dewin</author>
	<datestamp>1260008700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It isn't as though Notepad royally screws up text -- recent versions probably even handle Unicode properly</p></div></blockquote><p>Oh <i>REALLY</i>?</p><p>1. Open Notepad<br>2. Type "this app can break"<br>3. Save the file.<br>4. Close Notepad<br>5. Reopen the file in Notepad.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is n't as though Notepad royally screws up text -- recent versions probably even handle Unicode properlyOh REALLY ? 1 .
Open Notepad2 .
Type " this app can break " 3 .
Save the file.4 .
Close Notepad5 .
Reopen the file in Notepad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It isn't as though Notepad royally screws up text -- recent versions probably even handle Unicode properlyOh REALLY?1.
Open Notepad2.
Type "this app can break"3.
Save the file.4.
Close Notepad5.
Reopen the file in Notepad.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332928</id>
	<title>Next, they will not be happy with randomozation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259951820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...the top five browsers -- IE, Firefox, Chrome, Opera and Apple's Safari -- will appear in random order each time the ballot is displayed.</p></div><p>Guess what! Next, the complainants will not be happy with the way the randomization code is implemented. I guess they will propose an Open Source one.</p><p>Frankly, I cannot wait to get finished with this bickering, and besides, Firefox is not doing badly in Germany at all!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...the top five browsers -- IE , Firefox , Chrome , Opera and Apple 's Safari -- will appear in random order each time the ballot is displayed.Guess what !
Next , the complainants will not be happy with the way the randomization code is implemented .
I guess they will propose an Open Source one.Frankly , I can not wait to get finished with this bickering , and besides , Firefox is not doing badly in Germany at all !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...the top five browsers -- IE, Firefox, Chrome, Opera and Apple's Safari -- will appear in random order each time the ballot is displayed.Guess what!
Next, the complainants will not be happy with the way the randomization code is implemented.
I guess they will propose an Open Source one.Frankly, I cannot wait to get finished with this bickering, and besides, Firefox is not doing badly in Germany at all!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333082</id>
	<title>Re:This is just stupid</title>
	<author>TaoPhoenix</author>
	<datestamp>1259954280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because of things like your list.</p><p>Microsoft hard-coded things like your "three options labeled 1, 2, and C" in Internet Explorer so that it took ten years for the web to get users to realize why other browsers were needed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because of things like your list.Microsoft hard-coded things like your " three options labeled 1 , 2 , and C " in Internet Explorer so that it took ten years for the web to get users to realize why other browsers were needed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because of things like your list.Microsoft hard-coded things like your "three options labeled 1, 2, and C" in Internet Explorer so that it took ten years for the web to get users to realize why other browsers were needed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333228</id>
	<title>Hypocrites.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260043560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The only possible reason that you would care about your position on a serial list of choices is if you knew that the majority of people making said choice really don't care about what they're choosing, and their choice would end up being random (i.e., primacy effect, serial position effect, google it).<br> <br>

But the premise of this whole debacle is that people are not given a choice of browser when they install an OS, and that is the reason that IE has such a large market share (since it's installed by default).<br> <br>

So basically, these other browser makers are fighting over how to get their browser randomly selected the most among people who don't care what browser they use.  So that they can claim that their browser is used more.  How does that make any sense?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only possible reason that you would care about your position on a serial list of choices is if you knew that the majority of people making said choice really do n't care about what they 're choosing , and their choice would end up being random ( i.e. , primacy effect , serial position effect , google it ) .
But the premise of this whole debacle is that people are not given a choice of browser when they install an OS , and that is the reason that IE has such a large market share ( since it 's installed by default ) .
So basically , these other browser makers are fighting over how to get their browser randomly selected the most among people who do n't care what browser they use .
So that they can claim that their browser is used more .
How does that make any sense ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only possible reason that you would care about your position on a serial list of choices is if you knew that the majority of people making said choice really don't care about what they're choosing, and their choice would end up being random (i.e., primacy effect, serial position effect, google it).
But the premise of this whole debacle is that people are not given a choice of browser when they install an OS, and that is the reason that IE has such a large market share (since it's installed by default).
So basically, these other browser makers are fighting over how to get their browser randomly selected the most among people who don't care what browser they use.
So that they can claim that their browser is used more.
How does that make any sense?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30345550</id>
	<title>Re:We know what this is really about</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1260091500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about you simply refer to the other 200 discussions we've all had on the subject, instead of reading all the replies here - again?</p><p>What you're saying is untrue, and would probably cross the line into libel in many countries. Especially since you've apparently been around for a short while and know that you're spreading bullshit.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I wonder how long it would be before a bunch of lawyers make a company with a quick Firefox clone and sue EU/Microsoft for not being included in that ballot deal.</p></div><p>Yes, they can do that - as soon as their clone makes it into the <b>top five list</b>. You <b>read</b> the summary, you even show signs of having some understanding, as you yourself wrote "the other 4" just above this. You <b>know</b> that what you're saying is bonkers. So why do it? What's your goal?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about you simply refer to the other 200 discussions we 've all had on the subject , instead of reading all the replies here - again ? What you 're saying is untrue , and would probably cross the line into libel in many countries .
Especially since you 've apparently been around for a short while and know that you 're spreading bullshit.I wonder how long it would be before a bunch of lawyers make a company with a quick Firefox clone and sue EU/Microsoft for not being included in that ballot deal.Yes , they can do that - as soon as their clone makes it into the top five list .
You read the summary , you even show signs of having some understanding , as you yourself wrote " the other 4 " just above this .
You know that what you 're saying is bonkers .
So why do it ?
What 's your goal ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about you simply refer to the other 200 discussions we've all had on the subject, instead of reading all the replies here - again?What you're saying is untrue, and would probably cross the line into libel in many countries.
Especially since you've apparently been around for a short while and know that you're spreading bullshit.I wonder how long it would be before a bunch of lawyers make a company with a quick Firefox clone and sue EU/Microsoft for not being included in that ballot deal.Yes, they can do that - as soon as their clone makes it into the top five list.
You read the summary, you even show signs of having some understanding, as you yourself wrote "the other 4" just above this.
You know that what you're saying is bonkers.
So why do it?
What's your goal?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30337228</id>
	<title>Re:Sad</title>
	<author>VGPowerlord</author>
	<datestamp>1260043680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Do you understand why IE is a problem?</p><p>IE bastardized the web standards it supports, and failed to support any decent new ones, for about a decade. After dropping support for other platforms, it effectively meant that many web pages were Windows-only. This was sometimes through no fault of their own, simply because they tested it with IE and assumed that worked. Sometimes it was deliberate -- why waste time supporting less than 5\% of the population, when 95\% can view your page?</p><p>Only when Firefox started seriously threatening its marketshare did IE start to improve, and it has done so incredibly slowly, compared to any of its rivals.</p><p>Yet even now, the damage has been done. To this day, if I want to be taken seriously as a web developer, I have to spend roughly 10-25\% of my time hacking in support for IE6.</p></div></blockquote><p>At the time it came out, IE6 was considerably more compliant than its main competitor, Netscape 4.  However, that was like 8 years ago.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you understand why IE is a problem ? IE bastardized the web standards it supports , and failed to support any decent new ones , for about a decade .
After dropping support for other platforms , it effectively meant that many web pages were Windows-only .
This was sometimes through no fault of their own , simply because they tested it with IE and assumed that worked .
Sometimes it was deliberate -- why waste time supporting less than 5 \ % of the population , when 95 \ % can view your page ? Only when Firefox started seriously threatening its marketshare did IE start to improve , and it has done so incredibly slowly , compared to any of its rivals.Yet even now , the damage has been done .
To this day , if I want to be taken seriously as a web developer , I have to spend roughly 10-25 \ % of my time hacking in support for IE6.At the time it came out , IE6 was considerably more compliant than its main competitor , Netscape 4 .
However , that was like 8 years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you understand why IE is a problem?IE bastardized the web standards it supports, and failed to support any decent new ones, for about a decade.
After dropping support for other platforms, it effectively meant that many web pages were Windows-only.
This was sometimes through no fault of their own, simply because they tested it with IE and assumed that worked.
Sometimes it was deliberate -- why waste time supporting less than 5\% of the population, when 95\% can view your page?Only when Firefox started seriously threatening its marketshare did IE start to improve, and it has done so incredibly slowly, compared to any of its rivals.Yet even now, the damage has been done.
To this day, if I want to be taken seriously as a web developer, I have to spend roughly 10-25\% of my time hacking in support for IE6.At the time it came out, IE6 was considerably more compliant than its main competitor, Netscape 4.
However, that was like 8 years ago.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333096</id>
	<title>Re:We know what this is really about</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259954580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you have any idea what a "browser" is, and which browser you need, which most people simply don't, then you wouldn't need random order to "help you" in your choice.</p></div><p>Yes ! Many browser manufacturers have found that there is no easy way to advertise for browsers and get users to legitimately install one. So they're resorting to strong-arming through the government. Its the usual corporate mantra..</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have any idea what a " browser " is , and which browser you need , which most people simply do n't , then you would n't need random order to " help you " in your choice.Yes !
Many browser manufacturers have found that there is no easy way to advertise for browsers and get users to legitimately install one .
So they 're resorting to strong-arming through the government .
Its the usual corporate mantra. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you have any idea what a "browser" is, and which browser you need, which most people simply don't, then you wouldn't need random order to "help you" in your choice.Yes !
Many browser manufacturers have found that there is no easy way to advertise for browsers and get users to legitimately install one.
So they're resorting to strong-arming through the government.
Its the usual corporate mantra..
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333018</id>
	<title>Consumer friendly?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259953380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If browser selection screens are consumer friendly why doesn't Chrome OS have one?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If browser selection screens are consumer friendly why does n't Chrome OS have one ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If browser selection screens are consumer friendly why doesn't Chrome OS have one?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333218</id>
	<title>Re:Sad</title>
	<author>tylernt</author>
	<datestamp>1260043320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The implications of this are very saddening. That's beyond promoting competition, and just dividing up the booty.</p><p>Why stop at browsers then?</p></div> </blockquote><p>The fair solution is to not have any kind of (pre-installed) browser or a ballot at all. A user is greeted with a desktop with no prompts or programs. If the user wants a web browser, they can install one from media.</p><p>I'm assuming MS decided that was no good -- can you imagine the tech support calls that would generate? So they agreed to the next best thing, a ballot prompt. I think it's really in MS's best interest, given the alternative -- how well will a desktop OS sell that, out of the box, can't access the web without installing a browser from removable media?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The implications of this are very saddening .
That 's beyond promoting competition , and just dividing up the booty.Why stop at browsers then ?
The fair solution is to not have any kind of ( pre-installed ) browser or a ballot at all .
A user is greeted with a desktop with no prompts or programs .
If the user wants a web browser , they can install one from media.I 'm assuming MS decided that was no good -- can you imagine the tech support calls that would generate ?
So they agreed to the next best thing , a ballot prompt .
I think it 's really in MS 's best interest , given the alternative -- how well will a desktop OS sell that , out of the box , ca n't access the web without installing a browser from removable media ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The implications of this are very saddening.
That's beyond promoting competition, and just dividing up the booty.Why stop at browsers then?
The fair solution is to not have any kind of (pre-installed) browser or a ballot at all.
A user is greeted with a desktop with no prompts or programs.
If the user wants a web browser, they can install one from media.I'm assuming MS decided that was no good -- can you imagine the tech support calls that would generate?
So they agreed to the next best thing, a ballot prompt.
I think it's really in MS's best interest, given the alternative -- how well will a desktop OS sell that, out of the box, can't access the web without installing a browser from removable media?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333130</id>
	<title>Re:This is just stupid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259955360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If you are too stupid to figure out how to download and install an alternative web browser, how is that Micorsoft's fault or problem?</p></div></blockquote><p>I'm reminded of the time when IE was in its infancy and it had trouble downloading Netscape Navigator. FTP worked fine, Mosaic worked fine, and NN could download itself - but IE often stalled at ~98\%. Not saying that was a deliberate act on the part of MS, but an odd co-incidence, no?</p><p>Besides, if the threshold for a computer licence was "figuring out how to download and install Application X", the world would still be be using typewriters, doing budgets in ledgers and cashbooks by hand &amp;/or calculator, listening to music on the radio or stereo system, and surreptitiously buying Playboy at the local corner store...</p><blockquote><div><p>Why not demand that Microsoft offer alternatives to every application that is bundled with Windows? (Notepad, Paintbrush, etc)</p></div></blockquote><p>Because they haven't been accused, charged and convicted of leveraging their effective OS monopoly in an attempt to ensure Notepad, Paintbrush, etc are the <i>de facto</i> text / graphics / etc program, nor have they been accused, charged, and nearly convicted of deliberately stalling to delay following up on their legally-mandated penalties and obligations in relation to the original conviction?</p><p>(Oh, and it usually goes "1, 2, 3" or "A, B, C" - I don't think you get to choose to mix and match<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are too stupid to figure out how to download and install an alternative web browser , how is that Micorsoft 's fault or problem ? I 'm reminded of the time when IE was in its infancy and it had trouble downloading Netscape Navigator .
FTP worked fine , Mosaic worked fine , and NN could download itself - but IE often stalled at ~ 98 \ % .
Not saying that was a deliberate act on the part of MS , but an odd co-incidence , no ? Besides , if the threshold for a computer licence was " figuring out how to download and install Application X " , the world would still be be using typewriters , doing budgets in ledgers and cashbooks by hand &amp;/or calculator , listening to music on the radio or stereo system , and surreptitiously buying Playboy at the local corner store...Why not demand that Microsoft offer alternatives to every application that is bundled with Windows ?
( Notepad , Paintbrush , etc ) Because they have n't been accused , charged and convicted of leveraging their effective OS monopoly in an attempt to ensure Notepad , Paintbrush , etc are the de facto text / graphics / etc program , nor have they been accused , charged , and nearly convicted of deliberately stalling to delay following up on their legally-mandated penalties and obligations in relation to the original conviction ?
( Oh , and it usually goes " 1 , 2 , 3 " or " A , B , C " - I do n't think you get to choose to mix and match ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are too stupid to figure out how to download and install an alternative web browser, how is that Micorsoft's fault or problem?I'm reminded of the time when IE was in its infancy and it had trouble downloading Netscape Navigator.
FTP worked fine, Mosaic worked fine, and NN could download itself - but IE often stalled at ~98\%.
Not saying that was a deliberate act on the part of MS, but an odd co-incidence, no?Besides, if the threshold for a computer licence was "figuring out how to download and install Application X", the world would still be be using typewriters, doing budgets in ledgers and cashbooks by hand &amp;/or calculator, listening to music on the radio or stereo system, and surreptitiously buying Playboy at the local corner store...Why not demand that Microsoft offer alternatives to every application that is bundled with Windows?
(Notepad, Paintbrush, etc)Because they haven't been accused, charged and convicted of leveraging their effective OS monopoly in an attempt to ensure Notepad, Paintbrush, etc are the de facto text / graphics / etc program, nor have they been accused, charged, and nearly convicted of deliberately stalling to delay following up on their legally-mandated penalties and obligations in relation to the original conviction?
(Oh, and it usually goes "1, 2, 3" or "A, B, C" - I don't think you get to choose to mix and match ;-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30336102</id>
	<title>Re:Sad</title>
	<author>icebraining</author>
	<datestamp>1260036900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, could you please tell us what is the default browser for "Linux"? Or Desktop Environment? Or text editor?</p><p>Linux users already <b>have to choose the distro</b>, and there are hundreds, each with different sets of apps. And in many distros, you can install it without installing <i>any</i> browser.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , could you please tell us what is the default browser for " Linux " ?
Or Desktop Environment ?
Or text editor ? Linux users already have to choose the distro , and there are hundreds , each with different sets of apps .
And in many distros , you can install it without installing any browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, could you please tell us what is the default browser for "Linux"?
Or Desktop Environment?
Or text editor?Linux users already have to choose the distro, and there are hundreds, each with different sets of apps.
And in many distros, you can install it without installing any browser.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332850</id>
	<title>Nice hair!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259950860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If they appear one at a time in random order, and assuming the browser names' first letter is the first thing in each line, we could occasionally get COIFS!</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they appear one at a time in random order , and assuming the browser names ' first letter is the first thing in each line , we could occasionally get COIFS !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they appear one at a time in random order, and assuming the browser names' first letter is the first thing in each line, we could occasionally get COIFS!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332946</id>
	<title>Sad</title>
	<author>ToasterMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1259952240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>will appear in random order each time the ballot is displayed</p></div><p>The implications of this are very saddening.  That's beyond promoting competition, and just dividing up the booty.</p><p>Why stop at browsers then?  We could breath new life into the text editor market, casual picture editing market, file compression market, file browser market, music player market, etc.  These ALL existed!  Where are their randomized ballot windows?  Hell, that's free advertising!  Where do I sign up to have the VB 3 based browser I wrote in 8th grade added?  We could all be using HyperMonkeyMarkup right now!</p><p>If this is what the web browser market needs to be competitive, imagine what it could do for open source.  There is redundancy up the wazoo, we could have random ballots for EVERY category.  Then people will have the ultimate freedom, and those who merely pick the top of the list will randomly populate lopsided projects like Gnome/KDE, Linux/*BSD/OpenSolaris/Hurd, GIMP/MyFirstPictureEditor, MySQL/Postgres, vi/emacs.  It makes PERFECT sense, Hurd+KDE+mono port of emacs has been in the shadows too long, time to send the clueless masses that way and even things out.</p><p>On a serious note, when has choice in Linux ever been randomized?  What message would that send?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>will appear in random order each time the ballot is displayedThe implications of this are very saddening .
That 's beyond promoting competition , and just dividing up the booty.Why stop at browsers then ?
We could breath new life into the text editor market , casual picture editing market , file compression market , file browser market , music player market , etc .
These ALL existed !
Where are their randomized ballot windows ?
Hell , that 's free advertising !
Where do I sign up to have the VB 3 based browser I wrote in 8th grade added ?
We could all be using HyperMonkeyMarkup right now ! If this is what the web browser market needs to be competitive , imagine what it could do for open source .
There is redundancy up the wazoo , we could have random ballots for EVERY category .
Then people will have the ultimate freedom , and those who merely pick the top of the list will randomly populate lopsided projects like Gnome/KDE , Linux/ * BSD/OpenSolaris/Hurd , GIMP/MyFirstPictureEditor , MySQL/Postgres , vi/emacs .
It makes PERFECT sense , Hurd + KDE + mono port of emacs has been in the shadows too long , time to send the clueless masses that way and even things out.On a serious note , when has choice in Linux ever been randomized ?
What message would that send ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>will appear in random order each time the ballot is displayedThe implications of this are very saddening.
That's beyond promoting competition, and just dividing up the booty.Why stop at browsers then?
We could breath new life into the text editor market, casual picture editing market, file compression market, file browser market, music player market, etc.
These ALL existed!
Where are their randomized ballot windows?
Hell, that's free advertising!
Where do I sign up to have the VB 3 based browser I wrote in 8th grade added?
We could all be using HyperMonkeyMarkup right now!If this is what the web browser market needs to be competitive, imagine what it could do for open source.
There is redundancy up the wazoo, we could have random ballots for EVERY category.
Then people will have the ultimate freedom, and those who merely pick the top of the list will randomly populate lopsided projects like Gnome/KDE, Linux/*BSD/OpenSolaris/Hurd, GIMP/MyFirstPictureEditor, MySQL/Postgres, vi/emacs.
It makes PERFECT sense, Hurd+KDE+mono port of emacs has been in the shadows too long, time to send the clueless masses that way and even things out.On a serious note, when has choice in Linux ever been randomized?
What message would that send?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30335380</id>
	<title>Re:Sad</title>
	<author>Trevin</author>
	<datestamp>1260032400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>let the OEMs sort it out, but I don't have much of a problem with the "random ballot" -- other than that it's going to lead to the best marketing winning, not the best software.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's just how Microsoft became a near-monopoly: with the best marketing, not the best software.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>let the OEMs sort it out , but I do n't have much of a problem with the " random ballot " -- other than that it 's going to lead to the best marketing winning , not the best software.That 's just how Microsoft became a near-monopoly : with the best marketing , not the best software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>let the OEMs sort it out, but I don't have much of a problem with the "random ballot" -- other than that it's going to lead to the best marketing winning, not the best software.That's just how Microsoft became a near-monopoly: with the best marketing, not the best software.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332922</id>
	<title>Oblig XKCD</title>
	<author>skine</author>
	<datestamp>1259951760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, randomly, we'll always get IE at the top of the list.</p><p><a href="http://xkcd.com/221/" title="xkcd.com">http://xkcd.com/221/</a> [xkcd.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , randomly , we 'll always get IE at the top of the list.http : //xkcd.com/221/ [ xkcd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, randomly, we'll always get IE at the top of the list.http://xkcd.com/221/ [xkcd.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333324</id>
	<title>Re:Sad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260045360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There go my mod points...</p><p><div class="quote"><p>We could breath new life into the text editor market, casual picture editing market, file compression market, file browser market, music player market, etc.</p></div><p>Do you understand why IE is a problem?</p><p>IE bastardized the web standards it supports, and failed to support any decent new ones, for about a decade. After dropping support for other platforms, it effectively meant that many web pages were Windows-only. This was sometimes through no fault of their own, simply because they tested it with IE and assumed that worked. Sometimes it was deliberate -- why waste time supporting less than 5\% of the population, when 95\% can view your page?</p><p>Only when Firefox started seriously threatening its marketshare did IE start to improve, and it has done so incredibly slowly, compared to any of its rivals.</p><p>Yet even now, the damage has been done. To this day, if I want to be taken seriously as a web developer, I have to spend roughly 10-25\% of my time hacking in support for IE6.</p><p>To compound this problem, you do kind of need a web browser to download another web browser. So even if I wanted to make a conscious choice to use, say, Firefox, I'd have to visit the Firefox download page from IE. It isn't as though Microsoft can reasonably be expected to ship an OS without a browser, unless we leave it up to the manufacturers, as most users would not know how to use ftp at the commandline to get Firefox.</p><p>So this is a sane solution to a real problem.</p><p>Compare this to your other examples. It isn't as though Notepad royally screws up text -- recent versions probably even handle Unicode properly, and even if we all adopt the defacto Microsoft standard of CRLF, it's not hurting anything -- nor is there a significant monopoly problem with text editors. And if notepad isn't there, <i>you can download something else.</i></p><p>Same with casual picture editing. Download Paint.net or Gimp, and even if you don't, it's not as though there's some scandal with the png and jpeg file formats that makes them a nightmare to work with because some asshat breaks the standard every chance they get.</p><p>File compression? Standards work, there isn't a monopoly problem, and you don't need a file compression utility to download a file compression utility.</p><p>And so on.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Where do I sign up to have the VB 3 based browser I wrote in 8th grade added?... GIMP/MyFirstPictureEditor</p></div><p>What's the marketshare of your browser? How well does it support standards? Where's the indication that it's a legitimate choice?</p><p>Is there any indication that Gimp is a monopoly of <i>anything,</i> or that it's abused that monopoly power?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>randomly populate lopsided projects like Gnome/KDE... MySQL/Postgres, vi/emacs</p></div><p>Because that's <i>so</i> lopsided right now. Also, what standards has Gnome created that KDE breaks? They seem to cooperate pretty well. MySQL and PostgreSQL seem to both support standard SQL, and vi/emacs seem to both support Unicode well enough.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Linux/*BSD/OpenSolaris/Hurd</p></div><p>This is the only analogy that comes close to making sense -- yet all of these seem to support POSIX and X11 decently well.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>On a serious note, when has choice in Linux ever been randomized?</p></div><p>When has any needed to be? Come to think of it, when has Linux, or anything currently running on Linux, ever abused monopoly power, or had a monopoly of anything to abuse?</p><p>On a serious note, I actually think it would be a bit easier to simply force Windows to ship without a browser, and let the OEMs sort it out, but I don't have much of a problem with the "random ballot" -- other than that it's going to lead to the best marketing winning, not the best software.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There go my mod points...We could breath new life into the text editor market , casual picture editing market , file compression market , file browser market , music player market , etc.Do you understand why IE is a problem ? IE bastardized the web standards it supports , and failed to support any decent new ones , for about a decade .
After dropping support for other platforms , it effectively meant that many web pages were Windows-only .
This was sometimes through no fault of their own , simply because they tested it with IE and assumed that worked .
Sometimes it was deliberate -- why waste time supporting less than 5 \ % of the population , when 95 \ % can view your page ? Only when Firefox started seriously threatening its marketshare did IE start to improve , and it has done so incredibly slowly , compared to any of its rivals.Yet even now , the damage has been done .
To this day , if I want to be taken seriously as a web developer , I have to spend roughly 10-25 \ % of my time hacking in support for IE6.To compound this problem , you do kind of need a web browser to download another web browser .
So even if I wanted to make a conscious choice to use , say , Firefox , I 'd have to visit the Firefox download page from IE .
It is n't as though Microsoft can reasonably be expected to ship an OS without a browser , unless we leave it up to the manufacturers , as most users would not know how to use ftp at the commandline to get Firefox.So this is a sane solution to a real problem.Compare this to your other examples .
It is n't as though Notepad royally screws up text -- recent versions probably even handle Unicode properly , and even if we all adopt the defacto Microsoft standard of CRLF , it 's not hurting anything -- nor is there a significant monopoly problem with text editors .
And if notepad is n't there , you can download something else.Same with casual picture editing .
Download Paint.net or Gimp , and even if you do n't , it 's not as though there 's some scandal with the png and jpeg file formats that makes them a nightmare to work with because some asshat breaks the standard every chance they get.File compression ?
Standards work , there is n't a monopoly problem , and you do n't need a file compression utility to download a file compression utility.And so on.Where do I sign up to have the VB 3 based browser I wrote in 8th grade added ? .. .
GIMP/MyFirstPictureEditorWhat 's the marketshare of your browser ?
How well does it support standards ?
Where 's the indication that it 's a legitimate choice ? Is there any indication that Gimp is a monopoly of anything , or that it 's abused that monopoly power ? randomly populate lopsided projects like Gnome/KDE... MySQL/Postgres , vi/emacsBecause that 's so lopsided right now .
Also , what standards has Gnome created that KDE breaks ?
They seem to cooperate pretty well .
MySQL and PostgreSQL seem to both support standard SQL , and vi/emacs seem to both support Unicode well enough.Linux/ * BSD/OpenSolaris/HurdThis is the only analogy that comes close to making sense -- yet all of these seem to support POSIX and X11 decently well.On a serious note , when has choice in Linux ever been randomized ? When has any needed to be ?
Come to think of it , when has Linux , or anything currently running on Linux , ever abused monopoly power , or had a monopoly of anything to abuse ? On a serious note , I actually think it would be a bit easier to simply force Windows to ship without a browser , and let the OEMs sort it out , but I do n't have much of a problem with the " random ballot " -- other than that it 's going to lead to the best marketing winning , not the best software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There go my mod points...We could breath new life into the text editor market, casual picture editing market, file compression market, file browser market, music player market, etc.Do you understand why IE is a problem?IE bastardized the web standards it supports, and failed to support any decent new ones, for about a decade.
After dropping support for other platforms, it effectively meant that many web pages were Windows-only.
This was sometimes through no fault of their own, simply because they tested it with IE and assumed that worked.
Sometimes it was deliberate -- why waste time supporting less than 5\% of the population, when 95\% can view your page?Only when Firefox started seriously threatening its marketshare did IE start to improve, and it has done so incredibly slowly, compared to any of its rivals.Yet even now, the damage has been done.
To this day, if I want to be taken seriously as a web developer, I have to spend roughly 10-25\% of my time hacking in support for IE6.To compound this problem, you do kind of need a web browser to download another web browser.
So even if I wanted to make a conscious choice to use, say, Firefox, I'd have to visit the Firefox download page from IE.
It isn't as though Microsoft can reasonably be expected to ship an OS without a browser, unless we leave it up to the manufacturers, as most users would not know how to use ftp at the commandline to get Firefox.So this is a sane solution to a real problem.Compare this to your other examples.
It isn't as though Notepad royally screws up text -- recent versions probably even handle Unicode properly, and even if we all adopt the defacto Microsoft standard of CRLF, it's not hurting anything -- nor is there a significant monopoly problem with text editors.
And if notepad isn't there, you can download something else.Same with casual picture editing.
Download Paint.net or Gimp, and even if you don't, it's not as though there's some scandal with the png and jpeg file formats that makes them a nightmare to work with because some asshat breaks the standard every chance they get.File compression?
Standards work, there isn't a monopoly problem, and you don't need a file compression utility to download a file compression utility.And so on.Where do I sign up to have the VB 3 based browser I wrote in 8th grade added?...
GIMP/MyFirstPictureEditorWhat's the marketshare of your browser?
How well does it support standards?
Where's the indication that it's a legitimate choice?Is there any indication that Gimp is a monopoly of anything, or that it's abused that monopoly power?randomly populate lopsided projects like Gnome/KDE... MySQL/Postgres, vi/emacsBecause that's so lopsided right now.
Also, what standards has Gnome created that KDE breaks?
They seem to cooperate pretty well.
MySQL and PostgreSQL seem to both support standard SQL, and vi/emacs seem to both support Unicode well enough.Linux/*BSD/OpenSolaris/HurdThis is the only analogy that comes close to making sense -- yet all of these seem to support POSIX and X11 decently well.On a serious note, when has choice in Linux ever been randomized?When has any needed to be?
Come to think of it, when has Linux, or anything currently running on Linux, ever abused monopoly power, or had a monopoly of anything to abuse?On a serious note, I actually think it would be a bit easier to simply force Windows to ship without a browser, and let the OEMs sort it out, but I don't have much of a problem with the "random ballot" -- other than that it's going to lead to the best marketing winning, not the best software.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332926</id>
	<title>We know what this is really about</title>
	<author>Stan Vassilev</author>
	<datestamp>1259951760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The top five browsers &mdash; IE, Firefox, Chrome, Opera and Apple's Safari &mdash; will appear in random order each time the ballot is displayed</p></div><p>If you have any idea what a "browser" is, and which browser you need, which most people simply don't, then you wouldn't need random order to "help you" in your choice. We know what this is really about: the other 4 browser makers hoping to gain some market share by confusing the Windows users. I'll call it the casino browser installer. Make your lucky pick!<br> <br>

I wonder how long it would be before a bunch of lawyers make a company with a quick Firefox clone and sue EU/Microsoft for not being included in that ballot deal.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The top five browsers    IE , Firefox , Chrome , Opera and Apple 's Safari    will appear in random order each time the ballot is displayedIf you have any idea what a " browser " is , and which browser you need , which most people simply do n't , then you would n't need random order to " help you " in your choice .
We know what this is really about : the other 4 browser makers hoping to gain some market share by confusing the Windows users .
I 'll call it the casino browser installer .
Make your lucky pick !
I wonder how long it would be before a bunch of lawyers make a company with a quick Firefox clone and sue EU/Microsoft for not being included in that ballot deal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The top five browsers — IE, Firefox, Chrome, Opera and Apple's Safari — will appear in random order each time the ballot is displayedIf you have any idea what a "browser" is, and which browser you need, which most people simply don't, then you wouldn't need random order to "help you" in your choice.
We know what this is really about: the other 4 browser makers hoping to gain some market share by confusing the Windows users.
I'll call it the casino browser installer.
Make your lucky pick!
I wonder how long it would be before a bunch of lawyers make a company with a quick Firefox clone and sue EU/Microsoft for not being included in that ballot deal.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30345028</id>
	<title>Re:Sad</title>
	<author>man\_of\_mr\_e</author>
	<datestamp>1260130620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>IE bastardized the web standards it supports, and failed to support any decent new ones, for about a decade. </i></p><p>That's an interesting way of interpreting history.  Technically, at various times, IE has been more standards conformant than any other browser.  For example, when IE6 was released in 2001, IE6 had the best CSS support.  The problem was not that IE "bastardized" standards, it's that it didn't keep up with evolving standards, and it didn't improve it's standard support so that it's competitors soon surpassed it in standards conformance.  Also, IE had a number of bugs in their implementation which they did not bother to fix also.  For example, IE7 became significantly more compliant just by fixing the majority of their current CSS bugs.</p><p>What you're saying is that an 1967 dodge charger "bastardized" EPA regulations from the 1980's, even though it existed long before those regulations existed, or before any of it's competitors had implemented them.</p><p>There's no doubt that Microsoft ignores some standards.  But one can only criticize them for new works they release after those standards are defined and commonly implemented, or for not updating their products.   You can't criticize their old product for not conforming to new standards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IE bastardized the web standards it supports , and failed to support any decent new ones , for about a decade .
That 's an interesting way of interpreting history .
Technically , at various times , IE has been more standards conformant than any other browser .
For example , when IE6 was released in 2001 , IE6 had the best CSS support .
The problem was not that IE " bastardized " standards , it 's that it did n't keep up with evolving standards , and it did n't improve it 's standard support so that it 's competitors soon surpassed it in standards conformance .
Also , IE had a number of bugs in their implementation which they did not bother to fix also .
For example , IE7 became significantly more compliant just by fixing the majority of their current CSS bugs.What you 're saying is that an 1967 dodge charger " bastardized " EPA regulations from the 1980 's , even though it existed long before those regulations existed , or before any of it 's competitors had implemented them.There 's no doubt that Microsoft ignores some standards .
But one can only criticize them for new works they release after those standards are defined and commonly implemented , or for not updating their products .
You ca n't criticize their old product for not conforming to new standards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IE bastardized the web standards it supports, and failed to support any decent new ones, for about a decade.
That's an interesting way of interpreting history.
Technically, at various times, IE has been more standards conformant than any other browser.
For example, when IE6 was released in 2001, IE6 had the best CSS support.
The problem was not that IE "bastardized" standards, it's that it didn't keep up with evolving standards, and it didn't improve it's standard support so that it's competitors soon surpassed it in standards conformance.
Also, IE had a number of bugs in their implementation which they did not bother to fix also.
For example, IE7 became significantly more compliant just by fixing the majority of their current CSS bugs.What you're saying is that an 1967 dodge charger "bastardized" EPA regulations from the 1980's, even though it existed long before those regulations existed, or before any of it's competitors had implemented them.There's no doubt that Microsoft ignores some standards.
But one can only criticize them for new works they release after those standards are defined and commonly implemented, or for not updating their products.
You can't criticize their old product for not conforming to new standards.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333848</id>
	<title>Re:We know what this is really about</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1260012120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's the point.  Now people who don't know what to choose will pick one at random, or ask a friend, rather than just defaulting to Internet Explorer.  This prevents Microsoft from using their monopoly in the OS market to get a monopoly in the browser market (in theory).</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the point .
Now people who do n't know what to choose will pick one at random , or ask a friend , rather than just defaulting to Internet Explorer .
This prevents Microsoft from using their monopoly in the OS market to get a monopoly in the browser market ( in theory ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the point.
Now people who don't know what to choose will pick one at random, or ask a friend, rather than just defaulting to Internet Explorer.
This prevents Microsoft from using their monopoly in the OS market to get a monopoly in the browser market (in theory).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333002</id>
	<title>Re:Sad</title>
	<author>Gigiya</author>
	<datestamp>1259953200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Overreact much?

Display is random, it's not like it randomly chooses and installs one automatically.  If that's what a user does, it's their problem.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Overreact much ?
Display is random , it 's not like it randomly chooses and installs one automatically .
If that 's what a user does , it 's their problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Overreact much?
Display is random, it's not like it randomly chooses and installs one automatically.
If that's what a user does, it's their problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30341326</id>
	<title>Re:Sad</title>
	<author>ToasterMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1260037980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This was sometimes through no fault of their own, simply because they tested it with IE and assumed that worked. Sometimes it was deliberate -- why waste time supporting less than 5\% of the population, when 95\% can view your page?</p></div><p>Sorry, I forgot IE was the reference browser for the Internet and Microsoft failed, or wait, it wasn't, and developers only tested with IE?    Who's problem was this again?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>File compression? Standards work, there isn't a monopoly problem, and you don't need a file compression utility to download a file compression utility.</p></div><p>Standard file compression, which one, are you serious?  ZOMG, Microsoft the monopoly is bundling file compression utilities with Windows, what about WinZip?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/sarcasm.<br>BTW, conveniently, all of my examples were being sold prior to being available on the Internet.  Yes, I've heard there was such a time.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Is there any indication that Gimp is a monopoly of anything, or that it's abused that monopoly power?</p></div><p>Gimp isn't RedHat is!1  They are strong arming you into using one project over another, that's favoritism.  They should use ballots!1.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>When has any needed to be? Come to think of it, when has Linux, or anything currently running on Linux, ever abused monopoly power, or had a monopoly of anything to abuse?</p></div><p>I'm not talking about monopolies, I'm poking fun at the reactions to them.  If RedHat were found to be a monopoly, would random ballots make any more sense?  God, I hope not.  They don't make sense in open source (or do they*) and they don't make sense in Windows, monopoly or not.  It's like we've opened this big "So You've Got Yourself a Monopoly" book, flipped to Ch. XVIIJ "Punishments", and... oh, there's a blank page!  Well, just make stuff up, that feels good, run with it.  I've heard the same authors wrote "Mergers and Acquisitions for Dummies"</p><p>*You and I both know that many, many flamewars would end if every distro offered to log you into KDE or Gnome, listed in random order.  I could extend that to a great deal other open source project categories as well.   Yes, that is as fucked up an idea as random browser ballots.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This was sometimes through no fault of their own , simply because they tested it with IE and assumed that worked .
Sometimes it was deliberate -- why waste time supporting less than 5 \ % of the population , when 95 \ % can view your page ? Sorry , I forgot IE was the reference browser for the Internet and Microsoft failed , or wait , it was n't , and developers only tested with IE ?
Who 's problem was this again ? File compression ?
Standards work , there is n't a monopoly problem , and you do n't need a file compression utility to download a file compression utility.Standard file compression , which one , are you serious ?
ZOMG , Microsoft the monopoly is bundling file compression utilities with Windows , what about WinZip ?
/sarcasm.BTW , conveniently , all of my examples were being sold prior to being available on the Internet .
Yes , I 've heard there was such a time.Is there any indication that Gimp is a monopoly of anything , or that it 's abused that monopoly power ? Gimp is n't RedHat is ! 1 They are strong arming you into using one project over another , that 's favoritism .
They should use ballots ! 1.When has any needed to be ?
Come to think of it , when has Linux , or anything currently running on Linux , ever abused monopoly power , or had a monopoly of anything to abuse ? I 'm not talking about monopolies , I 'm poking fun at the reactions to them .
If RedHat were found to be a monopoly , would random ballots make any more sense ?
God , I hope not .
They do n't make sense in open source ( or do they * ) and they do n't make sense in Windows , monopoly or not .
It 's like we 've opened this big " So You 've Got Yourself a Monopoly " book , flipped to Ch .
XVIIJ " Punishments " , and... oh , there 's a blank page !
Well , just make stuff up , that feels good , run with it .
I 've heard the same authors wrote " Mergers and Acquisitions for Dummies " * You and I both know that many , many flamewars would end if every distro offered to log you into KDE or Gnome , listed in random order .
I could extend that to a great deal other open source project categories as well .
Yes , that is as fucked up an idea as random browser ballots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This was sometimes through no fault of their own, simply because they tested it with IE and assumed that worked.
Sometimes it was deliberate -- why waste time supporting less than 5\% of the population, when 95\% can view your page?Sorry, I forgot IE was the reference browser for the Internet and Microsoft failed, or wait, it wasn't, and developers only tested with IE?
Who's problem was this again?File compression?
Standards work, there isn't a monopoly problem, and you don't need a file compression utility to download a file compression utility.Standard file compression, which one, are you serious?
ZOMG, Microsoft the monopoly is bundling file compression utilities with Windows, what about WinZip?
/sarcasm.BTW, conveniently, all of my examples were being sold prior to being available on the Internet.
Yes, I've heard there was such a time.Is there any indication that Gimp is a monopoly of anything, or that it's abused that monopoly power?Gimp isn't RedHat is!1  They are strong arming you into using one project over another, that's favoritism.
They should use ballots!1.When has any needed to be?
Come to think of it, when has Linux, or anything currently running on Linux, ever abused monopoly power, or had a monopoly of anything to abuse?I'm not talking about monopolies, I'm poking fun at the reactions to them.
If RedHat were found to be a monopoly, would random ballots make any more sense?
God, I hope not.
They don't make sense in open source (or do they*) and they don't make sense in Windows, monopoly or not.
It's like we've opened this big "So You've Got Yourself a Monopoly" book, flipped to Ch.
XVIIJ "Punishments", and... oh, there's a blank page!
Well, just make stuff up, that feels good, run with it.
I've heard the same authors wrote "Mergers and Acquisitions for Dummies"*You and I both know that many, many flamewars would end if every distro offered to log you into KDE or Gnome, listed in random order.
I could extend that to a great deal other open source project categories as well.
Yes, that is as fucked up an idea as random browser ballots.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333796</id>
	<title>Re:This is just stupid</title>
	<author>Spliffster</author>
	<datestamp>1260011460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"2.  If you are too stupid to figure out how to download and install an alternative web browser, how is that Micorsoft's fault or problem?"<br><br>Maybe you do not remember the late 90ies. Without Mozilla we wouldn't call the web "Web 2.0" today, it would be "Microsoft Web 2.0" and would nor work without "Microsoft Internet Explorer(C)". This being a linux/unix centric site, i guess most readers would be out of luck browsing the web and more importantly using web applications (no company webmail from at home for you sir).<br><br>I don't understand all the bitching on this topic, people seem to forget so quickly. Web applications are the future, it was clear to some in the late 90ies, today every one working in IT should know this! If one monopolist can control the web, we sure have a problem in the future.<br><br>Kind regards,<br>-S</htmltext>
<tokenext>" 2 .
If you are too stupid to figure out how to download and install an alternative web browser , how is that Micorsoft 's fault or problem ?
" Maybe you do not remember the late 90ies .
Without Mozilla we would n't call the web " Web 2.0 " today , it would be " Microsoft Web 2.0 " and would nor work without " Microsoft Internet Explorer ( C ) " .
This being a linux/unix centric site , i guess most readers would be out of luck browsing the web and more importantly using web applications ( no company webmail from at home for you sir ) .I do n't understand all the bitching on this topic , people seem to forget so quickly .
Web applications are the future , it was clear to some in the late 90ies , today every one working in IT should know this !
If one monopolist can control the web , we sure have a problem in the future.Kind regards,-S</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"2.
If you are too stupid to figure out how to download and install an alternative web browser, how is that Micorsoft's fault or problem?
"Maybe you do not remember the late 90ies.
Without Mozilla we wouldn't call the web "Web 2.0" today, it would be "Microsoft Web 2.0" and would nor work without "Microsoft Internet Explorer(C)".
This being a linux/unix centric site, i guess most readers would be out of luck browsing the web and more importantly using web applications (no company webmail from at home for you sir).I don't understand all the bitching on this topic, people seem to forget so quickly.
Web applications are the future, it was clear to some in the late 90ies, today every one working in IT should know this!
If one monopolist can control the web, we sure have a problem in the future.Kind regards,-S</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333290</id>
	<title>Re:We know what this is really about</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1260044760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nope. People will just stop before clicking (or come back to it later, provided there's an option), call their friend who knows more about computers than they do to get advice. It's like how everyone in a group of friends ends up with an iPhone/hotmail account/whatever, or how things like FF and OpenOffice get installed in the first place. Except, unlike FF and OO, this choice will necessarily be made by every user.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope .
People will just stop before clicking ( or come back to it later , provided there 's an option ) , call their friend who knows more about computers than they do to get advice .
It 's like how everyone in a group of friends ends up with an iPhone/hotmail account/whatever , or how things like FF and OpenOffice get installed in the first place .
Except , unlike FF and OO , this choice will necessarily be made by every user .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope.
People will just stop before clicking (or come back to it later, provided there's an option), call their friend who knows more about computers than they do to get advice.
It's like how everyone in a group of friends ends up with an iPhone/hotmail account/whatever, or how things like FF and OpenOffice get installed in the first place.
Except, unlike FF and OO, this choice will necessarily be made by every user.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333322</id>
	<title>Re:Open source had its chance here and blew it.</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1260045300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good thing that Firefox 3.5 is faster, more reliable (than 2 and 3), and uses less memory, right? Oh, huh: it has been out for quite a while (I've been using it since at least April), too.</p><p>Nevermind that Firefox 2 really doesn't work all that well anymore. The web is a lot different now than it was then: much more javascript, more CSS2 with odd crap that looks horrid in FF2, and a lot more creative ads (does AdBlock support FF2 anymore?)</p><p>I don't like the bloat of 3 or 3.5 vs. 2, but seriously... it is quite an improvement none the less.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good thing that Firefox 3.5 is faster , more reliable ( than 2 and 3 ) , and uses less memory , right ?
Oh , huh : it has been out for quite a while ( I 've been using it since at least April ) , too.Nevermind that Firefox 2 really does n't work all that well anymore .
The web is a lot different now than it was then : much more javascript , more CSS2 with odd crap that looks horrid in FF2 , and a lot more creative ads ( does AdBlock support FF2 anymore ?
) I do n't like the bloat of 3 or 3.5 vs. 2 , but seriously... it is quite an improvement none the less .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good thing that Firefox 3.5 is faster, more reliable (than 2 and 3), and uses less memory, right?
Oh, huh: it has been out for quite a while (I've been using it since at least April), too.Nevermind that Firefox 2 really doesn't work all that well anymore.
The web is a lot different now than it was then: much more javascript, more CSS2 with odd crap that looks horrid in FF2, and a lot more creative ads (does AdBlock support FF2 anymore?
)I don't like the bloat of 3 or 3.5 vs. 2, but seriously... it is quite an improvement none the less.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333710</id>
	<title>Re:This is just stupid</title>
	<author>token0</author>
	<datestamp>1260009660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does it have to be repeated each time?

1. Making Opera popular makes Opera's mobile versions popular, profit. Making Chrome popular makes web apps popular, profit. Besides, anyone who coded web pages for IE feels a moral need to make it disappear, it's a pain I wouldn't wish on anyone.

2. It's the masses that are too stupid. It's not ok for Microsoft to profit from their OS's popularity (let's assume it's because it's good) to make their crappy browser popular. It's about monopoly, there's no simple small market analogy, but promoting competition (yes, through restricting someone's freedom) works.


C. Because Notepad and Paint aren't a threat to competition. I know it seems they're all basic apps for doing basic stuff, so it's natural to include them with an OS, but browsing the web isn't basic at all from an economic point of view. That, and IE is making the web worse, Paint isn't making art or design worse.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does it have to be repeated each time ?
1. Making Opera popular makes Opera 's mobile versions popular , profit .
Making Chrome popular makes web apps popular , profit .
Besides , anyone who coded web pages for IE feels a moral need to make it disappear , it 's a pain I would n't wish on anyone .
2. It 's the masses that are too stupid .
It 's not ok for Microsoft to profit from their OS 's popularity ( let 's assume it 's because it 's good ) to make their crappy browser popular .
It 's about monopoly , there 's no simple small market analogy , but promoting competition ( yes , through restricting someone 's freedom ) works .
C. Because Notepad and Paint are n't a threat to competition .
I know it seems they 're all basic apps for doing basic stuff , so it 's natural to include them with an OS , but browsing the web is n't basic at all from an economic point of view .
That , and IE is making the web worse , Paint is n't making art or design worse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does it have to be repeated each time?
1. Making Opera popular makes Opera's mobile versions popular, profit.
Making Chrome popular makes web apps popular, profit.
Besides, anyone who coded web pages for IE feels a moral need to make it disappear, it's a pain I wouldn't wish on anyone.
2. It's the masses that are too stupid.
It's not ok for Microsoft to profit from their OS's popularity (let's assume it's because it's good) to make their crappy browser popular.
It's about monopoly, there's no simple small market analogy, but promoting competition (yes, through restricting someone's freedom) works.
C. Because Notepad and Paint aren't a threat to competition.
I know it seems they're all basic apps for doing basic stuff, so it's natural to include them with an OS, but browsing the web isn't basic at all from an economic point of view.
That, and IE is making the web worse, Paint isn't making art or design worse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333048</id>
	<title>A nightmare for tech support</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259953860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The randomization is bad for one big reason. Since they will never be in the same order, when family calls for help I can't just tell them to click on the middle one(or the one on the far left, etc) I have to either tell them what to look for or have them read off to me what is on their screen until they get to the one I am wanting them to look for. The same thing goes for helpdesk/tech support type set-ups. On the upside big corps probably have a standard disk image with whatever their standard is, but imagine say an ISPs support desk having to deal with a bunch of ridiculous calls just because users who aren't familiar with their computers are call them up asking them which button they should push.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The randomization is bad for one big reason .
Since they will never be in the same order , when family calls for help I ca n't just tell them to click on the middle one ( or the one on the far left , etc ) I have to either tell them what to look for or have them read off to me what is on their screen until they get to the one I am wanting them to look for .
The same thing goes for helpdesk/tech support type set-ups .
On the upside big corps probably have a standard disk image with whatever their standard is , but imagine say an ISPs support desk having to deal with a bunch of ridiculous calls just because users who are n't familiar with their computers are call them up asking them which button they should push .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The randomization is bad for one big reason.
Since they will never be in the same order, when family calls for help I can't just tell them to click on the middle one(or the one on the far left, etc) I have to either tell them what to look for or have them read off to me what is on their screen until they get to the one I am wanting them to look for.
The same thing goes for helpdesk/tech support type set-ups.
On the upside big corps probably have a standard disk image with whatever their standard is, but imagine say an ISPs support desk having to deal with a bunch of ridiculous calls just because users who aren't familiar with their computers are call them up asking them which button they should push.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333224</id>
	<title>Re:We know what this is really about</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260043440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Err, no, they are hoping to gain some market share of confused windows users. A demographic that now goes nearly 100\% to IE, profitting MicroSoft, the authors of confusion.</p></div><p>Oh really, and how are they profiting from IE? Should I remind you there's a friggin' ballot on the search engines in IE already? IE with Bing is now literally two ballots away from happening. I wonder what excuse will be next that someone will bitch about.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Err , no , they are hoping to gain some market share of confused windows users .
A demographic that now goes nearly 100 \ % to IE , profitting MicroSoft , the authors of confusion.Oh really , and how are they profiting from IE ?
Should I remind you there 's a friggin ' ballot on the search engines in IE already ?
IE with Bing is now literally two ballots away from happening .
I wonder what excuse will be next that someone will bitch about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Err, no, they are hoping to gain some market share of confused windows users.
A demographic that now goes nearly 100\% to IE, profitting MicroSoft, the authors of confusion.Oh really, and how are they profiting from IE?
Should I remind you there's a friggin' ballot on the search engines in IE already?
IE with Bing is now literally two ballots away from happening.
I wonder what excuse will be next that someone will bitch about.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333038</id>
	<title>Re:We know what this is really about</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259953620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So if people really don't know what a browser is, and they really don't, what does it matter if they pick a random one? And why \_not\_ provide more choices than the top 5? Linux provides a few firefox clones, swiftweasel, iceweasel, no big deal... Right now, the windows user that knows nothing about browsers, has this choice made for him by microsoft. Besides the illegal tying thing, is that really a better way to go? I think not..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So if people really do n't know what a browser is , and they really do n't , what does it matter if they pick a random one ?
And why \ _not \ _ provide more choices than the top 5 ?
Linux provides a few firefox clones , swiftweasel , iceweasel , no big deal... Right now , the windows user that knows nothing about browsers , has this choice made for him by microsoft .
Besides the illegal tying thing , is that really a better way to go ?
I think not. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if people really don't know what a browser is, and they really don't, what does it matter if they pick a random one?
And why \_not\_ provide more choices than the top 5?
Linux provides a few firefox clones, swiftweasel, iceweasel, no big deal... Right now, the windows user that knows nothing about browsers, has this choice made for him by microsoft.
Besides the illegal tying thing, is that really a better way to go?
I think not..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333214</id>
	<title>I'd like to see the same for search engines</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260043260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mozilla at least is honest about the process - the addtional search engines are alphabetical. There's a whole boatload of them to wade through, but at least it's fair.

IE8, on the other hand, chose to show the additional search engines by some  unknown process, and put Google (the engine that most people would want to add) on the second page of choices, right next to unkonwn providers such as Freebase Visual Search and Findname.cn.

Having a ballot of the top 5 additional search engines would be a lot better than what either Mozilla or Microsoft has.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mozilla at least is honest about the process - the addtional search engines are alphabetical .
There 's a whole boatload of them to wade through , but at least it 's fair .
IE8 , on the other hand , chose to show the additional search engines by some unknown process , and put Google ( the engine that most people would want to add ) on the second page of choices , right next to unkonwn providers such as Freebase Visual Search and Findname.cn .
Having a ballot of the top 5 additional search engines would be a lot better than what either Mozilla or Microsoft has .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mozilla at least is honest about the process - the addtional search engines are alphabetical.
There's a whole boatload of them to wade through, but at least it's fair.
IE8, on the other hand, chose to show the additional search engines by some  unknown process, and put Google (the engine that most people would want to add) on the second page of choices, right next to unkonwn providers such as Freebase Visual Search and Findname.cn.
Having a ballot of the top 5 additional search engines would be a lot better than what either Mozilla or Microsoft has.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30334156</id>
	<title>Re:This is just stupid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260017340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm no fan of Microsoft, but I'm on their side with this one.  This is just stupid.  There's no reason Microsoft should have to do this.</p><p>1.  All the browsers listed are free (as in you pay zero for them).  Selecting something other than IE gets them exactly zero in additional revenue.</p></div><p>It was never about revenue. It was about control of protocols and software.</p><p>The internet was new technology back then and Microsoft was poised to take it all over without much of a fight. If things had been left as they were, the internet would probably be very different. And not in a good way. probably.</p><p>You are either very young, or very naive.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> 2. If you are too stupid to figure out how to download and install an alternative web browser, how is that Micorsoft's fault or problem?</p> </div><p>Now you're being kind of a jerk. Most people I know never (purposefully) install any other software beyond what their computer came with. Most people aren't geeks.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> C. Why not demand that Microsoft offer alternatives to every application that is bundled with Windows? (Notepad, Paintbrush, etc)</p> </div><p>Well, at least I know the answer to whether you're young or naive. You counted all the way to C, congratulations! But to answer your question, Notepad and paint are local programs, they don't interact much with the outside world. Having a monopoly in that software doesn't have an effect on other markets.You can still share pictures and text with me if I don't have your program. Not so with the whole browser thing. Microsoft could have changed the web in nearly any way they wanted if they had a monopoly of the browser market.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm no fan of Microsoft , but I 'm on their side with this one .
This is just stupid .
There 's no reason Microsoft should have to do this.1 .
All the browsers listed are free ( as in you pay zero for them ) .
Selecting something other than IE gets them exactly zero in additional revenue.It was never about revenue .
It was about control of protocols and software.The internet was new technology back then and Microsoft was poised to take it all over without much of a fight .
If things had been left as they were , the internet would probably be very different .
And not in a good way .
probably.You are either very young , or very naive .
2. If you are too stupid to figure out how to download and install an alternative web browser , how is that Micorsoft 's fault or problem ?
Now you 're being kind of a jerk .
Most people I know never ( purposefully ) install any other software beyond what their computer came with .
Most people are n't geeks .
C. Why not demand that Microsoft offer alternatives to every application that is bundled with Windows ?
( Notepad , Paintbrush , etc ) Well , at least I know the answer to whether you 're young or naive .
You counted all the way to C , congratulations !
But to answer your question , Notepad and paint are local programs , they do n't interact much with the outside world .
Having a monopoly in that software does n't have an effect on other markets.You can still share pictures and text with me if I do n't have your program .
Not so with the whole browser thing .
Microsoft could have changed the web in nearly any way they wanted if they had a monopoly of the browser market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm no fan of Microsoft, but I'm on their side with this one.
This is just stupid.
There's no reason Microsoft should have to do this.1.
All the browsers listed are free (as in you pay zero for them).
Selecting something other than IE gets them exactly zero in additional revenue.It was never about revenue.
It was about control of protocols and software.The internet was new technology back then and Microsoft was poised to take it all over without much of a fight.
If things had been left as they were, the internet would probably be very different.
And not in a good way.
probably.You are either very young, or very naive.
2. If you are too stupid to figure out how to download and install an alternative web browser, how is that Micorsoft's fault or problem?
Now you're being kind of a jerk.
Most people I know never (purposefully) install any other software beyond what their computer came with.
Most people aren't geeks.
C. Why not demand that Microsoft offer alternatives to every application that is bundled with Windows?
(Notepad, Paintbrush, etc) Well, at least I know the answer to whether you're young or naive.
You counted all the way to C, congratulations!
But to answer your question, Notepad and paint are local programs, they don't interact much with the outside world.
Having a monopoly in that software doesn't have an effect on other markets.You can still share pictures and text with me if I don't have your program.
Not so with the whole browser thing.
Microsoft could have changed the web in nearly any way they wanted if they had a monopoly of the browser market.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30334534</id>
	<title>Re:Consumer friendly?</title>
	<author>howlingmadhowie</author>
	<datestamp>1260024660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because the Chrome browser is fairly standards compliant?<br>

What this whole thing is about is microsoft trying to use a fairly broken and proprietary version of htmtl, css and javascript to make it impossible for people to use the web without using internet explorer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because the Chrome browser is fairly standards compliant ?
What this whole thing is about is microsoft trying to use a fairly broken and proprietary version of htmtl , css and javascript to make it impossible for people to use the web without using internet explorer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because the Chrome browser is fairly standards compliant?
What this whole thing is about is microsoft trying to use a fairly broken and proprietary version of htmtl, css and javascript to make it impossible for people to use the web without using internet explorer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333344</id>
	<title>Re:We know what this is really about</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260045780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you've purchased the Operating System, Microsoft has profited. Your selection of browser has 0 impact on Microsoft's bottom line and of course 0 impact on the -FREE- alternatives.</p><p>Try again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 've purchased the Operating System , Microsoft has profited .
Your selection of browser has 0 impact on Microsoft 's bottom line and of course 0 impact on the -FREE- alternatives.Try again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you've purchased the Operating System, Microsoft has profited.
Your selection of browser has 0 impact on Microsoft's bottom line and of course 0 impact on the -FREE- alternatives.Try again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30336308</id>
	<title>Re:Sad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260038160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Remember the EU Motto: If you succeed, we have an answer for that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember the EU Motto : If you succeed , we have an answer for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember the EU Motto: If you succeed, we have an answer for that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333514</id>
	<title>Re:As a long time Opera user</title>
	<author>Mystra\_x64</author>
	<datestamp>1260006180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then do it. Don't whine on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.. Just do it. Report back around year or so later how it's on the other side. Maybe it would be good for you. Who knows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then do it .
Do n't whine on /.. Just do it .
Report back around year or so later how it 's on the other side .
Maybe it would be good for you .
Who knows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then do it.
Don't whine on /.. Just do it.
Report back around year or so later how it's on the other side.
Maybe it would be good for you.
Who knows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332964</id>
	<title>This is just stupid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259952480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm no fan of Microsoft, but I'm on their side with this one.  This is just stupid.  There's no reason Microsoft should have to do this.</p><p>1.  All the browsers listed are free (as in you pay zero for them).  Selecting something other than IE gets them exactly zero in additional revenue.</p><p>2.  If you are too stupid to figure out how to download and install an alternative web browser, how is that Micorsoft's fault or problem?</p><p>C.  Why not demand that Microsoft offer alternatives to every application that is bundled with Windows? (Notepad, Paintbrush, etc)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm no fan of Microsoft , but I 'm on their side with this one .
This is just stupid .
There 's no reason Microsoft should have to do this.1 .
All the browsers listed are free ( as in you pay zero for them ) .
Selecting something other than IE gets them exactly zero in additional revenue.2 .
If you are too stupid to figure out how to download and install an alternative web browser , how is that Micorsoft 's fault or problem ? C .
Why not demand that Microsoft offer alternatives to every application that is bundled with Windows ?
( Notepad , Paintbrush , etc )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm no fan of Microsoft, but I'm on their side with this one.
This is just stupid.
There's no reason Microsoft should have to do this.1.
All the browsers listed are free (as in you pay zero for them).
Selecting something other than IE gets them exactly zero in additional revenue.2.
If you are too stupid to figure out how to download and install an alternative web browser, how is that Micorsoft's fault or problem?C.
Why not demand that Microsoft offer alternatives to every application that is bundled with Windows?
(Notepad, Paintbrush, etc)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333032</id>
	<title>I mark my ballot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259953500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>for Buchanan so that nice Mr Gore can win the election</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>for Buchanan so that nice Mr Gore can win the election</tokentext>
<sentencetext>for Buchanan so that nice Mr Gore can win the election</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333078</id>
	<title>Re:As a long time Opera user</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259954280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a long time Google user, all this nonsense makes me want to just use Alta Vista to spite the lot of them. (Ok, the other ones behind the complaint doesn't have much of a web presence to support)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a long time Google user , all this nonsense makes me want to just use Alta Vista to spite the lot of them .
( Ok , the other ones behind the complaint does n't have much of a web presence to support )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a long time Google user, all this nonsense makes me want to just use Alta Vista to spite the lot of them.
(Ok, the other ones behind the complaint doesn't have much of a web presence to support)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333844</id>
	<title>Re:Sad</title>
	<author>jonbryce</author>
	<datestamp>1260012120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The EU has already dealt with the Music Player market.  There are "N" variants of most of their versions of Windows which don't have Windows Media Player, allowing you to install Winamp, Real Player or whatever instead.  They cost exactly the same as the versions with WMP and they have sold approximately zero copies of it in the EU.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The EU has already dealt with the Music Player market .
There are " N " variants of most of their versions of Windows which do n't have Windows Media Player , allowing you to install Winamp , Real Player or whatever instead .
They cost exactly the same as the versions with WMP and they have sold approximately zero copies of it in the EU .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The EU has already dealt with the Music Player market.
There are "N" variants of most of their versions of Windows which don't have Windows Media Player, allowing you to install Winamp, Real Player or whatever instead.
They cost exactly the same as the versions with WMP and they have sold approximately zero copies of it in the EU.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332794</id>
	<title>eat my shorts slashdot !!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259950260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Eat my shorts slashdot<br>
&nbsp; !!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Eat my shorts slashdot   !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eat my shorts slashdot
  !
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0216258_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30345550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0216258_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0216258_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0216258_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0216258_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0216258_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0216258_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0216258_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30334156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0216258_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0216258_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30334224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0216258_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30335380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0216258_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0216258_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0216258_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0216258_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0216258_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30334534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0216258_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0216258_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30336308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0216258_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0216258_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0216258_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0216258_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0216258_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30334422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0216258_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0216258_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0216258_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0216258_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0216258_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0216258_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30336102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0216258_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30334650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0216258_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0216258_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30345028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0216258_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30336814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0216258_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30337228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0216258_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0216258_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0216258_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30341326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_0216258_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30334176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_0216258.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332922
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_0216258.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332974
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_0216258.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30336814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30334650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333052
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333224
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333290
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30345550
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_0216258.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332928
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_0216258.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333324
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30345028
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30335380
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30341326
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333668
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30337228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30336102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333084
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333906
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30336308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30334224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30334176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333844
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_0216258.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332850
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_0216258.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333082
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30334156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333060
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_0216258.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30334422
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_0216258.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333048
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_0216258.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333078
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_0216258.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30332906
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_0216258.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30334534
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_0216258.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333322
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_0216258.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_0216258.30333214
</commentlist>
</conversation>
