<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_07_0327245</id>
	<title>VMware's Dual OS Smartphone Virtualization Plan Firms Up</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1260208080000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Sharky2009 writes <i>"VMware is developing virtualisation for smartphones which can run <a href="http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/328811/vmware\_developing\_dual\_os\_smartphone\_virtualisation?pp=2&amp;fp=16&amp;fpid=1">any two OSes &mdash; Windows Mobile, Android or Linux</a> &mdash; at once. The idea is to have your work applications and home applications all running insider their own VMs and running at the same time so you can access any app any time. VMware says: 'We don't think dual booting will be good enough &mdash; we'll allow you to run both profiles at the same time and be able to switch between them by clicking a button,' he said. 'You'll be able to get and make calls in either profile &ndash; work or home &ndash; as they will both be live at any given point in time.'"</i>

Also <a href="//mobile.slashdot.org/story/09/02/25/1854218/VMware-Demos-Two-Operating-Systems-On-Mobile-Phone">mentioned in February</a> of this year, but now the company's announced a target of 2012 for mass production.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sharky2009 writes " VMware is developing virtualisation for smartphones which can run any two OSes    Windows Mobile , Android or Linux    at once .
The idea is to have your work applications and home applications all running insider their own VMs and running at the same time so you can access any app any time .
VMware says : 'We do n't think dual booting will be good enough    we 'll allow you to run both profiles at the same time and be able to switch between them by clicking a button, ' he said .
'You 'll be able to get and make calls in either profile    work or home    as they will both be live at any given point in time .
' " Also mentioned in February of this year , but now the company 's announced a target of 2012 for mass production .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sharky2009 writes "VMware is developing virtualisation for smartphones which can run any two OSes — Windows Mobile, Android or Linux — at once.
The idea is to have your work applications and home applications all running insider their own VMs and running at the same time so you can access any app any time.
VMware says: 'We don't think dual booting will be good enough — we'll allow you to run both profiles at the same time and be able to switch between them by clicking a button,' he said.
'You'll be able to get and make calls in either profile – work or home – as they will both be live at any given point in time.
'"

Also mentioned in February of this year, but now the company's announced a target of 2012 for mass production.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30350840</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>ozmanjusri</author>
	<datestamp>1260183180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>No, really, why?</i>
<p>

It's the only way to make Windows Mobile usable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , really , why ?
It 's the only way to make Windows Mobile usable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, really, why?
It's the only way to make Windows Mobile usable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30357180</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260177240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>God, I fucking hate people like you.  I have a G1 and have fallen hopelessly in love with Android.  I've written several applications
that I now find indispensable that use the hardware api's
in ways don't won't work on anything else.  On the other
hand, I also LOVE Linux on my desktop.  Ergo, I want an
N900 so bad I can taste it but I'm not going to get one
if I can't run Android on it.  Of course, Android <i> will
</i> work, however, I also want all of the Maemo goodness.  And
running Debian in a bootstrap environment inside of Android
which has no native X display is more a curiosity than anything
else.
  </p><p>
If only there were some way to run them both simultaneously...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>God , I fucking hate people like you .
I have a G1 and have fallen hopelessly in love with Android .
I 've written several applications that I now find indispensable that use the hardware api 's in ways do n't wo n't work on anything else .
On the other hand , I also LOVE Linux on my desktop .
Ergo , I want an N900 so bad I can taste it but I 'm not going to get one if I ca n't run Android on it .
Of course , Android will work , however , I also want all of the Maemo goodness .
And running Debian in a bootstrap environment inside of Android which has no native X display is more a curiosity than anything else .
If only there were some way to run them both simultaneously.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>God, I fucking hate people like you.
I have a G1 and have fallen hopelessly in love with Android.
I've written several applications
that I now find indispensable that use the hardware api's
in ways don't won't work on anything else.
On the other
hand, I also LOVE Linux on my desktop.
Ergo, I want an
N900 so bad I can taste it but I'm not going to get one
if I can't run Android on it.
Of course, Android  will
 work, however, I also want all of the Maemo goodness.
And
running Debian in a bootstrap environment inside of Android
which has no native X display is more a curiosity than anything
else.
If only there were some way to run them both simultaneously...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30355756</id>
	<title>How is vmware going to do it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260213600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I couldn't sleep last night thinking about how it was even possible for vmware to pull off such a stunt.  If you look at any smart phone on the market today there is typically just enough internal ROM/RAM to run a single image and store/run a few applications and associated data.  There is not enough ROM on most current models to store multiple operating systems.</p><p>Cell phones don't have several GB of unused memory and disk space laying around they can devote to other things.  How would you manage and load images?</p><p>The only thing I can see is swaping image data off an external micro SD card but then you loose important optimizations such as execute in place (XIP) and run into severe reliability issues with card removal.</p><p>I'm also not sure about virtualization layers and hardware... Phones are slow enough without adding more levels of abstraction that make them even slower.</p><p>I guess it can be done but for the life of me I don't understand what the advantage would be or who would care outside of a few developers.  Even then my assumption is that most prefer to emulate smartphones on their desktop computers using vendor provided SDKs and real keyboards<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I could n't sleep last night thinking about how it was even possible for vmware to pull off such a stunt .
If you look at any smart phone on the market today there is typically just enough internal ROM/RAM to run a single image and store/run a few applications and associated data .
There is not enough ROM on most current models to store multiple operating systems.Cell phones do n't have several GB of unused memory and disk space laying around they can devote to other things .
How would you manage and load images ? The only thing I can see is swaping image data off an external micro SD card but then you loose important optimizations such as execute in place ( XIP ) and run into severe reliability issues with card removal.I 'm also not sure about virtualization layers and hardware... Phones are slow enough without adding more levels of abstraction that make them even slower.I guess it can be done but for the life of me I do n't understand what the advantage would be or who would care outside of a few developers .
Even then my assumption is that most prefer to emulate smartphones on their desktop computers using vendor provided SDKs and real keyboards : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I couldn't sleep last night thinking about how it was even possible for vmware to pull off such a stunt.
If you look at any smart phone on the market today there is typically just enough internal ROM/RAM to run a single image and store/run a few applications and associated data.
There is not enough ROM on most current models to store multiple operating systems.Cell phones don't have several GB of unused memory and disk space laying around they can devote to other things.
How would you manage and load images?The only thing I can see is swaping image data off an external micro SD card but then you loose important optimizations such as execute in place (XIP) and run into severe reliability issues with card removal.I'm also not sure about virtualization layers and hardware... Phones are slow enough without adding more levels of abstraction that make them even slower.I guess it can be done but for the life of me I don't understand what the advantage would be or who would care outside of a few developers.
Even then my assumption is that most prefer to emulate smartphones on their desktop computers using vendor provided SDKs and real keyboards :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30352934</id>
	<title>Re:great, so my phone can be even slower</title>
	<author>Bert64</author>
	<datestamp>1260201180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reason chinese phones support dual sim and ones you've heard of don't, is because the manufacturers you know of are in the pockets of mobile operators, while the chinese ones aren't.<br>Dual sim is a useful feature for the end user of the phone, but not for the operator, and most of the big name manufacturers are building handsets for operators not for users.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason chinese phones support dual sim and ones you 've heard of do n't , is because the manufacturers you know of are in the pockets of mobile operators , while the chinese ones are n't.Dual sim is a useful feature for the end user of the phone , but not for the operator , and most of the big name manufacturers are building handsets for operators not for users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason chinese phones support dual sim and ones you've heard of don't, is because the manufacturers you know of are in the pockets of mobile operators, while the chinese ones aren't.Dual sim is a useful feature for the end user of the phone, but not for the operator, and most of the big name manufacturers are building handsets for operators not for users.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349844</id>
	<title>Help</title>
	<author>fucket</author>
	<datestamp>1260127560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Will this run on my StarTAC?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Will this run on my StarTAC ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will this run on my StarTAC?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30351128</id>
	<title>Re:Who watches the watchers...</title>
	<author>Slashcrap</author>
	<datestamp>1260187680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Hey Intel (some of you reading this might not be aware of this fact) has processors that phone home and communicate without the user being aware of it. It would be pathetic to have to run a passive sniffer on your personal network to monitor for unusual, unscheduled or abnormal outgoing traffic. Pathetic but to be 100\% secure absolutely necessary. (Fortunately a DD-WRT supported device! [dd-wrt.com] will allow you to do just that!)</p> </div><p>If there's one moderation that Slashdot really needs, it's +1 Paranoid Schizophrenic.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey Intel ( some of you reading this might not be aware of this fact ) has processors that phone home and communicate without the user being aware of it .
It would be pathetic to have to run a passive sniffer on your personal network to monitor for unusual , unscheduled or abnormal outgoing traffic .
Pathetic but to be 100 \ % secure absolutely necessary .
( Fortunately a DD-WRT supported device !
[ dd-wrt.com ] will allow you to do just that !
) If there 's one moderation that Slashdot really needs , it 's + 1 Paranoid Schizophrenic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey Intel (some of you reading this might not be aware of this fact) has processors that phone home and communicate without the user being aware of it.
It would be pathetic to have to run a passive sniffer on your personal network to monitor for unusual, unscheduled or abnormal outgoing traffic.
Pathetic but to be 100\% secure absolutely necessary.
(Fortunately a DD-WRT supported device!
[dd-wrt.com] will allow you to do just that!
) If there's one moderation that Slashdot really needs, it's +1 Paranoid Schizophrenic.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30351164</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>amRadioHed</author>
	<datestamp>1260188160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the OSes aren't capable of load-balancing properly on their own, how is it that the VMs running on them are properly load-balanced?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the OSes are n't capable of load-balancing properly on their own , how is it that the VMs running on them are properly load-balanced ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the OSes aren't capable of load-balancing properly on their own, how is it that the VMs running on them are properly load-balanced?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30350864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349834</id>
	<title>Re:great, so my phone can be even slower</title>
	<author>w0mprat</author>
	<datestamp>1260127440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Virtualisation would have seemed this way on PCs in the 90s, with machines starved for then-expensive RAM. What I remember of virtualisation in the early days is it was <b> <i>slow</i></b>  and you'd never consider virtualising anything for a production environment. I would have laughed if you told me you could run 2,4,10 VMs feasibily on one server.<br> <br>Of course, that smartphones will begin to follow moores law the same way, we'll see much more memory space and cpu horsepower in the same power envelope very soon, so any question of necessary resources (eventually) is moot. <br> <br>Yet, it may be possible on existing hardware with some trickery, indeed VMs run fast now, almost native for some tasks, and this on x86. Yet, ARM is the default for smartphones, near native speed for ARM? Indeed we should throw out our experience on other platforms. The question then is how does virtualisation stack up on it? Is it a better or worse instruction set? Considering  the x86 set needed additions to really speed up virtual machines.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Virtualisation would have seemed this way on PCs in the 90s , with machines starved for then-expensive RAM .
What I remember of virtualisation in the early days is it was slow and you 'd never consider virtualising anything for a production environment .
I would have laughed if you told me you could run 2,4,10 VMs feasibily on one server .
Of course , that smartphones will begin to follow moores law the same way , we 'll see much more memory space and cpu horsepower in the same power envelope very soon , so any question of necessary resources ( eventually ) is moot .
Yet , it may be possible on existing hardware with some trickery , indeed VMs run fast now , almost native for some tasks , and this on x86 .
Yet , ARM is the default for smartphones , near native speed for ARM ?
Indeed we should throw out our experience on other platforms .
The question then is how does virtualisation stack up on it ?
Is it a better or worse instruction set ?
Considering the x86 set needed additions to really speed up virtual machines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Virtualisation would have seemed this way on PCs in the 90s, with machines starved for then-expensive RAM.
What I remember of virtualisation in the early days is it was  slow  and you'd never consider virtualising anything for a production environment.
I would have laughed if you told me you could run 2,4,10 VMs feasibily on one server.
Of course, that smartphones will begin to follow moores law the same way, we'll see much more memory space and cpu horsepower in the same power envelope very soon, so any question of necessary resources (eventually) is moot.
Yet, it may be possible on existing hardware with some trickery, indeed VMs run fast now, almost native for some tasks, and this on x86.
Yet, ARM is the default for smartphones, near native speed for ARM?
Indeed we should throw out our experience on other platforms.
The question then is how does virtualisation stack up on it?
Is it a better or worse instruction set?
Considering  the x86 set needed additions to really speed up virtual machines.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349878</id>
	<title>Re:great, so my phone can be even slower</title>
	<author>DNS-and-BIND</author>
	<datestamp>1260127980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What, so the manufacturers should shoot themselves in the foot by providing dual-SIM?  If they do that, then you won't need to buy two phones!  There's a reason that most dual (or triple) SIM phones come from no-name Chinese manufacturers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What , so the manufacturers should shoot themselves in the foot by providing dual-SIM ?
If they do that , then you wo n't need to buy two phones !
There 's a reason that most dual ( or triple ) SIM phones come from no-name Chinese manufacturers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What, so the manufacturers should shoot themselves in the foot by providing dual-SIM?
If they do that, then you won't need to buy two phones!
There's a reason that most dual (or triple) SIM phones come from no-name Chinese manufacturers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30351190</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1260188700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not stick a toe in the water? It wasn't long ago that desktops bogged running VMs, and now we can run many of them.</p><p>As cell phones become more like multi-purpose computers, expect more capability.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not stick a toe in the water ?
It was n't long ago that desktops bogged running VMs , and now we can run many of them.As cell phones become more like multi-purpose computers , expect more capability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not stick a toe in the water?
It wasn't long ago that desktops bogged running VMs, and now we can run many of them.As cell phones become more like multi-purpose computers, expect more capability.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30350368</id>
	<title>Re:From this point on....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260177720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do you think they're only supporting dual OSs rather than triple?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do you think they 're only supporting dual OSs rather than triple ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do you think they're only supporting dual OSs rather than triple?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349798</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260126900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because they're VMware and they don't have anything more useful to do?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because they 're VMware and they do n't have anything more useful to do ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because they're VMware and they don't have anything more useful to do?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30351314</id>
	<title>Already most of the way there</title>
	<author>david.given</author>
	<datestamp>1260189900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hypervisors are already widely used in mobile phones --- L4 is very popular. I think that this is largely because it allows the vendors to easily reconfigure the user mode address space to abstract over any platform-specific issues involved with a particular phone model. I've also seen some very neat tricks using L4 such as doing on-demand page fetching from a compressed NAND flash device. (In essence, that gives you the equivalent of executable ROM from a smaller, non-mappable flash part.)<br><br>So it wouldn't be much of a bigger step to use L4's other hypervisor features to support two different user space modes, each running a complete operating system. This has a lot of advantages to the phone manufacturer. Right now, most smartphones such as the G1 have a big chunky processor running the application OS and a smaller processor running the hard realtime radio stack OS. Using a hypervisor would allow them to run both operating systems on the same processor, with the hypervisor's own scheduler ensuring that the radio stack remains real-time no matter what the user OS is doing. That reduces the hardware complexity, and therefore the build price, while still maintaining the regulator-mandated isolation between the application processor and the radio processor.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hypervisors are already widely used in mobile phones --- L4 is very popular .
I think that this is largely because it allows the vendors to easily reconfigure the user mode address space to abstract over any platform-specific issues involved with a particular phone model .
I 've also seen some very neat tricks using L4 such as doing on-demand page fetching from a compressed NAND flash device .
( In essence , that gives you the equivalent of executable ROM from a smaller , non-mappable flash part .
) So it would n't be much of a bigger step to use L4 's other hypervisor features to support two different user space modes , each running a complete operating system .
This has a lot of advantages to the phone manufacturer .
Right now , most smartphones such as the G1 have a big chunky processor running the application OS and a smaller processor running the hard realtime radio stack OS .
Using a hypervisor would allow them to run both operating systems on the same processor , with the hypervisor 's own scheduler ensuring that the radio stack remains real-time no matter what the user OS is doing .
That reduces the hardware complexity , and therefore the build price , while still maintaining the regulator-mandated isolation between the application processor and the radio processor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hypervisors are already widely used in mobile phones --- L4 is very popular.
I think that this is largely because it allows the vendors to easily reconfigure the user mode address space to abstract over any platform-specific issues involved with a particular phone model.
I've also seen some very neat tricks using L4 such as doing on-demand page fetching from a compressed NAND flash device.
(In essence, that gives you the equivalent of executable ROM from a smaller, non-mappable flash part.
)So it wouldn't be much of a bigger step to use L4's other hypervisor features to support two different user space modes, each running a complete operating system.
This has a lot of advantages to the phone manufacturer.
Right now, most smartphones such as the G1 have a big chunky processor running the application OS and a smaller processor running the hard realtime radio stack OS.
Using a hypervisor would allow them to run both operating systems on the same processor, with the hypervisor's own scheduler ensuring that the radio stack remains real-time no matter what the user OS is doing.
That reduces the hardware complexity, and therefore the build price, while still maintaining the regulator-mandated isolation between the application processor and the radio processor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349960</id>
	<title>Re:great, so my phone can be even slower</title>
	<author>wvmarle</author>
	<datestamp>1260128940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I read this my first thought was that this is yet another sign that the difference between smartphones, netbooks, and even laptops and desktops is fading. The form factor is what remains mainly, as we can pack more and more computing power in smaller and smaller packages.
</p><p>We can do things now on smartphones that 10, 15 years ago were just getting possible on an average desktop PC. And the gap is narrowing quickly. OS vendors (and VMWare is pretty much in that market) these days are of course looking at the smartphone as the next platform.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I read this my first thought was that this is yet another sign that the difference between smartphones , netbooks , and even laptops and desktops is fading .
The form factor is what remains mainly , as we can pack more and more computing power in smaller and smaller packages .
We can do things now on smartphones that 10 , 15 years ago were just getting possible on an average desktop PC .
And the gap is narrowing quickly .
OS vendors ( and VMWare is pretty much in that market ) these days are of course looking at the smartphone as the next platform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I read this my first thought was that this is yet another sign that the difference between smartphones, netbooks, and even laptops and desktops is fading.
The form factor is what remains mainly, as we can pack more and more computing power in smaller and smaller packages.
We can do things now on smartphones that 10, 15 years ago were just getting possible on an average desktop PC.
And the gap is narrowing quickly.
OS vendors (and VMWare is pretty much in that market) these days are of course looking at the smartphone as the next platform.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349670</id>
	<title>Why?</title>
	<author>vcgodinich</author>
	<datestamp>1260125460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, really, why?</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , really , why ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, really, why?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30352932</id>
	<title>Re:great, so my phone can be even slower</title>
	<author>caseih</author>
	<datestamp>1260201120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like you need a new smartphone.  My Nokia E65 has integrated VoIP and it can, with a third-party dual-sim adapter, handle multiple SIM chips (though not both at the same time).  Most of the Nokia smartphone line that runs symbian has integrated VoIP that works very well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like you need a new smartphone .
My Nokia E65 has integrated VoIP and it can , with a third-party dual-sim adapter , handle multiple SIM chips ( though not both at the same time ) .
Most of the Nokia smartphone line that runs symbian has integrated VoIP that works very well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like you need a new smartphone.
My Nokia E65 has integrated VoIP and it can, with a third-party dual-sim adapter, handle multiple SIM chips (though not both at the same time).
Most of the Nokia smartphone line that runs symbian has integrated VoIP that works very well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30350606</id>
	<title>Re:From this point on....</title>
	<author>dunkelfalke</author>
	<datestamp>1260180540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I do. Windows Mobile has still got the most useful apps, real multitasking and lots and lots of features and is also nice to develop for. I personally like it more than any other current mobile OS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do .
Windows Mobile has still got the most useful apps , real multitasking and lots and lots of features and is also nice to develop for .
I personally like it more than any other current mobile OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do.
Windows Mobile has still got the most useful apps, real multitasking and lots and lots of features and is also nice to develop for.
I personally like it more than any other current mobile OS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30350094</id>
	<title>better sandbox than Java VM on single processor</title>
	<author>ad454</author>
	<datestamp>1260217320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately, wireless carriers and regulators want to put restrictions on the radio and other mobile smart phone functionality.  The common solution on single processor devices is to run third party applications in a sandbox, like Android's Java VM, and require application signing.</p><p>Virtualization can be a provide a less restrictive common environment sandbox, that is not tied to a specific programming language, that can meet the desires of the carrier on cheaper (single processor) hardware, and still protect a software radio, DRM, and other functions from third party apps running in a VM.</p><p>However, it would not surprise me if practice future cellphones have an evolved hypervisor that provides different levels of VM based on functionality, with the lower VM levels restricted to carrier sign apps that can do almost anything; middle VM levels for manufacture signed apps that can access networking, gps, SMS, storage, camera, video/audio playback, etc.; and top crippled VM levels for unsigned apps that can't do much.</p><p>Unfortunately, history has taught us that the more control designers can put on a system, the more likely that control will be used to restrict the public at the expense of corporate and government interests.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , wireless carriers and regulators want to put restrictions on the radio and other mobile smart phone functionality .
The common solution on single processor devices is to run third party applications in a sandbox , like Android 's Java VM , and require application signing.Virtualization can be a provide a less restrictive common environment sandbox , that is not tied to a specific programming language , that can meet the desires of the carrier on cheaper ( single processor ) hardware , and still protect a software radio , DRM , and other functions from third party apps running in a VM.However , it would not surprise me if practice future cellphones have an evolved hypervisor that provides different levels of VM based on functionality , with the lower VM levels restricted to carrier sign apps that can do almost anything ; middle VM levels for manufacture signed apps that can access networking , gps , SMS , storage , camera , video/audio playback , etc .
; and top crippled VM levels for unsigned apps that ca n't do much.Unfortunately , history has taught us that the more control designers can put on a system , the more likely that control will be used to restrict the public at the expense of corporate and government interests .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, wireless carriers and regulators want to put restrictions on the radio and other mobile smart phone functionality.
The common solution on single processor devices is to run third party applications in a sandbox, like Android's Java VM, and require application signing.Virtualization can be a provide a less restrictive common environment sandbox, that is not tied to a specific programming language, that can meet the desires of the carrier on cheaper (single processor) hardware, and still protect a software radio, DRM, and other functions from third party apps running in a VM.However, it would not surprise me if practice future cellphones have an evolved hypervisor that provides different levels of VM based on functionality, with the lower VM levels restricted to carrier sign apps that can do almost anything; middle VM levels for manufacture signed apps that can access networking, gps, SMS, storage, camera, video/audio playback, etc.
; and top crippled VM levels for unsigned apps that can't do much.Unfortunately, history has taught us that the more control designers can put on a system, the more likely that control will be used to restrict the public at the expense of corporate and government interests.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30352702</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>GIL\_Dude</author>
	<datestamp>1260199920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Everyone sees something different as the "major win" for virtualization. Yours is certainly valid. The GP's is a little more dodgy. Another common one is that since it can be difficult to fully separate administration roles from application management roles - just creating two VM's is "somewhat safer" than having one machine with two apps running on it. Yet another is to protect from poorly coded packages stomping on each other with different levels of dependencies. One more is to have different patching outage windows for multiple applications. Anyway, let's just agree that there are a bunch of reasons for folks to virtualize and different ones may be the primary driver for different workloads.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone sees something different as the " major win " for virtualization .
Yours is certainly valid .
The GP 's is a little more dodgy .
Another common one is that since it can be difficult to fully separate administration roles from application management roles - just creating two VM 's is " somewhat safer " than having one machine with two apps running on it .
Yet another is to protect from poorly coded packages stomping on each other with different levels of dependencies .
One more is to have different patching outage windows for multiple applications .
Anyway , let 's just agree that there are a bunch of reasons for folks to virtualize and different ones may be the primary driver for different workloads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone sees something different as the "major win" for virtualization.
Yours is certainly valid.
The GP's is a little more dodgy.
Another common one is that since it can be difficult to fully separate administration roles from application management roles - just creating two VM's is "somewhat safer" than having one machine with two apps running on it.
Yet another is to protect from poorly coded packages stomping on each other with different levels of dependencies.
One more is to have different patching outage windows for multiple applications.
Anyway, let's just agree that there are a bunch of reasons for folks to virtualize and different ones may be the primary driver for different workloads.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30351486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349740</id>
	<title>VMWare has its place</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260126360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But it is also overused by people who don't want to configure their operating system. The big advantage they have is the ability to seamlessly move a VM between different bits of hardware. I don't see that being proposed here.</p><p>It might actually be handy to move an image from my eeepc to my openmoko, and then back again later. In practice I just run compatible applications where I need an interface to work. The wholesale copying of images would make merging a problem as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But it is also overused by people who do n't want to configure their operating system .
The big advantage they have is the ability to seamlessly move a VM between different bits of hardware .
I do n't see that being proposed here.It might actually be handy to move an image from my eeepc to my openmoko , and then back again later .
In practice I just run compatible applications where I need an interface to work .
The wholesale copying of images would make merging a problem as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But it is also overused by people who don't want to configure their operating system.
The big advantage they have is the ability to seamlessly move a VM between different bits of hardware.
I don't see that being proposed here.It might actually be handy to move an image from my eeepc to my openmoko, and then back again later.
In practice I just run compatible applications where I need an interface to work.
The wholesale copying of images would make merging a problem as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30353740</id>
	<title>Re:great, so my phone can be even slower</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260204840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's what I don't get.  Virtualization has taken off on the server and PC side because the hardware is there to support it.  Is the hardware on the phone side really powerful enough for this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's what I do n't get .
Virtualization has taken off on the server and PC side because the hardware is there to support it .
Is the hardware on the phone side really powerful enough for this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's what I don't get.
Virtualization has taken off on the server and PC side because the hardware is there to support it.
Is the hardware on the phone side really powerful enough for this?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30350020</id>
	<title>Re:Who watches the watchers...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260216180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK "Neo", it's time for your thorazine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK " Neo " , it 's time for your thorazine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK "Neo", it's time for your thorazine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30350366</id>
	<title>intel vs arm</title>
	<author>StripedCow</author>
	<datestamp>1260177660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So this will allow my intel-based linux applications to be run on an ARM based smartphone?<br>that would be cool...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So this will allow my intel-based linux applications to be run on an ARM based smartphone ? that would be cool.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So this will allow my intel-based linux applications to be run on an ARM based smartphone?that would be cool...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349856</id>
	<title>Re:great, so my phone can be even slower</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1260127740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>RAM for mobiles could be a bit more expensive though, has to use very little power.</p><p>BTW, Samsung also has dual sim phones. From quick Google search those are at least d880, c6112, d980, w629, b5722, b5702, c3212, c5212...so quite a lot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>RAM for mobiles could be a bit more expensive though , has to use very little power.BTW , Samsung also has dual sim phones .
From quick Google search those are at least d880 , c6112 , d980 , w629 , b5722 , b5702 , c3212 , c5212...so quite a lot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RAM for mobiles could be a bit more expensive though, has to use very little power.BTW, Samsung also has dual sim phones.
From quick Google search those are at least d880, c6112, d980, w629, b5722, b5702, c3212, c5212...so quite a lot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349818</id>
	<title>Re:great, so my phone can be even slower</title>
	<author>Yaodin</author>
	<datestamp>1260127260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is something for VOIP, check out iSkoot, it is a Blackberry app and allows you to call computers with your skype account for free or use your skype credit to call land lines. The voice quality is not all that great though and it is my no means integrated into the phone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is something for VOIP , check out iSkoot , it is a Blackberry app and allows you to call computers with your skype account for free or use your skype credit to call land lines .
The voice quality is not all that great though and it is my no means integrated into the phone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is something for VOIP, check out iSkoot, it is a Blackberry app and allows you to call computers with your skype account for free or use your skype credit to call land lines.
The voice quality is not all that great though and it is my no means integrated into the phone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30352660</id>
	<title>Re:From this point on....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260199740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I do. Windows Mobile has still got the most useful apps, real multitasking and lots and lots of features and is also nice to develop for. I personally like it more than any other current mobile OS.</p></div><p>YOU SICK FUCK!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do .
Windows Mobile has still got the most useful apps , real multitasking and lots and lots of features and is also nice to develop for .
I personally like it more than any other current mobile OS.YOU SICK FUCK !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do.
Windows Mobile has still got the most useful apps, real multitasking and lots and lots of features and is also nice to develop for.
I personally like it more than any other current mobile OS.YOU SICK FUCK!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30350606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30351198</id>
	<title>Re:great, so my phone can be even slower</title>
	<author>Krneki</author>
	<datestamp>1260188760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>VOIP and dual SIM cards support would mean healthier Telcos competition. You know we can't have that, do you?</htmltext>
<tokenext>VOIP and dual SIM cards support would mean healthier Telcos competition .
You know we ca n't have that , do you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>VOIP and dual SIM cards support would mean healthier Telcos competition.
You know we can't have that, do you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30351442</id>
	<title>Re:great, so my phone can be even slower</title>
	<author>Rexdude</author>
	<datestamp>1260191940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>*Checks calendar* Yup, it's 2009.  VOIP still not possible on my smartphone...</p></div><p>You must be in the US!</p><p>There are numerous VOIP capable smartphones available as others have mentioned, it's another story if your service provider deliberately disables the feature or blocks it from working on their network.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>* Checks calendar * Yup , it 's 2009 .
VOIP still not possible on my smartphone...You must be in the US ! There are numerous VOIP capable smartphones available as others have mentioned , it 's another story if your service provider deliberately disables the feature or blocks it from working on their network .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*Checks calendar* Yup, it's 2009.
VOIP still not possible on my smartphone...You must be in the US!There are numerous VOIP capable smartphones available as others have mentioned, it's another story if your service provider deliberately disables the feature or blocks it from working on their network.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30350302</id>
	<title>WTF?</title>
	<author>Logic Worshipper</author>
	<datestamp>1260176760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I didn't think cell phones were powerful enough to run VMs, or even full operating systems.  That's what laptops are for.  No, I don't want my cell phone to replace my laptop.  Random shit I might need to do without my laptop, like check the weather, my email, or even read the paper, is nice on cell phone.  Virtualization?  What the fuck? You know they made this great invention - a full fledged computer you can fit in your backpack, it only weighs about 5 pounds, and does everything your desktop does, it's called a laptop, you can even install a SIP client on it and make phone calls.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't think cell phones were powerful enough to run VMs , or even full operating systems .
That 's what laptops are for .
No , I do n't want my cell phone to replace my laptop .
Random shit I might need to do without my laptop , like check the weather , my email , or even read the paper , is nice on cell phone .
Virtualization ? What the fuck ?
You know they made this great invention - a full fledged computer you can fit in your backpack , it only weighs about 5 pounds , and does everything your desktop does , it 's called a laptop , you can even install a SIP client on it and make phone calls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't think cell phones were powerful enough to run VMs, or even full operating systems.
That's what laptops are for.
No, I don't want my cell phone to replace my laptop.
Random shit I might need to do without my laptop, like check the weather, my email, or even read the paper, is nice on cell phone.
Virtualization?  What the fuck?
You know they made this great invention - a full fledged computer you can fit in your backpack, it only weighs about 5 pounds, and does everything your desktop does, it's called a laptop, you can even install a SIP client on it and make phone calls.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30350006</id>
	<title>Good</title>
	<author>Nithendil</author>
	<datestamp>1260216000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can actually use this software. I was considering getting an Android phone but Epocrates doesn't make a version available for that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can actually use this software .
I was considering getting an Android phone but Epocrates does n't make a version available for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can actually use this software.
I was considering getting an Android phone but Epocrates doesn't make a version available for that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349678</id>
	<title>won't this adversely affect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260125520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>battery life?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>battery life ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>battery life?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349686</id>
	<title>great, so my phone can be even slower</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260125700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>The idea is to have your work applications and home applications all running insider their own VMs and running at the same time so you can access any app any time.</i>

</p><p>Are they including a free RAM upgrade kit?  And why does this seem to be a hammer in search of non-existent nails?

</p><p>The biggest problem I have right now: lack of dual SIM (or multi-line) support in almost any phone.  I don't need to separate "work applications" from "home applications."  I need to have a work number / data plan billed to my company, and a home number (with no data plan) billed to me.

</p><p>*Checks calendar* Yup, it's 2009.  VOIP still not possible on my smartphone...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea is to have your work applications and home applications all running insider their own VMs and running at the same time so you can access any app any time .
Are they including a free RAM upgrade kit ?
And why does this seem to be a hammer in search of non-existent nails ?
The biggest problem I have right now : lack of dual SIM ( or multi-line ) support in almost any phone .
I do n't need to separate " work applications " from " home applications .
" I need to have a work number / data plan billed to my company , and a home number ( with no data plan ) billed to me .
* Checks calendar * Yup , it 's 2009 .
VOIP still not possible on my smartphone.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The idea is to have your work applications and home applications all running insider their own VMs and running at the same time so you can access any app any time.
Are they including a free RAM upgrade kit?
And why does this seem to be a hammer in search of non-existent nails?
The biggest problem I have right now: lack of dual SIM (or multi-line) support in almost any phone.
I don't need to separate "work applications" from "home applications.
"  I need to have a work number / data plan billed to my company, and a home number (with no data plan) billed to me.
*Checks calendar* Yup, it's 2009.
VOIP still not possible on my smartphone...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30356038</id>
	<title>resource starved</title>
	<author>farble1670</author>
	<datestamp>1260214980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>cell phones are always resource starved devices. manufacturers put the slowest processor and least amount of / slowest RAM that they can possibly get away with. this is for good reason i suppose, because price is a huge factor the average consumer. it's also a factor to providers, who subsidize the costs down to a level to suck in new subscribers. </p><p>would a user pay 50\%, 100\%, \%? more to have access to the features on another mobile OS? let's face it, across android, windows mobile, and linux 95\% of the apps are there already on your stock phone OS. </p><p>would a developer pay more? there's this thing called an emulator that makes me think not. is a guest OS a better representation of the phone than an emulator?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>cell phones are always resource starved devices .
manufacturers put the slowest processor and least amount of / slowest RAM that they can possibly get away with .
this is for good reason i suppose , because price is a huge factor the average consumer .
it 's also a factor to providers , who subsidize the costs down to a level to suck in new subscribers .
would a user pay 50 \ % , 100 \ % , \ % ?
more to have access to the features on another mobile OS ?
let 's face it , across android , windows mobile , and linux 95 \ % of the apps are there already on your stock phone OS .
would a developer pay more ?
there 's this thing called an emulator that makes me think not .
is a guest OS a better representation of the phone than an emulator ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>cell phones are always resource starved devices.
manufacturers put the slowest processor and least amount of / slowest RAM that they can possibly get away with.
this is for good reason i suppose, because price is a huge factor the average consumer.
it's also a factor to providers, who subsidize the costs down to a level to suck in new subscribers.
would a user pay 50\%, 100\%, \%?
more to have access to the features on another mobile OS?
let's face it, across android, windows mobile, and linux 95\% of the apps are there already on your stock phone OS.
would a developer pay more?
there's this thing called an emulator that makes me think not.
is a guest OS a better representation of the phone than an emulator?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30354370</id>
	<title>Re:great, so my phone can be even slower</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1260207420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't really need more battery if the background OS is idle or nearly so. Also, while the batteries aren't getting that much better, OLED is starting to see more uptake so the screens are taking less power, and the process technology continues to march forward, making the CPUs consume less power as well. The radio won't use more power in this scenario, so I'm not seeing the problem (except that battery life is not improving as fast as I would like.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't really need more battery if the background OS is idle or nearly so .
Also , while the batteries are n't getting that much better , OLED is starting to see more uptake so the screens are taking less power , and the process technology continues to march forward , making the CPUs consume less power as well .
The radio wo n't use more power in this scenario , so I 'm not seeing the problem ( except that battery life is not improving as fast as I would like .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't really need more battery if the background OS is idle or nearly so.
Also, while the batteries aren't getting that much better, OLED is starting to see more uptake so the screens are taking less power, and the process technology continues to march forward, making the CPUs consume less power as well.
The radio won't use more power in this scenario, so I'm not seeing the problem (except that battery life is not improving as fast as I would like.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349704</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>Nested</author>
	<datestamp>1260125880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>/thread</htmltext>
<tokenext>/thread</tokentext>
<sentencetext>/thread</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30350078</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>Hadlock</author>
	<datestamp>1260217140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's already a hot market for dual-SIM card phones, but that requires you to "dual boot". If your job requires you live/do your job through your phone, this makes things a lot easier.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's already a hot market for dual-SIM card phones , but that requires you to " dual boot " .
If your job requires you live/do your job through your phone , this makes things a lot easier .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's already a hot market for dual-SIM card phones, but that requires you to "dual boot".
If your job requires you live/do your job through your phone, this makes things a lot easier.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349734</id>
	<title>From this point on....</title>
	<author>7-Vodka</author>
	<datestamp>1260126240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Who the Frack wants windows on their phone?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who the Frack wants windows on their phone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Who the Frack wants windows on their phone?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349900</id>
	<title>At what point does the VM become another OS?</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1260128280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know that we are talking specifically about phone based VMs here and that the issue of better OS vs VM has been discussed before, but I cannot understand why we need to virtualize any time an OS is involved. Perhaps I am missing something? If the hypervisor becomes, essentially, the operating system why is it not possible to integrate the process isolation and partitioning features of the hypervisor into the OS in the first place? Are these types of features even really needed on the more limited environments offered by phones (even smartphones)? I agree that virtualization is a valuable technology that has its uses, but sometimes it seems that virtualization and VMs are becoming the proverbial <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden\_hammer" title="wikipedia.org">golden hammers</a> [wikipedia.org] (along with the ubiquitous "cloud" computing).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know that we are talking specifically about phone based VMs here and that the issue of better OS vs VM has been discussed before , but I can not understand why we need to virtualize any time an OS is involved .
Perhaps I am missing something ?
If the hypervisor becomes , essentially , the operating system why is it not possible to integrate the process isolation and partitioning features of the hypervisor into the OS in the first place ?
Are these types of features even really needed on the more limited environments offered by phones ( even smartphones ) ?
I agree that virtualization is a valuable technology that has its uses , but sometimes it seems that virtualization and VMs are becoming the proverbial golden hammers [ wikipedia.org ] ( along with the ubiquitous " cloud " computing ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know that we are talking specifically about phone based VMs here and that the issue of better OS vs VM has been discussed before, but I cannot understand why we need to virtualize any time an OS is involved.
Perhaps I am missing something?
If the hypervisor becomes, essentially, the operating system why is it not possible to integrate the process isolation and partitioning features of the hypervisor into the OS in the first place?
Are these types of features even really needed on the more limited environments offered by phones (even smartphones)?
I agree that virtualization is a valuable technology that has its uses, but sometimes it seems that virtualization and VMs are becoming the proverbial golden hammers [wikipedia.org] (along with the ubiquitous "cloud" computing).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30352376</id>
	<title>VMWare phone?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260198540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any phone capable of running VMWare that doesn't place a restriction on what system profiles you can run is a BIG WIN in my book for users!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any phone capable of running VMWare that does n't place a restriction on what system profiles you can run is a BIG WIN in my book for users !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any phone capable of running VMWare that doesn't place a restriction on what system profiles you can run is a BIG WIN in my book for users!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30352784</id>
	<title>That was my initial thoght too...</title>
	<author>IANAAC</author>
	<datestamp>1260200340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But, (admittedly) technical users are seeing several different options now and each option has something the other doesn't, whether it's just a trivial game, itunes, better contacts/calendar, whatever. Like it or not, phones are used for so much more than just making calls.
<p>
I can see having the ability to use more than one of those options simultaneously as somewhat desirable.
</p><p>
But yeah, this would probably only be useful to the more power users.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But , ( admittedly ) technical users are seeing several different options now and each option has something the other does n't , whether it 's just a trivial game , itunes , better contacts/calendar , whatever .
Like it or not , phones are used for so much more than just making calls .
I can see having the ability to use more than one of those options simultaneously as somewhat desirable .
But yeah , this would probably only be useful to the more power users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But, (admittedly) technical users are seeing several different options now and each option has something the other doesn't, whether it's just a trivial game, itunes, better contacts/calendar, whatever.
Like it or not, phones are used for so much more than just making calls.
I can see having the ability to use more than one of those options simultaneously as somewhat desirable.
But yeah, this would probably only be useful to the more power users.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30350250</id>
	<title>Re:great, so my phone can be even slower</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1260219360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>*Checks calendar* Yup, it's 2009. VOIP still not possible on my smartphone...</p></div></blockquote><p>

There are several SIP applications for Android. The best I've used is <a href="http://www.androlib.com/android.application.com-fring-xmnt.aspx" title="androlib.com">Fring which integrates part of skype, MSN, Gtalk and a few others.

There is also </a> [androlib.com]<a href="http://www.androlib.com/android.application.org-sipdroid-sipua-BCw.aspx" title="androlib.com">SIPDroid</a> [androlib.com] but this is hit and miss with Australian VoIP providers.<br> <br>

It will be 2010 shortly and only we elitist open source people will enjoy VOIP on our mobile devices.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>* Checks calendar * Yup , it 's 2009 .
VOIP still not possible on my smartphone.. . There are several SIP applications for Android .
The best I 've used is Fring which integrates part of skype , MSN , Gtalk and a few others .
There is also [ androlib.com ] SIPDroid [ androlib.com ] but this is hit and miss with Australian VoIP providers .
It will be 2010 shortly and only we elitist open source people will enjoy VOIP on our mobile devices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*Checks calendar* Yup, it's 2009.
VOIP still not possible on my smartphone...

There are several SIP applications for Android.
The best I've used is Fring which integrates part of skype, MSN, Gtalk and a few others.
There is also  [androlib.com]SIPDroid [androlib.com] but this is hit and miss with Australian VoIP providers.
It will be 2010 shortly and only we elitist open source people will enjoy VOIP on our mobile devices.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30350004</id>
	<title>Re:great, so my phone can be even slower</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260129540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>hey, don't blameVMWare because your phone doesn't have VoIP capabilities. If you have a cheap phone, you got what you paid.  If you have a smartphone, you probably have a RIM device such as Blackberry.  Their pre-2005 OS uses a Big Mistake (R) called RIMJ2ME, and is unable to do a stupid think (my Sound Blaster 16 did it 15 years ago) called full-duplex audio.  Because of that, you cannot download, for example, Fring or Nimbuzz, and enjoy VoIP calls.</p><p>It's RIM fault... Indeed, some cellphones (Symbian-based Nokia) brings with native VoIP some years ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>hey , do n't blameVMWare because your phone does n't have VoIP capabilities .
If you have a cheap phone , you got what you paid .
If you have a smartphone , you probably have a RIM device such as Blackberry .
Their pre-2005 OS uses a Big Mistake ( R ) called RIMJ2ME , and is unable to do a stupid think ( my Sound Blaster 16 did it 15 years ago ) called full-duplex audio .
Because of that , you can not download , for example , Fring or Nimbuzz , and enjoy VoIP calls.It 's RIM fault... Indeed , some cellphones ( Symbian-based Nokia ) brings with native VoIP some years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hey, don't blameVMWare because your phone doesn't have VoIP capabilities.
If you have a cheap phone, you got what you paid.
If you have a smartphone, you probably have a RIM device such as Blackberry.
Their pre-2005 OS uses a Big Mistake (R) called RIMJ2ME, and is unable to do a stupid think (my Sound Blaster 16 did it 15 years ago) called full-duplex audio.
Because of that, you cannot download, for example, Fring or Nimbuzz, and enjoy VoIP calls.It's RIM fault... Indeed, some cellphones (Symbian-based Nokia) brings with native VoIP some years ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30350404</id>
	<title>Re:great, so my phone can be even slower</title>
	<author>faragon</author>
	<datestamp>1260178140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>*Checks calendar* Yup, it's 2009. VOIP still not possible on my smartphone...</p></div><p>
Check the <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=nokia+n900" title="google.com">Nokia N900</a> [google.com]... and yes, it runs Linux.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>* Checks calendar * Yup , it 's 2009 .
VOIP still not possible on my smartphone.. . Check the Nokia N900 [ google.com ] ... and yes , it runs Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*Checks calendar* Yup, it's 2009.
VOIP still not possible on my smartphone...
Check the Nokia N900 [google.com]... and yes, it runs Linux.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349684</id>
	<title>Yo! JAPAN !!  You want some more !!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260125700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've got some more for you right here</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've got some more for you right here</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've got some more for you right here</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349792</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>master5o1</author>
	<datestamp>1260126780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why not?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349800</id>
	<title>Re:great, so my phone can be even slower</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1260126900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Frankly, the RAM is the easiest part of all this. All you need for that is a few dollars worth of well proven technology that gets cheaper all the time.<br> <br>

Battery life is the real kicker. The very best commercially available batteries are just barely adequate for one smartphone OS, much less two trampling on one another. These phones will either last 3 hours, or hearken back to the "old school brick" form factor.<br> <br>

Dual SIM is funny. Horrible little Chinese knockoff phones, with inscrutable UIs and more misappropriated brand names than correctly spelled words, all support dual SIM, no problem. Among phones that you've actually heard of, though, not so much.<br> <br>

I'm frankly pretty pessimistic about VMware's chances here. I'm sure that they can manage it, in the technical sense, for suitably modest flavors of "manage", and on high end phones; but(assuming anybody actually likes this one phone, two personalities idea) they'll likely be beaten by the makers of the phone OSes.<br> <br>

Unlike the PC/server situation, where potentially insecure or ill-behaved applications make virtualization seem like a very useful compartmentalization strategy, the phone scene has been ruled with an iron fist by the vendors. Plus, because phones have been treated as near-disposable client devices for years now, and are stuck on low-bandwidth pipes, VMware's failover and redundancy stuff isn't going to be too relevant.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Frankly , the RAM is the easiest part of all this .
All you need for that is a few dollars worth of well proven technology that gets cheaper all the time .
Battery life is the real kicker .
The very best commercially available batteries are just barely adequate for one smartphone OS , much less two trampling on one another .
These phones will either last 3 hours , or hearken back to the " old school brick " form factor .
Dual SIM is funny .
Horrible little Chinese knockoff phones , with inscrutable UIs and more misappropriated brand names than correctly spelled words , all support dual SIM , no problem .
Among phones that you 've actually heard of , though , not so much .
I 'm frankly pretty pessimistic about VMware 's chances here .
I 'm sure that they can manage it , in the technical sense , for suitably modest flavors of " manage " , and on high end phones ; but ( assuming anybody actually likes this one phone , two personalities idea ) they 'll likely be beaten by the makers of the phone OSes .
Unlike the PC/server situation , where potentially insecure or ill-behaved applications make virtualization seem like a very useful compartmentalization strategy , the phone scene has been ruled with an iron fist by the vendors .
Plus , because phones have been treated as near-disposable client devices for years now , and are stuck on low-bandwidth pipes , VMware 's failover and redundancy stuff is n't going to be too relevant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Frankly, the RAM is the easiest part of all this.
All you need for that is a few dollars worth of well proven technology that gets cheaper all the time.
Battery life is the real kicker.
The very best commercially available batteries are just barely adequate for one smartphone OS, much less two trampling on one another.
These phones will either last 3 hours, or hearken back to the "old school brick" form factor.
Dual SIM is funny.
Horrible little Chinese knockoff phones, with inscrutable UIs and more misappropriated brand names than correctly spelled words, all support dual SIM, no problem.
Among phones that you've actually heard of, though, not so much.
I'm frankly pretty pessimistic about VMware's chances here.
I'm sure that they can manage it, in the technical sense, for suitably modest flavors of "manage", and on high end phones; but(assuming anybody actually likes this one phone, two personalities idea) they'll likely be beaten by the makers of the phone OSes.
Unlike the PC/server situation, where potentially insecure or ill-behaved applications make virtualization seem like a very useful compartmentalization strategy, the phone scene has been ruled with an iron fist by the vendors.
Plus, because phones have been treated as near-disposable client devices for years now, and are stuck on low-bandwidth pipes, VMware's failover and redundancy stuff isn't going to be too relevant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349736</id>
	<title>The real questions</title>
	<author>PCM2</author>
	<datestamp>1260126360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With Microsoft's OS lagging way behind the others in the mobile market, does VMware plan to convince Steve Ballmer that running other companies' OSes side-by-side with Windows Mobile will be a good way to regain market share?</p><p>VMware says virtualization can separate personal data and apps from work ones. But if the trend is for smartphone apps to be essentially browser-based, or at least built with Web standards, isn't running a hypervisor and multiple OS instances on a phone the very definition of overkill?</p><p>Equally important, if Apple is unwilling to allow even the Flash player onto iPhones, how does VMware figure it's going to convince Apple to run a hypervisor?</p><p>Oh wait, the last one is actually easy: VMware's release doesn't even mention Apple. Doesn't mention BlackBerry either. Or Symbian. Funny how this revolutionary, much-in-demand technology specifically excludes the top 85 percent of the smartphone market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With Microsoft 's OS lagging way behind the others in the mobile market , does VMware plan to convince Steve Ballmer that running other companies ' OSes side-by-side with Windows Mobile will be a good way to regain market share ? VMware says virtualization can separate personal data and apps from work ones .
But if the trend is for smartphone apps to be essentially browser-based , or at least built with Web standards , is n't running a hypervisor and multiple OS instances on a phone the very definition of overkill ? Equally important , if Apple is unwilling to allow even the Flash player onto iPhones , how does VMware figure it 's going to convince Apple to run a hypervisor ? Oh wait , the last one is actually easy : VMware 's release does n't even mention Apple .
Does n't mention BlackBerry either .
Or Symbian .
Funny how this revolutionary , much-in-demand technology specifically excludes the top 85 percent of the smartphone market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With Microsoft's OS lagging way behind the others in the mobile market, does VMware plan to convince Steve Ballmer that running other companies' OSes side-by-side with Windows Mobile will be a good way to regain market share?VMware says virtualization can separate personal data and apps from work ones.
But if the trend is for smartphone apps to be essentially browser-based, or at least built with Web standards, isn't running a hypervisor and multiple OS instances on a phone the very definition of overkill?Equally important, if Apple is unwilling to allow even the Flash player onto iPhones, how does VMware figure it's going to convince Apple to run a hypervisor?Oh wait, the last one is actually easy: VMware's release doesn't even mention Apple.
Doesn't mention BlackBerry either.
Or Symbian.
Funny how this revolutionary, much-in-demand technology specifically excludes the top 85 percent of the smartphone market.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30351486</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>mrboyd</author>
	<datestamp>1260192780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought it was mostly used as a way to detach the software form the hardware thus limiting the impact of hardware failure. I don't really see how virtualizing a crappy OS will give you load balancing. Did you mean redundancy?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought it was mostly used as a way to detach the software form the hardware thus limiting the impact of hardware failure .
I do n't really see how virtualizing a crappy OS will give you load balancing .
Did you mean redundancy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought it was mostly used as a way to detach the software form the hardware thus limiting the impact of hardware failure.
I don't really see how virtualizing a crappy OS will give you load balancing.
Did you mean redundancy?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30350864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30350272</id>
	<title>Re:The real questions</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1260219540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This will be useful for running several versions of Android on the same device without having to re-flash them and in some cases lose most of your settings. There's also Maemo and WinMo accounts for more then 15\% of the mobile market, especially as outside the US hosted blackberry services haven't been as successful.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This will be useful for running several versions of Android on the same device without having to re-flash them and in some cases lose most of your settings .
There 's also Maemo and WinMo accounts for more then 15 \ % of the mobile market , especially as outside the US hosted blackberry services have n't been as successful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will be useful for running several versions of Android on the same device without having to re-flash them and in some cases lose most of your settings.
There's also Maemo and WinMo accounts for more then 15\% of the mobile market, especially as outside the US hosted blackberry services haven't been as successful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349978</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>rolfwind</author>
	<datestamp>1260129240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>No, really, why?</p></div></blockquote><p>This is supported behind the scenes by the battery industry.  Several years back, a phone that couldn't last one week would be viewed as kinda week, smartphones put that limit down to a day with real use, and of course, this virtualization will be completely useless for most people, but they'll accept having to charge the phone every 6 hours now.  So instead of replacing a battery every 2 years, it'll go through all of expected lifecycle in 3 months.  Profit!  $$$</p><p>(I can't think of any other reason...)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , really , why ? This is supported behind the scenes by the battery industry .
Several years back , a phone that could n't last one week would be viewed as kinda week , smartphones put that limit down to a day with real use , and of course , this virtualization will be completely useless for most people , but they 'll accept having to charge the phone every 6 hours now .
So instead of replacing a battery every 2 years , it 'll go through all of expected lifecycle in 3 months .
Profit ! $ $ $ ( I ca n't think of any other reason... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, really, why?This is supported behind the scenes by the battery industry.
Several years back, a phone that couldn't last one week would be viewed as kinda week, smartphones put that limit down to a day with real use, and of course, this virtualization will be completely useless for most people, but they'll accept having to charge the phone every 6 hours now.
So instead of replacing a battery every 2 years, it'll go through all of expected lifecycle in 3 months.
Profit!  $$$(I can't think of any other reason...)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349918</id>
	<title>Re:great, so my phone can be even slower</title>
	<author>lamapper</author>
	<datestamp>1260128460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Battery life is the real kicker. The very best commercially available batteries are just barely adequate for one smart phone OS, much less two trampling on one another. These phones will either last 3 hours, or hearken back to the "old school brick" form factor.</p></div><p>Battery life on any computer is a pain.  I just gave up and kept a phone cord at work and at home.  And that is only because I have had power cords break from being moved too much.  Also when I get to the office or get home, I simply plug in my Nokia N800.

</p><p>There was a time where a company, do not know the name, wish I did, was selling an external rechargeable battery.  The one I was looking at cost between $150 - $300 per battery and was the size of a small laptop, but only about 1/2 inch thick.  It was intended to be placed underneath the laptop and simply plug into the normal power outlet on the laptop.  One guy used one of these for a 14 hour flight from North America to South East Asia, said he played DVDs all they way across the ocean and never lost battery power.

</p><p>Perhaps that company, if it still exists, has an external rechargeable battery that you could clip to your phone or hand held computer so that you would have an extra 3 hours to 8 hours of battery life.  Just thinking out loud as you are right battery life is a pain for all of us.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Battery life is the real kicker .
The very best commercially available batteries are just barely adequate for one smart phone OS , much less two trampling on one another .
These phones will either last 3 hours , or hearken back to the " old school brick " form factor.Battery life on any computer is a pain .
I just gave up and kept a phone cord at work and at home .
And that is only because I have had power cords break from being moved too much .
Also when I get to the office or get home , I simply plug in my Nokia N800 .
There was a time where a company , do not know the name , wish I did , was selling an external rechargeable battery .
The one I was looking at cost between $ 150 - $ 300 per battery and was the size of a small laptop , but only about 1/2 inch thick .
It was intended to be placed underneath the laptop and simply plug into the normal power outlet on the laptop .
One guy used one of these for a 14 hour flight from North America to South East Asia , said he played DVDs all they way across the ocean and never lost battery power .
Perhaps that company , if it still exists , has an external rechargeable battery that you could clip to your phone or hand held computer so that you would have an extra 3 hours to 8 hours of battery life .
Just thinking out loud as you are right battery life is a pain for all of us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Battery life is the real kicker.
The very best commercially available batteries are just barely adequate for one smart phone OS, much less two trampling on one another.
These phones will either last 3 hours, or hearken back to the "old school brick" form factor.Battery life on any computer is a pain.
I just gave up and kept a phone cord at work and at home.
And that is only because I have had power cords break from being moved too much.
Also when I get to the office or get home, I simply plug in my Nokia N800.
There was a time where a company, do not know the name, wish I did, was selling an external rechargeable battery.
The one I was looking at cost between $150 - $300 per battery and was the size of a small laptop, but only about 1/2 inch thick.
It was intended to be placed underneath the laptop and simply plug into the normal power outlet on the laptop.
One guy used one of these for a 14 hour flight from North America to South East Asia, said he played DVDs all they way across the ocean and never lost battery power.
Perhaps that company, if it still exists, has an external rechargeable battery that you could clip to your phone or hand held computer so that you would have an extra 3 hours to 8 hours of battery life.
Just thinking out loud as you are right battery life is a pain for all of us.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349754</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260126480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>When all you have is virtualization, all your markets look like... um, virtualization problems? (not very catchy, is it)</htmltext>
<tokenext>When all you have is virtualization , all your markets look like... um , virtualization problems ?
( not very catchy , is it )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When all you have is virtualization, all your markets look like... um, virtualization problems?
(not very catchy, is it)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349812</id>
	<title>Who watches the watchers...</title>
	<author>lamapper</author>
	<datestamp>1260127140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can not be the only person who sees a problem with a restricted virtual layer running underneath the operating system on any device that I own.  I would not put up with tethering, I will not put up with that.

</p><p>I do not have a problem with a virtual layer running under the OS on a system I own, as long as I have 100\% access and control to that virtual layer.  Meaning I can remove, reconfigure, reinstall and tweak it as I see fit.  The last thing any of us need is for some entity to not only track us, but monitor our communications, without a warrant, 24 X 7.

</p><p>Hey Intel (<i>some of you reading this might not be aware of this fact</i>) has processors that phone home and communicate without the user being aware of it. It would be pathetic to have to run a passive sniffer on your personal network to monitor for unusual, unscheduled or abnormal outgoing traffic.  Pathetic but to be 100\% secure absolutely necessary.  (<i>Fortunately a <a href="http://www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/Supported\_Devices" title="dd-wrt.com">DD-WRT supported device!</a> [dd-wrt.com] will allow you to do just that!</i>)

</p><p>So any cellular phone that had a "restricted" virtual layer would be foolish to purchase, bring home and use.  Hopefully everyone has learned their lessons from useless tethering and other such restrictions.

</p><p>Its not about FREE, its about control and access, that is your only security.

</p><p>Do you have the ability to tell your phone that while you are at home you ONLY want to use your WiFi broadband network and NOT your cellular plan.  A "smart" phone would give you that capability.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can not be the only person who sees a problem with a restricted virtual layer running underneath the operating system on any device that I own .
I would not put up with tethering , I will not put up with that .
I do not have a problem with a virtual layer running under the OS on a system I own , as long as I have 100 \ % access and control to that virtual layer .
Meaning I can remove , reconfigure , reinstall and tweak it as I see fit .
The last thing any of us need is for some entity to not only track us , but monitor our communications , without a warrant , 24 X 7 .
Hey Intel ( some of you reading this might not be aware of this fact ) has processors that phone home and communicate without the user being aware of it .
It would be pathetic to have to run a passive sniffer on your personal network to monitor for unusual , unscheduled or abnormal outgoing traffic .
Pathetic but to be 100 \ % secure absolutely necessary .
( Fortunately a DD-WRT supported device !
[ dd-wrt.com ] will allow you to do just that !
) So any cellular phone that had a " restricted " virtual layer would be foolish to purchase , bring home and use .
Hopefully everyone has learned their lessons from useless tethering and other such restrictions .
Its not about FREE , its about control and access , that is your only security .
Do you have the ability to tell your phone that while you are at home you ONLY want to use your WiFi broadband network and NOT your cellular plan .
A " smart " phone would give you that capability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can not be the only person who sees a problem with a restricted virtual layer running underneath the operating system on any device that I own.
I would not put up with tethering, I will not put up with that.
I do not have a problem with a virtual layer running under the OS on a system I own, as long as I have 100\% access and control to that virtual layer.
Meaning I can remove, reconfigure, reinstall and tweak it as I see fit.
The last thing any of us need is for some entity to not only track us, but monitor our communications, without a warrant, 24 X 7.
Hey Intel (some of you reading this might not be aware of this fact) has processors that phone home and communicate without the user being aware of it.
It would be pathetic to have to run a passive sniffer on your personal network to monitor for unusual, unscheduled or abnormal outgoing traffic.
Pathetic but to be 100\% secure absolutely necessary.
(Fortunately a DD-WRT supported device!
[dd-wrt.com] will allow you to do just that!
)

So any cellular phone that had a "restricted" virtual layer would be foolish to purchase, bring home and use.
Hopefully everyone has learned their lessons from useless tethering and other such restrictions.
Its not about FREE, its about control and access, that is your only security.
Do you have the ability to tell your phone that while you are at home you ONLY want to use your WiFi broadband network and NOT your cellular plan.
A "smart" phone would give you that capability.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349920</id>
	<title>Mobile hardware already does this, sort of</title>
	<author>BodeNGE</author>
	<datestamp>1260128460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most modern ARM/Snapdragon based devices can run either WinMo, Android or Linux.  HTC as a vendor has been making the exact same hardware run with either OS for several years and only switched on Android when it was ready.  They even could have dual booted their Shift device between real Windows and Windows Mobile except for pedantic licencing restrictions.  I'm not sure a third pary software VM is really the best way of implementing this though, especially with sharred data storage and databases (contacts, etc) between the two.  you also have the problem of hard resetting the device (and the data store) and upgrades to one or both of the OS'es.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most modern ARM/Snapdragon based devices can run either WinMo , Android or Linux .
HTC as a vendor has been making the exact same hardware run with either OS for several years and only switched on Android when it was ready .
They even could have dual booted their Shift device between real Windows and Windows Mobile except for pedantic licencing restrictions .
I 'm not sure a third pary software VM is really the best way of implementing this though , especially with sharred data storage and databases ( contacts , etc ) between the two .
you also have the problem of hard resetting the device ( and the data store ) and upgrades to one or both of the OS'es .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most modern ARM/Snapdragon based devices can run either WinMo, Android or Linux.
HTC as a vendor has been making the exact same hardware run with either OS for several years and only switched on Android when it was ready.
They even could have dual booted their Shift device between real Windows and Windows Mobile except for pedantic licencing restrictions.
I'm not sure a third pary software VM is really the best way of implementing this though, especially with sharred data storage and databases (contacts, etc) between the two.
you also have the problem of hard resetting the device (and the data store) and upgrades to one or both of the OS'es.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30351596</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>wisty</author>
	<datestamp>1260194100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No, really, why?</p></div><p>Because everyone knows that the problem with smartphones is while that they have way too many pixels, standardized input devices, video cards that can render billions of polygons a second, and a buttload of RAM; but you just can't run games like Crysis on your trendy Apple, or use PhotoShop on your home dev box / server.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , really , why ? Because everyone knows that the problem with smartphones is while that they have way too many pixels , standardized input devices , video cards that can render billions of polygons a second , and a buttload of RAM ; but you just ca n't run games like Crysis on your trendy Apple , or use PhotoShop on your home dev box / server .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, really, why?Because everyone knows that the problem with smartphones is while that they have way too many pixels, standardized input devices, video cards that can render billions of polygons a second, and a buttload of RAM; but you just can't run games like Crysis on your trendy Apple, or use PhotoShop on your home dev box / server.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349840</id>
	<title>Re:great, so my phone can be even slower</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260127500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmm.  I think you need a new phone.</p><p>I'm able to do VOIP over 3g (north american AT&amp;T using an "iphone" plan) using my Nokia E51 and VOIP service from callcentric.com.  Callcentric even supports local number portability.</p><p>The 3g VOIP is pretty poor but it is good enough to see that I'm getting a call, answer it, and tell them I'll call back (either using the AT&amp;T voice service or by switching my phone to a local wifi hotspot and calling them back using VOIP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm .
I think you need a new phone.I 'm able to do VOIP over 3g ( north american AT&amp;T using an " iphone " plan ) using my Nokia E51 and VOIP service from callcentric.com .
Callcentric even supports local number portability.The 3g VOIP is pretty poor but it is good enough to see that I 'm getting a call , answer it , and tell them I 'll call back ( either using the AT&amp;T voice service or by switching my phone to a local wifi hotspot and calling them back using VOIP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm.
I think you need a new phone.I'm able to do VOIP over 3g (north american AT&amp;T using an "iphone" plan) using my Nokia E51 and VOIP service from callcentric.com.
Callcentric even supports local number portability.The 3g VOIP is pretty poor but it is good enough to see that I'm getting a call, answer it, and tell them I'll call back (either using the AT&amp;T voice service or by switching my phone to a local wifi hotspot and calling them back using VOIP.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30350864</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>obarthelemy</author>
	<datestamp>1260183360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Virtualization exists because OS companies have a hard time making resilient OSes. In an ideal world, it wouldn't be needed, and OSes would be reliable, load-balancing... natively.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Virtualization exists because OS companies have a hard time making resilient OSes .
In an ideal world , it would n't be needed , and OSes would be reliable , load-balancing... natively .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Virtualization exists because OS companies have a hard time making resilient OSes.
In an ideal world, it wouldn't be needed, and OSes would be reliable, load-balancing... natively.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349670</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_0327245_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30351596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_0327245_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30350404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_0327245_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_0327245_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30353740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_0327245_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30352702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30351486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30350864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_0327245_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30352934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_0327245_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30350078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_0327245_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_0327245_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30352784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_0327245_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30352660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30350606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_0327245_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30351190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_0327245_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30350250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_0327245_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_0327245_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30352932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_0327245_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30351442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_0327245_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_0327245_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_0327245_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30350020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_0327245_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30351198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_0327245_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30350840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_0327245_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_0327245_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30350368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_0327245_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_0327245_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_0327245_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_0327245_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30350004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_0327245_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_0327245_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30351164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30350864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_0327245_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30351128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_0327245_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_0327245_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30354370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_0327245_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30350272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_0327245_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30357180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_07_0327245_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_0327245.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349900
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_0327245.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30350272
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_0327245.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349800
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349856
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30352934
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349918
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30354370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30350004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30352932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30351442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30350250
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30350404
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30353740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30351198
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_0327245.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349684
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_0327245.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349740
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_0327245.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349678
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_0327245.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30351128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30350020
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_0327245.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30350366
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_0327245.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30357180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30352784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30350078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30350864
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30351486
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30352702
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30351164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30351596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30350840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30351190
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_0327245.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30349734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30350368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30350606
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30352660
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_0327245.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30350302
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_07_0327245.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_07_0327245.30356038
</commentlist>
</conversation>
