<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_19_193258</id>
	<title>Carriers, Manufacturers Are Strangling Android</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1261216200000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>loconet writes <i>"This article in Gizmodo claims that Android's fragmented model is harming it, but Google has the power to save it. The <a href="//mobile.slashdot.org/story/09/12/14/1410202/Nexus-One-Is-Googles-Android-Phone">rumored Google Phone</a> could be a ploy to upset the wireless industry, or it could be an expensive niche device. Either way, it would be a <a href="http://www.androidforums.com/rogers/10647-rogers-dream-1-6-update-11.html#post197520">bid to take Android back</a> from the companies that seem <a href="http://gizmodo.com/5427938/how-carriers-and-phone-makers-are-strangling-android-and-how-google-could-save-it?skyline=true&amp;s=x">hell-bent on destroying it</a>. '...once handset manufacturers (and carriers, through handset manufacturers) have built their own version of Android, they've effectively taken it out of the development stream. Updating it is their responsibility, which they have to choose to uphold. Or not! Who cares? The phones are already sold."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>loconet writes " This article in Gizmodo claims that Android 's fragmented model is harming it , but Google has the power to save it .
The rumored Google Phone could be a ploy to upset the wireless industry , or it could be an expensive niche device .
Either way , it would be a bid to take Android back from the companies that seem hell-bent on destroying it .
'...once handset manufacturers ( and carriers , through handset manufacturers ) have built their own version of Android , they 've effectively taken it out of the development stream .
Updating it is their responsibility , which they have to choose to uphold .
Or not !
Who cares ?
The phones are already sold .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>loconet writes "This article in Gizmodo claims that Android's fragmented model is harming it, but Google has the power to save it.
The rumored Google Phone could be a ploy to upset the wireless industry, or it could be an expensive niche device.
Either way, it would be a bid to take Android back from the companies that seem hell-bent on destroying it.
'...once handset manufacturers (and carriers, through handset manufacturers) have built their own version of Android, they've effectively taken it out of the development stream.
Updating it is their responsibility, which they have to choose to uphold.
Or not!
Who cares?
The phones are already sold.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30502932</id>
	<title>Re:Carriers are a real problem.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261305360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It depends.  If it means that they can add more subscribers without upgrading the network then it can pay them very well.  Their best compression device was been the unusability of phones - such that nobody could be bothered to use the data.  That's changing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It depends .
If it means that they can add more subscribers without upgrading the network then it can pay them very well .
Their best compression device was been the unusability of phones - such that nobody could be bothered to use the data .
That 's changing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It depends.
If it means that they can add more subscribers without upgrading the network then it can pay them very well.
Their best compression device was been the unusability of phones - such that nobody could be bothered to use the data.
That's changing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501486</id>
	<title>Re:A naive question</title>
	<author>spinkham</author>
	<datestamp>1261231080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, you used to legally be required to lease your phone from Ma Bell.</p><p><a href="http://www.porticus.org/bell/bell\_system\_property.html" title="porticus.org">http://www.porticus.org/bell/bell\_system\_property.html</a> [porticus.org]</p><p>You CAN still go buy an unlocked phone and connect it to a providers network, you just pay through the nose for the phone, and don't get a discount from the carrier.  They'll be happy to connect it for you as long as the tech is rthe same though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , you used to legally be required to lease your phone from Ma Bell.http : //www.porticus.org/bell/bell \ _system \ _property.html [ porticus.org ] You CAN still go buy an unlocked phone and connect it to a providers network , you just pay through the nose for the phone , and do n't get a discount from the carrier .
They 'll be happy to connect it for you as long as the tech is rthe same though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, you used to legally be required to lease your phone from Ma Bell.http://www.porticus.org/bell/bell\_system\_property.html [porticus.org]You CAN still go buy an unlocked phone and connect it to a providers network, you just pay through the nose for the phone, and don't get a discount from the carrier.
They'll be happy to connect it for you as long as the tech is rthe same though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501564</id>
	<title>Re:Here is my dream phone</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261232280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Verizon has such a plan with the Droid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Verizon has such a plan with the Droid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Verizon has such a plan with the Droid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500864</id>
	<title>A naive question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261221960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I will admit that I don't understand the standards behind the cell phone industry, but why are cell phones so strongly coupled to the service providers and, well, not open?</p><p>If I want a landline, I can go buy any old phone I want, and as long as it speaks the right protocols (which are pretty simple for analog landlines) I can plug it into my wall, and it works.</p><p>If I want internet service, I can go buy Ye Olde Acme Cable Modem, plug it into my wall, call up my local ISP, and poof! I have internet.</p><p>If I'm out of disk space, I can go get a hard drive from Seagate and stick it into any machine I want to.</p><p>In so many other engineering situations, interoperability between one component and another is restricted only as far as it is required to be based on the manufacturer's engineering decisions. (I can't mount a Nikon lens on a Canon camera because they have two different ways of doing autofocus, for instance.)</p><p>Why the hell can't cell phones be this way, instead of the current quagmire where they're hopelessly entangled with what the carrier wants? I want a cellular carrier that charges a fair price for service (per byte and per minute, or whatever), and then lets me use whatever device I want to use that service. If I can stick a radio into a TI-89 and make it speak CDMA, let me make phone calls with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I will admit that I do n't understand the standards behind the cell phone industry , but why are cell phones so strongly coupled to the service providers and , well , not open ? If I want a landline , I can go buy any old phone I want , and as long as it speaks the right protocols ( which are pretty simple for analog landlines ) I can plug it into my wall , and it works.If I want internet service , I can go buy Ye Olde Acme Cable Modem , plug it into my wall , call up my local ISP , and poof !
I have internet.If I 'm out of disk space , I can go get a hard drive from Seagate and stick it into any machine I want to.In so many other engineering situations , interoperability between one component and another is restricted only as far as it is required to be based on the manufacturer 's engineering decisions .
( I ca n't mount a Nikon lens on a Canon camera because they have two different ways of doing autofocus , for instance .
) Why the hell ca n't cell phones be this way , instead of the current quagmire where they 're hopelessly entangled with what the carrier wants ?
I want a cellular carrier that charges a fair price for service ( per byte and per minute , or whatever ) , and then lets me use whatever device I want to use that service .
If I can stick a radio into a TI-89 and make it speak CDMA , let me make phone calls with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I will admit that I don't understand the standards behind the cell phone industry, but why are cell phones so strongly coupled to the service providers and, well, not open?If I want a landline, I can go buy any old phone I want, and as long as it speaks the right protocols (which are pretty simple for analog landlines) I can plug it into my wall, and it works.If I want internet service, I can go buy Ye Olde Acme Cable Modem, plug it into my wall, call up my local ISP, and poof!
I have internet.If I'm out of disk space, I can go get a hard drive from Seagate and stick it into any machine I want to.In so many other engineering situations, interoperability between one component and another is restricted only as far as it is required to be based on the manufacturer's engineering decisions.
(I can't mount a Nikon lens on a Canon camera because they have two different ways of doing autofocus, for instance.
)Why the hell can't cell phones be this way, instead of the current quagmire where they're hopelessly entangled with what the carrier wants?
I want a cellular carrier that charges a fair price for service (per byte and per minute, or whatever), and then lets me use whatever device I want to use that service.
If I can stick a radio into a TI-89 and make it speak CDMA, let me make phone calls with it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30502284</id>
	<title>Re:And here is why people love the iPhone ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261246260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>** Apple's total control over the system is actually a blessing **</p><p>but only because they can't rely on AT&amp;T not FU their rep and sales.</p><p>Seriously, if the telecom nets were safe and sane, why would Apple<br>need to retain this level of control?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* * Apple 's total control over the system is actually a blessing * * but only because they ca n't rely on AT&amp;T not FU their rep and sales.Seriously , if the telecom nets were safe and sane , why would Appleneed to retain this level of control ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>** Apple's total control over the system is actually a blessing **but only because they can't rely on AT&amp;T not FU their rep and sales.Seriously, if the telecom nets were safe and sane, why would Appleneed to retain this level of control?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500894</id>
	<title>Worst has to be Samsung</title>
	<author>spyfrog</author>
	<datestamp>1261222560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The worst handling has to be the way Samsung has treated us who bought the Galaxy.<br>No update to either 1.6 or 2.0 but the lower end models, like the "Spica" (which began its life as Galaxy Lite) will probably be updated.</p><p>They could at least release the source code needed for someone to compile Android as a third party software but they refuse. Really, really bad. My last Samsung phone, you can be sure of that. The phone stopped working after 3 weeks also - I am still not sure if it can be repaired.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The worst handling has to be the way Samsung has treated us who bought the Galaxy.No update to either 1.6 or 2.0 but the lower end models , like the " Spica " ( which began its life as Galaxy Lite ) will probably be updated.They could at least release the source code needed for someone to compile Android as a third party software but they refuse .
Really , really bad .
My last Samsung phone , you can be sure of that .
The phone stopped working after 3 weeks also - I am still not sure if it can be repaired .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The worst handling has to be the way Samsung has treated us who bought the Galaxy.No update to either 1.6 or 2.0 but the lower end models, like the "Spica" (which began its life as Galaxy Lite) will probably be updated.They could at least release the source code needed for someone to compile Android as a third party software but they refuse.
Really, really bad.
My last Samsung phone, you can be sure of that.
The phone stopped working after 3 weeks also - I am still not sure if it can be repaired.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500840</id>
	<title>Re:What a nightmare.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261221720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah... buy a new phone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah... buy a new phone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah... buy a new phone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500990</id>
	<title>Re:How is this Different from WinMobile?</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1261223880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WinMo has been around in one form or another longer than Google has actually existed, I think its a bit premature to write it off at this point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WinMo has been around in one form or another longer than Google has actually existed , I think its a bit premature to write it off at this point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WinMo has been around in one form or another longer than Google has actually existed, I think its a bit premature to write it off at this point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30502856</id>
	<title>Re:The RDF strikes again</title>
	<author>4phun</author>
	<datestamp>1261302900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Except Apple have a few per cent market share - so actually, by your logic, people prefer more open solutions.</p><p>Believe it or not, there's more (far more) to the mobile phone market than Apple and Google. Nokia, Samsung, LG, Motorola, RIM. But you wouldn't know it from reading Slashdot.</p></div><p>Did you not notice that Apple's iPhone has already grabbed 47\% of Japan's smart-phone market? His original assumption is quite correct.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except Apple have a few per cent market share - so actually , by your logic , people prefer more open solutions.Believe it or not , there 's more ( far more ) to the mobile phone market than Apple and Google .
Nokia , Samsung , LG , Motorola , RIM .
But you would n't know it from reading Slashdot.Did you not notice that Apple 's iPhone has already grabbed 47 \ % of Japan 's smart-phone market ?
His original assumption is quite correct .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except Apple have a few per cent market share - so actually, by your logic, people prefer more open solutions.Believe it or not, there's more (far more) to the mobile phone market than Apple and Google.
Nokia, Samsung, LG, Motorola, RIM.
But you wouldn't know it from reading Slashdot.Did you not notice that Apple's iPhone has already grabbed 47\% of Japan's smart-phone market?
His original assumption is quite correct.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501290</id>
	<title>Re:What a nightmare.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261228020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple's business model is also more prone to success than Android's.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple 's business model is also more prone to success than Android 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple's business model is also more prone to success than Android's.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30502014</id>
	<title>Re:What a nightmare.</title>
	<author>BurningFeetMan</author>
	<datestamp>1261240740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If iTunes had a face, I would stab it. I don't mind work lending me an iPhone to use, but fuck the whole iTunes GIVE US YOUR CREDIT CARD DETAILS side of it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If iTunes had a face , I would stab it .
I do n't mind work lending me an iPhone to use , but fuck the whole iTunes GIVE US YOUR CREDIT CARD DETAILS side of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If iTunes had a face, I would stab it.
I don't mind work lending me an iPhone to use, but fuck the whole iTunes GIVE US YOUR CREDIT CARD DETAILS side of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501012</id>
	<title>Re:What a nightmare.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261224180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly!  I remember about 2 years ago I was at a conference meeting with some conference chairs, and one of them was a Google employee. We were talking about mobile phones and his words at that time was that the Google mobile operating system would crush Apple. I laughed in his face and said, "many have already said that in the past."</p><p>What Google does not understand is that the mobile networks are not like Internet networks. The only company, and I did underestimate them to my error, that managed to get control of things was Apple. And while many hate that Apple has such a draconian stance on their Apps store I am almost guessing it is a requirement by the telcos. Otherwise why would Google have such a problem with their OS's. The problem with 3G is that the telco's paid BILLIONS for the space and they want to make that money back. Apple understands this, and did the right thing. Google just DOES NOT GET it...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly !
I remember about 2 years ago I was at a conference meeting with some conference chairs , and one of them was a Google employee .
We were talking about mobile phones and his words at that time was that the Google mobile operating system would crush Apple .
I laughed in his face and said , " many have already said that in the past .
" What Google does not understand is that the mobile networks are not like Internet networks .
The only company , and I did underestimate them to my error , that managed to get control of things was Apple .
And while many hate that Apple has such a draconian stance on their Apps store I am almost guessing it is a requirement by the telcos .
Otherwise why would Google have such a problem with their OS 's .
The problem with 3G is that the telco 's paid BILLIONS for the space and they want to make that money back .
Apple understands this , and did the right thing .
Google just DOES NOT GET it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly!
I remember about 2 years ago I was at a conference meeting with some conference chairs, and one of them was a Google employee.
We were talking about mobile phones and his words at that time was that the Google mobile operating system would crush Apple.
I laughed in his face and said, "many have already said that in the past.
"What Google does not understand is that the mobile networks are not like Internet networks.
The only company, and I did underestimate them to my error, that managed to get control of things was Apple.
And while many hate that Apple has such a draconian stance on their Apps store I am almost guessing it is a requirement by the telcos.
Otherwise why would Google have such a problem with their OS's.
The problem with 3G is that the telco's paid BILLIONS for the space and they want to make that money back.
Apple understands this, and did the right thing.
Google just DOES NOT GET it...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500772</id>
	<title>Carriers are a real problem.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261220880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cell phone carriers are, at least in america, holding back cell phone software. The subsidized-phone business model gives them the oppourtunity to control everything about customer's phone software. Most basic carrier-sold phones are a nightmare to use, filled with ugly, confusing branded interfaces and annoying "stores" that sell overpriced useless games and ringtones. Apple did something right by cutting a tough deal with specific carriers in order to prevent them from branding the phone. Google's "all comers" strategy has opened them to the megalomania of the carriers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cell phone carriers are , at least in america , holding back cell phone software .
The subsidized-phone business model gives them the oppourtunity to control everything about customer 's phone software .
Most basic carrier-sold phones are a nightmare to use , filled with ugly , confusing branded interfaces and annoying " stores " that sell overpriced useless games and ringtones .
Apple did something right by cutting a tough deal with specific carriers in order to prevent them from branding the phone .
Google 's " all comers " strategy has opened them to the megalomania of the carriers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cell phone carriers are, at least in america, holding back cell phone software.
The subsidized-phone business model gives them the oppourtunity to control everything about customer's phone software.
Most basic carrier-sold phones are a nightmare to use, filled with ugly, confusing branded interfaces and annoying "stores" that sell overpriced useless games and ringtones.
Apple did something right by cutting a tough deal with specific carriers in order to prevent them from branding the phone.
Google's "all comers" strategy has opened them to the megalomania of the carriers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30506216</id>
	<title>Re:One More Time</title>
	<author>earlymon</author>
	<datestamp>1261300140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Somebody please explain to me why Android matters.</p></div><p>FWIW, I can share why it matters to me and why I'm shopping for it (and I'm an American):</p><p>1. Fear factor<br>2. Price<br>3. Openmoko</p><p>I'll take them in turn.  Not being a pro writer, I'll have to babble colloquially.</p><p>Fear factor:</p><p>I've owned four cell phones in my life.  My first, a Qualcomm brick was very cool - it was a phone.  I torched it and got a Motorola StarTac and it was very cool - it was a phone and I got occasional SMSes on it that I ignored.  It started falling apart after years of abuse and I replaced it with a Motorola RAZR.  It was sorta cool. For the first time, buttons were harder to see and get to in a hurry.  I got into SMS and had slow but fun access to Opera.  Then I got two more for the family (same carrier, same supposed model) and they were three different phones as far as I'm concerned.  My wife's phone's interface was so different - as was the construction quality.  My fourth and current for 2+ years is a Helio Ocean.  I get 3G coverage most everywhere, and get great service from it.  Except - as CDMA from a MVNO (Sprint backbone, I believe) - I didn't stand a chance with it in Asia or Europe - or the Upper Peninsula, Michigan for data or GPS (yikes!!!) for that matter.  And as a feature phone, it's just a pain to text and talk simultaneously.</p><p>And about a year and a half ago, downloading an Opera Mini upgrade totally bricked my phone (good thing I had the extended warranty).  I haven't attempted a new app or upgrade since - fear factor.</p><p>I was sitting in Germany with a couple of buddies last year, both sporting their new BlackBerries (they're longtime BB users - "experts") but one had a phone that wouldn't work there (had to replace it with a different model when he got back home).  Funny keyboard, lousy display compared to my Ocean.</p><p>Based on a tip in another thread, I've just learned about the Nokia N900 (very cool sounding!) - and that T-Mobile or ATT would give me 3G with that.  No ATT - I will not do business with them again - their pricing is predatory compared to my Helio (now Virgin Mobile) plan and I tried them for a few years - I fear AT&amp;T billing.  So, I check out T-Mobile and there's no 3G where I live.</p><p>So - I need a feature or smartphone with: a) upgrades I can trust, b) apps I can trust, c) features I can trust, d) billing I can trust, e) user-accessible batteries. I even expect that - in 2010!!!! - I may need to get two phones - one for domestic, one for occasional international work travel.  I fear learning curve, interoperability issues and data syncing if I have to get two phones.</p><p>I've had to learn way too much just to get a freaking cell phone.  I already maintain in my head too much about WinXP, Vista, Tiger, Leopard and I don't know - 5?? - unices for work.  I do not need CVS, apt-get or anything else for a phone.</p><p>So - debates about evil aside - I'm simply less fearful of Apple and Google.  And AT&amp;T and no-battery-swap make Apple a non-starter.</p><p>Price:</p><p>I do NOT like the idea of paying $600 or more for hardware freedom - but if it would really get me what I want, I'll bite that bullet.  Otherwise, given that I cannot believe the US market will make sense in my lifetime and given that I may need TWO phones, then going with a subsidized phone is attractive.</p><p>Openmoko:</p><p>I thought that that would be my answer.  Everything about it said Fuck You to the existing cell phone industry.  I was willing to take whatever restrictions applied just to own one and join the chorus.  For where I sit, Openmoko became a non-starter.  So that's out.</p><p>So that's why Android matters to me - I want something with low fear factors, decent prices and I've given up on anyone making a big enough Fuck You to the US cell phone industry that we somehow roll in to the 21st century like the rest of the world.</p><p>So, today, I'm waiting to see what Sprint will do with 4G and how the new toy-looking Samsung Android phone they have will work out.</p><p>I've been waiting since my RAZR to get what I want.  I was on the iPhone wait-mailing list.  I've been on several new phone wait-mailing list.</p><p>After three years of this nonsense, I just want to be Joe Consumer and buy something in the way of feature or smartphone I trust, backed up up by a company I trust.</p><p>Everyone says Nokia, Nokia, Nokia.  But to an outsider, it seems to me that there's so much debate and arguing among Nokia users that I can' tell what's esoteric and what's fundamental in their discussions.</p><p>For a phone.  For a freaking phone.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Somebody please explain to me why Android matters.FWIW , I can share why it matters to me and why I 'm shopping for it ( and I 'm an American ) : 1 .
Fear factor2 .
Price3. OpenmokoI 'll take them in turn .
Not being a pro writer , I 'll have to babble colloquially.Fear factor : I 've owned four cell phones in my life .
My first , a Qualcomm brick was very cool - it was a phone .
I torched it and got a Motorola StarTac and it was very cool - it was a phone and I got occasional SMSes on it that I ignored .
It started falling apart after years of abuse and I replaced it with a Motorola RAZR .
It was sorta cool .
For the first time , buttons were harder to see and get to in a hurry .
I got into SMS and had slow but fun access to Opera .
Then I got two more for the family ( same carrier , same supposed model ) and they were three different phones as far as I 'm concerned .
My wife 's phone 's interface was so different - as was the construction quality .
My fourth and current for 2 + years is a Helio Ocean .
I get 3G coverage most everywhere , and get great service from it .
Except - as CDMA from a MVNO ( Sprint backbone , I believe ) - I did n't stand a chance with it in Asia or Europe - or the Upper Peninsula , Michigan for data or GPS ( yikes ! ! !
) for that matter .
And as a feature phone , it 's just a pain to text and talk simultaneously.And about a year and a half ago , downloading an Opera Mini upgrade totally bricked my phone ( good thing I had the extended warranty ) .
I have n't attempted a new app or upgrade since - fear factor.I was sitting in Germany with a couple of buddies last year , both sporting their new BlackBerries ( they 're longtime BB users - " experts " ) but one had a phone that would n't work there ( had to replace it with a different model when he got back home ) .
Funny keyboard , lousy display compared to my Ocean.Based on a tip in another thread , I 've just learned about the Nokia N900 ( very cool sounding !
) - and that T-Mobile or ATT would give me 3G with that .
No ATT - I will not do business with them again - their pricing is predatory compared to my Helio ( now Virgin Mobile ) plan and I tried them for a few years - I fear AT&amp;T billing .
So , I check out T-Mobile and there 's no 3G where I live.So - I need a feature or smartphone with : a ) upgrades I can trust , b ) apps I can trust , c ) features I can trust , d ) billing I can trust , e ) user-accessible batteries .
I even expect that - in 2010 ! ! ! !
- I may need to get two phones - one for domestic , one for occasional international work travel .
I fear learning curve , interoperability issues and data syncing if I have to get two phones.I 've had to learn way too much just to get a freaking cell phone .
I already maintain in my head too much about WinXP , Vista , Tiger , Leopard and I do n't know - 5 ? ?
- unices for work .
I do not need CVS , apt-get or anything else for a phone.So - debates about evil aside - I 'm simply less fearful of Apple and Google .
And AT&amp;T and no-battery-swap make Apple a non-starter.Price : I do NOT like the idea of paying $ 600 or more for hardware freedom - but if it would really get me what I want , I 'll bite that bullet .
Otherwise , given that I can not believe the US market will make sense in my lifetime and given that I may need TWO phones , then going with a subsidized phone is attractive.Openmoko : I thought that that would be my answer .
Everything about it said Fuck You to the existing cell phone industry .
I was willing to take whatever restrictions applied just to own one and join the chorus .
For where I sit , Openmoko became a non-starter .
So that 's out.So that 's why Android matters to me - I want something with low fear factors , decent prices and I 've given up on anyone making a big enough Fuck You to the US cell phone industry that we somehow roll in to the 21st century like the rest of the world.So , today , I 'm waiting to see what Sprint will do with 4G and how the new toy-looking Samsung Android phone they have will work out.I 've been waiting since my RAZR to get what I want .
I was on the iPhone wait-mailing list .
I 've been on several new phone wait-mailing list.After three years of this nonsense , I just want to be Joe Consumer and buy something in the way of feature or smartphone I trust , backed up up by a company I trust.Everyone says Nokia , Nokia , Nokia .
But to an outsider , it seems to me that there 's so much debate and arguing among Nokia users that I can ' tell what 's esoteric and what 's fundamental in their discussions.For a phone .
For a freaking phone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somebody please explain to me why Android matters.FWIW, I can share why it matters to me and why I'm shopping for it (and I'm an American):1.
Fear factor2.
Price3. OpenmokoI'll take them in turn.
Not being a pro writer, I'll have to babble colloquially.Fear factor:I've owned four cell phones in my life.
My first, a Qualcomm brick was very cool - it was a phone.
I torched it and got a Motorola StarTac and it was very cool - it was a phone and I got occasional SMSes on it that I ignored.
It started falling apart after years of abuse and I replaced it with a Motorola RAZR.
It was sorta cool.
For the first time, buttons were harder to see and get to in a hurry.
I got into SMS and had slow but fun access to Opera.
Then I got two more for the family (same carrier, same supposed model) and they were three different phones as far as I'm concerned.
My wife's phone's interface was so different - as was the construction quality.
My fourth and current for 2+ years is a Helio Ocean.
I get 3G coverage most everywhere, and get great service from it.
Except - as CDMA from a MVNO (Sprint backbone, I believe) - I didn't stand a chance with it in Asia or Europe - or the Upper Peninsula, Michigan for data or GPS (yikes!!!
) for that matter.
And as a feature phone, it's just a pain to text and talk simultaneously.And about a year and a half ago, downloading an Opera Mini upgrade totally bricked my phone (good thing I had the extended warranty).
I haven't attempted a new app or upgrade since - fear factor.I was sitting in Germany with a couple of buddies last year, both sporting their new BlackBerries (they're longtime BB users - "experts") but one had a phone that wouldn't work there (had to replace it with a different model when he got back home).
Funny keyboard, lousy display compared to my Ocean.Based on a tip in another thread, I've just learned about the Nokia N900 (very cool sounding!
) - and that T-Mobile or ATT would give me 3G with that.
No ATT - I will not do business with them again - their pricing is predatory compared to my Helio (now Virgin Mobile) plan and I tried them for a few years - I fear AT&amp;T billing.
So, I check out T-Mobile and there's no 3G where I live.So - I need a feature or smartphone with: a) upgrades I can trust, b) apps I can trust, c) features I can trust, d) billing I can trust, e) user-accessible batteries.
I even expect that - in 2010!!!!
- I may need to get two phones - one for domestic, one for occasional international work travel.
I fear learning curve, interoperability issues and data syncing if I have to get two phones.I've had to learn way too much just to get a freaking cell phone.
I already maintain in my head too much about WinXP, Vista, Tiger, Leopard and I don't know - 5??
- unices for work.
I do not need CVS, apt-get or anything else for a phone.So - debates about evil aside - I'm simply less fearful of Apple and Google.
And AT&amp;T and no-battery-swap make Apple a non-starter.Price:I do NOT like the idea of paying $600 or more for hardware freedom - but if it would really get me what I want, I'll bite that bullet.
Otherwise, given that I cannot believe the US market will make sense in my lifetime and given that I may need TWO phones, then going with a subsidized phone is attractive.Openmoko:I thought that that would be my answer.
Everything about it said Fuck You to the existing cell phone industry.
I was willing to take whatever restrictions applied just to own one and join the chorus.
For where I sit, Openmoko became a non-starter.
So that's out.So that's why Android matters to me - I want something with low fear factors, decent prices and I've given up on anyone making a big enough Fuck You to the US cell phone industry that we somehow roll in to the 21st century like the rest of the world.So, today, I'm waiting to see what Sprint will do with 4G and how the new toy-looking Samsung Android phone they have will work out.I've been waiting since my RAZR to get what I want.
I was on the iPhone wait-mailing list.
I've been on several new phone wait-mailing list.After three years of this nonsense, I just want to be Joe Consumer and buy something in the way of feature or smartphone I trust, backed up up by a company I trust.Everyone says Nokia, Nokia, Nokia.
But to an outsider, it seems to me that there's so much debate and arguing among Nokia users that I can' tell what's esoteric and what's fundamental in their discussions.For a phone.
For a freaking phone.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30502036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500970</id>
	<title>Cry me a river.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261223580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The providers have you bent over a barrel.  If you don't like it, take a stand; otherwise, shut. the. fuck. up.  I'm tired of hearing all you whiny bitches complain about all this smart phone nonsense.  iPhone this.  Android that.  You're all a bunch of punk ass bitches, and you'll continue to take it in the ass because you couldn't deal with the absolute travesty of living without your precious for more than 10 minutes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The providers have you bent over a barrel .
If you do n't like it , take a stand ; otherwise , shut .
the. fuck .
up. I 'm tired of hearing all you whiny bitches complain about all this smart phone nonsense .
iPhone this .
Android that .
You 're all a bunch of punk ass bitches , and you 'll continue to take it in the ass because you could n't deal with the absolute travesty of living without your precious for more than 10 minutes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The providers have you bent over a barrel.
If you don't like it, take a stand; otherwise, shut.
the. fuck.
up.  I'm tired of hearing all you whiny bitches complain about all this smart phone nonsense.
iPhone this.
Android that.
You're all a bunch of punk ass bitches, and you'll continue to take it in the ass because you couldn't deal with the absolute travesty of living without your precious for more than 10 minutes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501536</id>
	<title>The iPhone is a MID; Android is for smart phones</title>
	<author>dirkdodgers</author>
	<datestamp>1261231860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think the article appreciates where most consumers are at. Most consumers have simply cell phones and will continue to have simply cell phones. Most cell phones today are for all practical purposes, smart phones. What most consumers do not have, have rejected for the past 15 years, and will continue to reject, is a device that is a big rectangular brick that happens to also let you make calls, what used to be a PDA, and is now a mobile internet device (MID).</p><p>Android is an OS that is first and foremost is for smart phones.  The iPhone is not a smart phone at all. The iPhone is a MID that happens to have phone functions. See: iPod Touch.</p><p>With Android, Google isn't focusing on the iPhone market. Google is focused on the Symbian market where Apple does not even compete today.</p><p>Apple is going to need to decide very quickly whether they want to remain only a player in the niche mobile internet device market, or whether they want to enter the smart phone market proper, where most consumers are and will continue to be.</p><p>With any luck, Apple will enter this market with something like an iPhone nano. I really like their interface, but like most consumers I don't want a mobile computer, I want a phone, one that flips open and follows the contours of my head, and in this day and age gives me email, gps, search, and music in a phone, not in a pocket computer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think the article appreciates where most consumers are at .
Most consumers have simply cell phones and will continue to have simply cell phones .
Most cell phones today are for all practical purposes , smart phones .
What most consumers do not have , have rejected for the past 15 years , and will continue to reject , is a device that is a big rectangular brick that happens to also let you make calls , what used to be a PDA , and is now a mobile internet device ( MID ) .Android is an OS that is first and foremost is for smart phones .
The iPhone is not a smart phone at all .
The iPhone is a MID that happens to have phone functions .
See : iPod Touch.With Android , Google is n't focusing on the iPhone market .
Google is focused on the Symbian market where Apple does not even compete today.Apple is going to need to decide very quickly whether they want to remain only a player in the niche mobile internet device market , or whether they want to enter the smart phone market proper , where most consumers are and will continue to be.With any luck , Apple will enter this market with something like an iPhone nano .
I really like their interface , but like most consumers I do n't want a mobile computer , I want a phone , one that flips open and follows the contours of my head , and in this day and age gives me email , gps , search , and music in a phone , not in a pocket computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think the article appreciates where most consumers are at.
Most consumers have simply cell phones and will continue to have simply cell phones.
Most cell phones today are for all practical purposes, smart phones.
What most consumers do not have, have rejected for the past 15 years, and will continue to reject, is a device that is a big rectangular brick that happens to also let you make calls, what used to be a PDA, and is now a mobile internet device (MID).Android is an OS that is first and foremost is for smart phones.
The iPhone is not a smart phone at all.
The iPhone is a MID that happens to have phone functions.
See: iPod Touch.With Android, Google isn't focusing on the iPhone market.
Google is focused on the Symbian market where Apple does not even compete today.Apple is going to need to decide very quickly whether they want to remain only a player in the niche mobile internet device market, or whether they want to enter the smart phone market proper, where most consumers are and will continue to be.With any luck, Apple will enter this market with something like an iPhone nano.
I really like their interface, but like most consumers I don't want a mobile computer, I want a phone, one that flips open and follows the contours of my head, and in this day and age gives me email, gps, search, and music in a phone, not in a pocket computer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500724</id>
	<title>What a nightmare.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261219920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>You have to hand it to Apple, at least they handle updates pretty well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You have to hand it to Apple , at least they handle updates pretty well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have to hand it to Apple, at least they handle updates pretty well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500752</id>
	<title>The License Question Reconsidered?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261220400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here is the Ars article from time past on the subject of just why Google decided on the ASL instead of the GPL:</p><p><a href="http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2007/11/why-google-chose-the-apache-software-license-over-gplv2.ars" title="arstechnica.com">http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2007/11/why-google-chose-the-apache-software-license-over-gplv2.ars</a> [arstechnica.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is the Ars article from time past on the subject of just why Google decided on the ASL instead of the GPL : http : //arstechnica.com/old/content/2007/11/why-google-chose-the-apache-software-license-over-gplv2.ars [ arstechnica.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is the Ars article from time past on the subject of just why Google decided on the ASL instead of the GPL:http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2007/11/why-google-chose-the-apache-software-license-over-gplv2.ars [arstechnica.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30503180</id>
	<title>Re:Hard to believe</title>
	<author>MemoryDragon</author>
	<datestamp>1261312080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually I like the way google handles things, if they can provide a reference phone like the G1 everyone will be happy.<br>But I agree the long term support is one thing Apple is sucessful and it shines among all cell phone makers. No cell phone maker has supported so far one of its phones more than one year. Apple has been doing that lately for 3 years. But outside of that Apples support becomes worse every year. Recently a friend of mine was turned down by the apple repair support on his expensive macbook pro although he had paid for Applecare, because the machine one time has been falling from the desk and had scratches from it on the surface.<br>The damage he had was unrelated to the thing and a lot of reports from the damage have been on the net before.<br>So he reconsiders buying Apple again, in the end this has cost Apple more than one repair over the next five years, because he usually buys expensive machines! I also will reconsider my purchases regarding apple again, over the last five years I have had 4 apple machines bought, but I never have had anything like it regarding repairs from acer. Sure their machines are junk and last half as long, but they are also half as expensive and their repairs usually work the no questions asked way!<br>The last time I had to deal with Apple support in this regard, I was treated almost like a criminal, and that was with a 3000 Euro Macbook Air and a 300Euro Apple three years warranty included!<br>The situation has changed regarding this the last 2 years, 2 years ago you were treated like a customer, now you are treated like a criminal halfway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually I like the way google handles things , if they can provide a reference phone like the G1 everyone will be happy.But I agree the long term support is one thing Apple is sucessful and it shines among all cell phone makers .
No cell phone maker has supported so far one of its phones more than one year .
Apple has been doing that lately for 3 years .
But outside of that Apples support becomes worse every year .
Recently a friend of mine was turned down by the apple repair support on his expensive macbook pro although he had paid for Applecare , because the machine one time has been falling from the desk and had scratches from it on the surface.The damage he had was unrelated to the thing and a lot of reports from the damage have been on the net before.So he reconsiders buying Apple again , in the end this has cost Apple more than one repair over the next five years , because he usually buys expensive machines !
I also will reconsider my purchases regarding apple again , over the last five years I have had 4 apple machines bought , but I never have had anything like it regarding repairs from acer .
Sure their machines are junk and last half as long , but they are also half as expensive and their repairs usually work the no questions asked way ! The last time I had to deal with Apple support in this regard , I was treated almost like a criminal , and that was with a 3000 Euro Macbook Air and a 300Euro Apple three years warranty included ! The situation has changed regarding this the last 2 years , 2 years ago you were treated like a customer , now you are treated like a criminal halfway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually I like the way google handles things, if they can provide a reference phone like the G1 everyone will be happy.But I agree the long term support is one thing Apple is sucessful and it shines among all cell phone makers.
No cell phone maker has supported so far one of its phones more than one year.
Apple has been doing that lately for 3 years.
But outside of that Apples support becomes worse every year.
Recently a friend of mine was turned down by the apple repair support on his expensive macbook pro although he had paid for Applecare, because the machine one time has been falling from the desk and had scratches from it on the surface.The damage he had was unrelated to the thing and a lot of reports from the damage have been on the net before.So he reconsiders buying Apple again, in the end this has cost Apple more than one repair over the next five years, because he usually buys expensive machines!
I also will reconsider my purchases regarding apple again, over the last five years I have had 4 apple machines bought, but I never have had anything like it regarding repairs from acer.
Sure their machines are junk and last half as long, but they are also half as expensive and their repairs usually work the no questions asked way!The last time I had to deal with Apple support in this regard, I was treated almost like a criminal, and that was with a 3000 Euro Macbook Air and a 300Euro Apple three years warranty included!The situation has changed regarding this the last 2 years, 2 years ago you were treated like a customer, now you are treated like a criminal halfway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501586</id>
	<title>Re:And here is why people love the iPhone ...</title>
	<author>Buelldozer</author>
	<datestamp>1261232820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where do you get "Turns to shit"?</p><p>The potential for that to happen is there but it certainly hasn't happened as of now.</p><p>I have a Motorola Droid and it's fantastic. It's far and away the best smartphone I've owned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where do you get " Turns to shit " ? The potential for that to happen is there but it certainly has n't happened as of now.I have a Motorola Droid and it 's fantastic .
It 's far and away the best smartphone I 've owned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where do you get "Turns to shit"?The potential for that to happen is there but it certainly hasn't happened as of now.I have a Motorola Droid and it's fantastic.
It's far and away the best smartphone I've owned.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501218</id>
	<title>Re:A naive question</title>
	<author>Firehed</author>
	<datestamp>1261227120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If I can stick a radio into a TI-89 and make it speak CDMA, let me make phone calls with it.</p></div><p>You know most phones have a calculator app built in already, right?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I can stick a radio into a TI-89 and make it speak CDMA , let me make phone calls with it.You know most phones have a calculator app built in already , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I can stick a radio into a TI-89 and make it speak CDMA, let me make phone calls with it.You know most phones have a calculator app built in already, right?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30507280</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps fewer updates may help?</title>
	<author>zuperduperman</author>
	<datestamp>1261309380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>True, but we are dealing with a very young OS which was missing many major features in it's first few versions (virtual keyboard, bluetooth, etc.).   The modern phone OS battle is really only just beginning.   The real question is what will happen now that both  OSes (iphone, android) are reasonably feature complete and usable.   Yes, if android continues the way it has, there will be a problem.   However I'm betting things will be a lot smoother from here on out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>True , but we are dealing with a very young OS which was missing many major features in it 's first few versions ( virtual keyboard , bluetooth , etc. ) .
The modern phone OS battle is really only just beginning .
The real question is what will happen now that both OSes ( iphone , android ) are reasonably feature complete and usable .
Yes , if android continues the way it has , there will be a problem .
However I 'm betting things will be a lot smoother from here on out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True, but we are dealing with a very young OS which was missing many major features in it's first few versions (virtual keyboard, bluetooth, etc.).
The modern phone OS battle is really only just beginning.
The real question is what will happen now that both  OSes (iphone, android) are reasonably feature complete and usable.
Yes, if android continues the way it has, there will be a problem.
However I'm betting things will be a lot smoother from here on out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501872</id>
	<title>Re:Here is my dream phone</title>
	<author>rainer\_d</author>
	<datestamp>1261237800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Buy an unlocked iPhone (from Europe, if you have no other source - I suppose they also work in the US. Some countries in Europe mandate the sale of unlocked phones).<br>IIRC, if you write the App yourself, you can put it on your own iPhone without Apple's approval.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Buy an unlocked iPhone ( from Europe , if you have no other source - I suppose they also work in the US .
Some countries in Europe mandate the sale of unlocked phones ) .IIRC , if you write the App yourself , you can put it on your own iPhone without Apple 's approval .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Buy an unlocked iPhone (from Europe, if you have no other source - I suppose they also work in the US.
Some countries in Europe mandate the sale of unlocked phones).IIRC, if you write the App yourself, you can put it on your own iPhone without Apple's approval.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30502888</id>
	<title>Re:It is different because it is a different era</title>
	<author>KahabutDieDrake</author>
	<datestamp>1261304160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is what passes for insightful these days? <br> <br>Palm is the LEAST locked platform I know of, it certainly has been for the several years preceding the current crop of phones.  My treo sitting in my desk drawer nearly doesn't have any original software left on it.  I've got remote desktop, shell remote, third party browsers, a hacked message cue that runs threaded convos into a one page readable display (think IRC), a dozen or so games, a file browser with full function, Document viewer and editor, email, fax, SMS, MMS and it actually works as a phone still.  I have the source for almost every piece of software on the phone.  <br> <br>I can't speak for WinMo or Blackberry, but Palm is far from locked down.  Worth considering, this phone is 8 years old and on a feature level it competes with most of the newer phones.  Sure, the touch screen is less than stellar, and the camera SUCKS, but on the software level it competes easily with anything out there.  <br> <br>Also, if you are going to be a rampant fanboi, could you at least not use phrases like "vibrant marketplace"?  I get enough buzzwords from the morons in the marketing department.  Kthx.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is what passes for insightful these days ?
Palm is the LEAST locked platform I know of , it certainly has been for the several years preceding the current crop of phones .
My treo sitting in my desk drawer nearly does n't have any original software left on it .
I 've got remote desktop , shell remote , third party browsers , a hacked message cue that runs threaded convos into a one page readable display ( think IRC ) , a dozen or so games , a file browser with full function , Document viewer and editor , email , fax , SMS , MMS and it actually works as a phone still .
I have the source for almost every piece of software on the phone .
I ca n't speak for WinMo or Blackberry , but Palm is far from locked down .
Worth considering , this phone is 8 years old and on a feature level it competes with most of the newer phones .
Sure , the touch screen is less than stellar , and the camera SUCKS , but on the software level it competes easily with anything out there .
Also , if you are going to be a rampant fanboi , could you at least not use phrases like " vibrant marketplace " ?
I get enough buzzwords from the morons in the marketing department .
Kthx .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is what passes for insightful these days?
Palm is the LEAST locked platform I know of, it certainly has been for the several years preceding the current crop of phones.
My treo sitting in my desk drawer nearly doesn't have any original software left on it.
I've got remote desktop, shell remote, third party browsers, a hacked message cue that runs threaded convos into a one page readable display (think IRC), a dozen or so games, a file browser with full function, Document viewer and editor, email, fax, SMS, MMS and it actually works as a phone still.
I have the source for almost every piece of software on the phone.
I can't speak for WinMo or Blackberry, but Palm is far from locked down.
Worth considering, this phone is 8 years old and on a feature level it competes with most of the newer phones.
Sure, the touch screen is less than stellar, and the camera SUCKS, but on the software level it competes easily with anything out there.
Also, if you are going to be a rampant fanboi, could you at least not use phrases like "vibrant marketplace"?
I get enough buzzwords from the morons in the marketing department.
Kthx.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500826</id>
	<title>Re:How is this Different from WinMobile?</title>
	<author>mrmeval</author>
	<datestamp>1261221600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is this different from scrUbuntu, Gnome, Kde, Fedora, etc and etc?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this different from scrUbuntu , Gnome , Kde , Fedora , etc and etc ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is this different from scrUbuntu, Gnome, Kde, Fedora, etc and etc?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501826</id>
	<title>obligatory verizon bash</title>
	<author>speedlaw</author>
	<datestamp>1261236780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My Blackberry Curve (2 year contract, with a mandatory $29.00 per month data plan, er, phone payment) has a GPS chip which does not work unless I buy verizon navigator for $120 per year.  Luckily google maps is good enough.

WiFi....possible, but not in any Verizon branded phone.

Luckily, I can up and download music and pictures....this is considered "progress" in the USA phone model.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My Blackberry Curve ( 2 year contract , with a mandatory $ 29.00 per month data plan , er , phone payment ) has a GPS chip which does not work unless I buy verizon navigator for $ 120 per year .
Luckily google maps is good enough .
WiFi....possible , but not in any Verizon branded phone .
Luckily , I can up and download music and pictures....this is considered " progress " in the USA phone model .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My Blackberry Curve (2 year contract, with a mandatory $29.00 per month data plan, er, phone payment) has a GPS chip which does not work unless I buy verizon navigator for $120 per year.
Luckily google maps is good enough.
WiFi....possible, but not in any Verizon branded phone.
Luckily, I can up and download music and pictures....this is considered "progress" in the USA phone model.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500966</id>
	<title>Hard to believe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261223520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's hard to believe that Google chose to go with what essentially is the open-source version of the broken WinMo model in a post-iPhone world. They got this thing all backwards.</p><p>Perhaps they should have came out with Nexus One from the outset and then set up some kind of a reference design for all other manufacturers, instead of letting various handset manufacturers to cook up their own custom distributions. That way you could have one unified experience for the developers to follow. It's starting to look like Linux on the desktop -- something that sounds amazing on paper but doesn't quite work in the real world when you put it in front of non-geeks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's hard to believe that Google chose to go with what essentially is the open-source version of the broken WinMo model in a post-iPhone world .
They got this thing all backwards.Perhaps they should have came out with Nexus One from the outset and then set up some kind of a reference design for all other manufacturers , instead of letting various handset manufacturers to cook up their own custom distributions .
That way you could have one unified experience for the developers to follow .
It 's starting to look like Linux on the desktop -- something that sounds amazing on paper but does n't quite work in the real world when you put it in front of non-geeks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's hard to believe that Google chose to go with what essentially is the open-source version of the broken WinMo model in a post-iPhone world.
They got this thing all backwards.Perhaps they should have came out with Nexus One from the outset and then set up some kind of a reference design for all other manufacturers, instead of letting various handset manufacturers to cook up their own custom distributions.
That way you could have one unified experience for the developers to follow.
It's starting to look like Linux on the desktop -- something that sounds amazing on paper but doesn't quite work in the real world when you put it in front of non-geeks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500780</id>
	<title>How is this Different from WinMobile?</title>
	<author>syntap</author>
	<datestamp>1261221000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Windows Mobile, which unlike Android has always ranged from okay to sorry, must be updated by the phone manufacturers unless you luck out and your model gets attention from ROM cookers.  Yet it has lived for over ten years... why would the expectation for Android be any different?  Perhaps I am being cynical, but this smells like fear-mongering from parties that still think WinMo has a future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows Mobile , which unlike Android has always ranged from okay to sorry , must be updated by the phone manufacturers unless you luck out and your model gets attention from ROM cookers .
Yet it has lived for over ten years... why would the expectation for Android be any different ?
Perhaps I am being cynical , but this smells like fear-mongering from parties that still think WinMo has a future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows Mobile, which unlike Android has always ranged from okay to sorry, must be updated by the phone manufacturers unless you luck out and your model gets attention from ROM cookers.
Yet it has lived for over ten years... why would the expectation for Android be any different?
Perhaps I am being cynical, but this smells like fear-mongering from parties that still think WinMo has a future.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30502036</id>
	<title>One More Time</title>
	<author>fm6</author>
	<datestamp>1261241100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Somebody please explain to me why Android matters.  What does it have that all the other phone OSs don't? Better APIs? Nicer SDK? I imagine a lot of geeks like the idea of owning a hackable phone, but that's not enough by itself.</p><p>Whenever I ask this question, I get answers that only address issues with the iPhone,  like the fact that nobody tells you what software you can run on it.  Please recall that there are a lot of phone OSs out there.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mobile\_phone\_operating\_systems" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mobile\_phone\_operating\_systems</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Somebody please explain to me why Android matters .
What does it have that all the other phone OSs do n't ?
Better APIs ?
Nicer SDK ?
I imagine a lot of geeks like the idea of owning a hackable phone , but that 's not enough by itself.Whenever I ask this question , I get answers that only address issues with the iPhone , like the fact that nobody tells you what software you can run on it .
Please recall that there are a lot of phone OSs out there.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category : Mobile \ _phone \ _operating \ _systems [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somebody please explain to me why Android matters.
What does it have that all the other phone OSs don't?
Better APIs?
Nicer SDK?
I imagine a lot of geeks like the idea of owning a hackable phone, but that's not enough by itself.Whenever I ask this question, I get answers that only address issues with the iPhone,  like the fact that nobody tells you what software you can run on it.
Please recall that there are a lot of phone OSs out there.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mobile\_phone\_operating\_systems [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501506</id>
	<title>You must construct additional pylons!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261231500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, not those kind of carriers?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , not those kind of carriers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, not those kind of carriers?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500910</id>
	<title>http://www.hapiamesir.org/</title>
	<author>hapiamesir</author>
	<datestamp>1261222740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>great info....</htmltext>
<tokenext>great info... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>great info....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501032</id>
	<title>"Strangling" Android?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261224600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about:</p><p>Journalists, Bloggers Use Overwrought, Hysterical Headlines</p><p>From the stop-taking-yourselves-so-fracking-seriously dept.</p><p>The linked article basically talks about how different phones are using different versions of the Android OS.</p><p>OH NOES.  You mean they aren't all running identical versions?!  It's being strangled!  It's strangulation, I say!  Woe unto those who have slightly different versions of software on their phone, for truly they shall be cursed from on high!</p><p>Seriously people.  Take a deep breath and calm down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about : Journalists , Bloggers Use Overwrought , Hysterical HeadlinesFrom the stop-taking-yourselves-so-fracking-seriously dept.The linked article basically talks about how different phones are using different versions of the Android OS.OH NOES .
You mean they are n't all running identical versions ? !
It 's being strangled !
It 's strangulation , I say !
Woe unto those who have slightly different versions of software on their phone , for truly they shall be cursed from on high ! Seriously people .
Take a deep breath and calm down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about:Journalists, Bloggers Use Overwrought, Hysterical HeadlinesFrom the stop-taking-yourselves-so-fracking-seriously dept.The linked article basically talks about how different phones are using different versions of the Android OS.OH NOES.
You mean they aren't all running identical versions?!
It's being strangled!
It's strangulation, I say!
Woe unto those who have slightly different versions of software on their phone, for truly they shall be cursed from on high!Seriously people.
Take a deep breath and calm down.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30504814</id>
	<title>The answer, as always, is money</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1261332180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>but why are cell phones so strongly coupled to the service providers and, well, not open?</p></div><p>Because the service providers make more money that way, and they can afford the politicians it takes to not change the situation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but why are cell phones so strongly coupled to the service providers and , well , not open ? Because the service providers make more money that way , and they can afford the politicians it takes to not change the situation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but why are cell phones so strongly coupled to the service providers and, well, not open?Because the service providers make more money that way, and they can afford the politicians it takes to not change the situation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501430</id>
	<title>Re:And here is why people love the iPhone ...</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1261230000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then it appears that the carriers are the real enemy here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then it appears that the carriers are the real enemy here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then it appears that the carriers are the real enemy here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30503650</id>
	<title>Both Verizon and T-Mobile Send Android Updates OTA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261321140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TFA is pure FUD.</p><p>I've had a G1 from T-Mobile for over a year, and my wife has a Droid from Verizon.  T-Mobile has been very diligent about pushing out updates over-the-air, there were several.  My wife received one update from Verizon last week, she bought the phone on launch date.</p><p>In all cases the updates have proceeded smoothly.  The phone was out of service for just a few minutes, there was no loss of personal information, or of applications that were downloaded.</p><p>TFA provided no evidence that the carriers were actually slow about providing updates.  My personal experience (two different carriers, two different Android models) is that they are doing quite well.</p><p>The carriers have a huge incentive to keep the user of a fairly expensive phone with a fairly costly service plan happy.  Churn is a big problem in their industry.  They know it costs a lot more to attract a new customer than to retain an existing customer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TFA is pure FUD.I 've had a G1 from T-Mobile for over a year , and my wife has a Droid from Verizon .
T-Mobile has been very diligent about pushing out updates over-the-air , there were several .
My wife received one update from Verizon last week , she bought the phone on launch date.In all cases the updates have proceeded smoothly .
The phone was out of service for just a few minutes , there was no loss of personal information , or of applications that were downloaded.TFA provided no evidence that the carriers were actually slow about providing updates .
My personal experience ( two different carriers , two different Android models ) is that they are doing quite well.The carriers have a huge incentive to keep the user of a fairly expensive phone with a fairly costly service plan happy .
Churn is a big problem in their industry .
They know it costs a lot more to attract a new customer than to retain an existing customer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFA is pure FUD.I've had a G1 from T-Mobile for over a year, and my wife has a Droid from Verizon.
T-Mobile has been very diligent about pushing out updates over-the-air, there were several.
My wife received one update from Verizon last week, she bought the phone on launch date.In all cases the updates have proceeded smoothly.
The phone was out of service for just a few minutes, there was no loss of personal information, or of applications that were downloaded.TFA provided no evidence that the carriers were actually slow about providing updates.
My personal experience (two different carriers, two different Android models) is that they are doing quite well.The carriers have a huge incentive to keep the user of a fairly expensive phone with a fairly costly service plan happy.
Churn is a big problem in their industry.
They know it costs a lot more to attract a new customer than to retain an existing customer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501186</id>
	<title>Re:Here is my dream phone</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1261226760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any PAYG phone with WiFi that isn't the locked down Iphone should do you fine. E.g., my Nokia 5800 I got on PAYG does those things fine (admittedly I've yet to try Skype over WiFi, but I've seen applications that claim to do this).</p><p>And not that any PAYG phone full stop satisfy 3 and 4 - they all support "apps" (well, apart from the cheapest dumb phones), usually via Java.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any PAYG phone with WiFi that is n't the locked down Iphone should do you fine .
E.g. , my Nokia 5800 I got on PAYG does those things fine ( admittedly I 've yet to try Skype over WiFi , but I 've seen applications that claim to do this ) .And not that any PAYG phone full stop satisfy 3 and 4 - they all support " apps " ( well , apart from the cheapest dumb phones ) , usually via Java .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any PAYG phone with WiFi that isn't the locked down Iphone should do you fine.
E.g., my Nokia 5800 I got on PAYG does those things fine (admittedly I've yet to try Skype over WiFi, but I've seen applications that claim to do this).And not that any PAYG phone full stop satisfy 3 and 4 - they all support "apps" (well, apart from the cheapest dumb phones), usually via Java.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500848</id>
	<title>Perhaps fewer updates may help?</title>
	<author>ThreeGigs</author>
	<datestamp>1261221780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>September 2008: Android 1.0<br>March 2009: 1.1<br>May 2009: 1.5<br>September 2009: 1.6<br>October 2009: 2.0</p><p>Sorry, but by the time a phone maker qualifies the newest version for use on a particuar phone, it's likely there'll be a newer version of Android out...so...why bother? If you're always going to be behind the timjes, might as well just concentrate on your newest offerings, instead of trying to make sure that Android x.x is backwards compatible with your old hardware.</p><p>Perhaps a major release with new features only once a year, and bugfixes and efficiency improvments in point upgrades as needed.</p><p>Sorry but, too many people have learned that upgrading the OS breaks 3rd party apps, thus I can see why phone makers prefer stability over feature improvements.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>September 2008 : Android 1.0March 2009 : 1.1May 2009 : 1.5September 2009 : 1.6October 2009 : 2.0Sorry , but by the time a phone maker qualifies the newest version for use on a particuar phone , it 's likely there 'll be a newer version of Android out...so...why bother ?
If you 're always going to be behind the timjes , might as well just concentrate on your newest offerings , instead of trying to make sure that Android x.x is backwards compatible with your old hardware.Perhaps a major release with new features only once a year , and bugfixes and efficiency improvments in point upgrades as needed.Sorry but , too many people have learned that upgrading the OS breaks 3rd party apps , thus I can see why phone makers prefer stability over feature improvements .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>September 2008: Android 1.0March 2009: 1.1May 2009: 1.5September 2009: 1.6October 2009: 2.0Sorry, but by the time a phone maker qualifies the newest version for use on a particuar phone, it's likely there'll be a newer version of Android out...so...why bother?
If you're always going to be behind the timjes, might as well just concentrate on your newest offerings, instead of trying to make sure that Android x.x is backwards compatible with your old hardware.Perhaps a major release with new features only once a year, and bugfixes and efficiency improvments in point upgrades as needed.Sorry but, too many people have learned that upgrading the OS breaks 3rd party apps, thus I can see why phone makers prefer stability over feature improvements.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501162</id>
	<title>Re:A naive question</title>
	<author>david.given</author>
	<datestamp>1261226520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why the hell can't cell phones be this way, instead of the current quagmire where they're hopelessly entangled with what the carrier wants? I want a cellular carrier that charges a fair price for service (per byte and per minute, or whatever), and then lets me use whatever device I want to use that service. If I can stick a radio into a TI-89 and make it speak CDMA, let me make phone calls with it.</p></div><p>Because you're in America, the land of the fee.

</p><p>More seriously, CDMA is a large part of the problem. Most CDMA phones aren't designed to work with multiple carriers. The phone ID is hard-coded at build time and tied to a particular carrier. This means that it's really hard to change them to another carrier.

</p><p>GSM phones work differently. The network ID, the bit that is tied to a particular carrier, is actually housed on a smartcard that plugs into the phone. You can remove the smartcard and insert it into another phone, and presto, that phone adopts the smartcard's ID and logs on to the appropriate carrier.

</p><p>While you still get subsidised phones with GSM that are locked to one particular carrier, and will refuse to work with a different SIM, the fact that this is possible and easy has encouraged a whole industry of unlocked phones and SIMs. You can go into any supermarket and <a href="http://direct.tesco.com/product/default.aspx?R=200-0225" title="tesco.com">buy a SIM in a box</a> [tesco.com] (that one is $7 and contains $15 worth of credit). If you need a phone you can <a href="http://direct.tesco.com/q/R.206-7149.aspx" title="tesco.com">either buy a cheap SIM-less phone</a> [tesco.com] (that one costs $10!), but they'll work in any unlocked GSM phone. The end result is that I, living in the UK, can spend about $30 a year on mobile phone service. That includes data.

</p><p>(If you hunt around you can actually find SIM-only options for GSM phones in America, but of course this requires you to live in a GSM area; plus, the terms are usually terrible with unpleasant features like evaporating credit if you don't use it.)

</p><p>There <i>is</i> apparently a standard for a similar CDMA smartcard system, but it's now too late and nobody cares.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why the hell ca n't cell phones be this way , instead of the current quagmire where they 're hopelessly entangled with what the carrier wants ?
I want a cellular carrier that charges a fair price for service ( per byte and per minute , or whatever ) , and then lets me use whatever device I want to use that service .
If I can stick a radio into a TI-89 and make it speak CDMA , let me make phone calls with it.Because you 're in America , the land of the fee .
More seriously , CDMA is a large part of the problem .
Most CDMA phones are n't designed to work with multiple carriers .
The phone ID is hard-coded at build time and tied to a particular carrier .
This means that it 's really hard to change them to another carrier .
GSM phones work differently .
The network ID , the bit that is tied to a particular carrier , is actually housed on a smartcard that plugs into the phone .
You can remove the smartcard and insert it into another phone , and presto , that phone adopts the smartcard 's ID and logs on to the appropriate carrier .
While you still get subsidised phones with GSM that are locked to one particular carrier , and will refuse to work with a different SIM , the fact that this is possible and easy has encouraged a whole industry of unlocked phones and SIMs .
You can go into any supermarket and buy a SIM in a box [ tesco.com ] ( that one is $ 7 and contains $ 15 worth of credit ) .
If you need a phone you can either buy a cheap SIM-less phone [ tesco.com ] ( that one costs $ 10 !
) , but they 'll work in any unlocked GSM phone .
The end result is that I , living in the UK , can spend about $ 30 a year on mobile phone service .
That includes data .
( If you hunt around you can actually find SIM-only options for GSM phones in America , but of course this requires you to live in a GSM area ; plus , the terms are usually terrible with unpleasant features like evaporating credit if you do n't use it .
) There is apparently a standard for a similar CDMA smartcard system , but it 's now too late and nobody cares .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why the hell can't cell phones be this way, instead of the current quagmire where they're hopelessly entangled with what the carrier wants?
I want a cellular carrier that charges a fair price for service (per byte and per minute, or whatever), and then lets me use whatever device I want to use that service.
If I can stick a radio into a TI-89 and make it speak CDMA, let me make phone calls with it.Because you're in America, the land of the fee.
More seriously, CDMA is a large part of the problem.
Most CDMA phones aren't designed to work with multiple carriers.
The phone ID is hard-coded at build time and tied to a particular carrier.
This means that it's really hard to change them to another carrier.
GSM phones work differently.
The network ID, the bit that is tied to a particular carrier, is actually housed on a smartcard that plugs into the phone.
You can remove the smartcard and insert it into another phone, and presto, that phone adopts the smartcard's ID and logs on to the appropriate carrier.
While you still get subsidised phones with GSM that are locked to one particular carrier, and will refuse to work with a different SIM, the fact that this is possible and easy has encouraged a whole industry of unlocked phones and SIMs.
You can go into any supermarket and buy a SIM in a box [tesco.com] (that one is $7 and contains $15 worth of credit).
If you need a phone you can either buy a cheap SIM-less phone [tesco.com] (that one costs $10!
), but they'll work in any unlocked GSM phone.
The end result is that I, living in the UK, can spend about $30 a year on mobile phone service.
That includes data.
(If you hunt around you can actually find SIM-only options for GSM phones in America, but of course this requires you to live in a GSM area; plus, the terms are usually terrible with unpleasant features like evaporating credit if you don't use it.
)

There is apparently a standard for a similar CDMA smartcard system, but it's now too late and nobody cares.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501216</id>
	<title>Re:What a nightmare.</title>
	<author>adbge</author>
	<datestamp>1261227060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Breaking Linux support every update isn't my idea of 'well.'<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</htmltext>
<tokenext>Breaking Linux support every update is n't my idea of 'well .
' : (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Breaking Linux support every update isn't my idea of 'well.
' :(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501682</id>
	<title>Re:A naive question</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1261234080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>stick a radio into a TI-89</p></div><p>You know most phones have a calculator app built in already, right?</p></div><p>Four-function calculator != programmable algebra calculator. Apple would never let TI or anyone else make an iPhone app with the functionality of the TI-89 or even the TI-83 for the same reason that the C64 emulator got pulled: BASIC.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>stick a radio into a TI-89You know most phones have a calculator app built in already , right ? Four-function calculator ! = programmable algebra calculator .
Apple would never let TI or anyone else make an iPhone app with the functionality of the TI-89 or even the TI-83 for the same reason that the C64 emulator got pulled : BASIC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>stick a radio into a TI-89You know most phones have a calculator app built in already, right?Four-function calculator != programmable algebra calculator.
Apple would never let TI or anyone else make an iPhone app with the functionality of the TI-89 or even the TI-83 for the same reason that the C64 emulator got pulled: BASIC.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500824</id>
	<title>Really?</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1261221540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not entirely sure what this article is trying to prove. Android has been out for a year. It takes most software companies 6 months to ready a new release, test it, and put it out to market. If anyone (carriers or manufacturers) are interested in keeping their hardware on dated software, that won't be clear until at least June.</p><p>And his supposition that handset manufacturers have no incentive to make their already-sold handsets operate well is just stupid. If you get a reputation for not updating your software, people won't want your hardware. And the carriers have even more interest in keeping software up to date.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not entirely sure what this article is trying to prove .
Android has been out for a year .
It takes most software companies 6 months to ready a new release , test it , and put it out to market .
If anyone ( carriers or manufacturers ) are interested in keeping their hardware on dated software , that wo n't be clear until at least June.And his supposition that handset manufacturers have no incentive to make their already-sold handsets operate well is just stupid .
If you get a reputation for not updating your software , people wo n't want your hardware .
And the carriers have even more interest in keeping software up to date .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not entirely sure what this article is trying to prove.
Android has been out for a year.
It takes most software companies 6 months to ready a new release, test it, and put it out to market.
If anyone (carriers or manufacturers) are interested in keeping their hardware on dated software, that won't be clear until at least June.And his supposition that handset manufacturers have no incentive to make their already-sold handsets operate well is just stupid.
If you get a reputation for not updating your software, people won't want your hardware.
And the carriers have even more interest in keeping software up to date.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501838</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't matter if users ca upgrade.</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1261237140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If the carriers don't update, most users will if it's possible -</p></div><p>I think you confuse "most users" with "the relatively small subset of users that post articles, blog entries, and comments"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the carriers do n't update , most users will if it 's possible -I think you confuse " most users " with " the relatively small subset of users that post articles , blog entries , and comments "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the carriers don't update, most users will if it's possible -I think you confuse "most users" with "the relatively small subset of users that post articles, blog entries, and comments"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30516728</id>
	<title>Re:One More Time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261389600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd say Android matters because the other options are (probably) dead-ends.  That matters to developers who are going to invest in learning a new platform.  "Dead-end" may not be very true for the iPhone, as it is quite popular, and people are fine with jailbreaking it to get around the control factor Apple wants to apply.  But the legacy phone OS (Windows Mobile and Symbian) aren't anything that will attract new developers.  WebOS for Palm Pre didn't make a large enough of a splash.  RIM has a good OS, but it isn't very open for experimentation.  Looks like the future is Maemo and Android, and Android has been shipping for a year now.  Just this weekend, my cousins and I were comparing my Android to their iPhones, and I had features they don't.  Apple *could* add them, but in the race for developers, the open OS gets the innovators.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd say Android matters because the other options are ( probably ) dead-ends .
That matters to developers who are going to invest in learning a new platform .
" Dead-end " may not be very true for the iPhone , as it is quite popular , and people are fine with jailbreaking it to get around the control factor Apple wants to apply .
But the legacy phone OS ( Windows Mobile and Symbian ) are n't anything that will attract new developers .
WebOS for Palm Pre did n't make a large enough of a splash .
RIM has a good OS , but it is n't very open for experimentation .
Looks like the future is Maemo and Android , and Android has been shipping for a year now .
Just this weekend , my cousins and I were comparing my Android to their iPhones , and I had features they do n't .
Apple * could * add them , but in the race for developers , the open OS gets the innovators .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd say Android matters because the other options are (probably) dead-ends.
That matters to developers who are going to invest in learning a new platform.
"Dead-end" may not be very true for the iPhone, as it is quite popular, and people are fine with jailbreaking it to get around the control factor Apple wants to apply.
But the legacy phone OS (Windows Mobile and Symbian) aren't anything that will attract new developers.
WebOS for Palm Pre didn't make a large enough of a splash.
RIM has a good OS, but it isn't very open for experimentation.
Looks like the future is Maemo and Android, and Android has been shipping for a year now.
Just this weekend, my cousins and I were comparing my Android to their iPhones, and I had features they don't.
Apple *could* add them, but in the race for developers, the open OS gets the innovators.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30502036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30503270</id>
	<title>Re:What a nightmare.</title>
	<author>RyuuzakiTetsuya</author>
	<datestamp>1261314360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The part about the mobile userspace that Google doesn't get is that handset manufacturers are a bunch of useless lousy assholes.</p><p>If lockdowns were a problem, no mobile provider on earth would supply smart phones.  Period.</p><p>After owning a few Windows Mobile devices, what became quite clear to me was that in an emergency the last thing I want to do is reboot to clear rogue processes just so I can make calls or heaven forbid use Google Maps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The part about the mobile userspace that Google does n't get is that handset manufacturers are a bunch of useless lousy assholes.If lockdowns were a problem , no mobile provider on earth would supply smart phones .
Period.After owning a few Windows Mobile devices , what became quite clear to me was that in an emergency the last thing I want to do is reboot to clear rogue processes just so I can make calls or heaven forbid use Google Maps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The part about the mobile userspace that Google doesn't get is that handset manufacturers are a bunch of useless lousy assholes.If lockdowns were a problem, no mobile provider on earth would supply smart phones.
Period.After owning a few Windows Mobile devices, what became quite clear to me was that in an emergency the last thing I want to do is reboot to clear rogue processes just so I can make calls or heaven forbid use Google Maps.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501112</id>
	<title>Re:What a nightmare.</title>
	<author>jonwil</author>
	<datestamp>1261225980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the best things Apple did with the iPhone is to ensure that Apple is responsible for distribution of update and that the carriers have no say in when updates are released.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the best things Apple did with the iPhone is to ensure that Apple is responsible for distribution of update and that the carriers have no say in when updates are released .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the best things Apple did with the iPhone is to ensure that Apple is responsible for distribution of update and that the carriers have no say in when updates are released.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501158</id>
	<title>Re:And here is why people love the iPhone ...</title>
	<author>Shatrat</author>
	<datestamp>1261226460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Apple maintains total control over it, sticks to their guns, and the product isn't bad.

Google gives the carriers complete control, and it turns to shit.</p></div><p>Wouldn't you rather YOU were in control of your own phone?<br>
That's what the Nexus One is intended to bring about, it seems.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple maintains total control over it , sticks to their guns , and the product is n't bad .
Google gives the carriers complete control , and it turns to shit.Would n't you rather YOU were in control of your own phone ?
That 's what the Nexus One is intended to bring about , it seems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple maintains total control over it, sticks to their guns, and the product isn't bad.
Google gives the carriers complete control, and it turns to shit.Wouldn't you rather YOU were in control of your own phone?
That's what the Nexus One is intended to bring about, it seems.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501356</id>
	<title>Re:What a nightmare.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261228920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple *KNEW* it had a good product.  They came in and said we will run this *OUR* way if you do not like that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... well tough we will not launch it.</p><p>Many of these companies are so process heavy they wouldnt know what to do with a good idea anyway.  It took me 7 phone calls to my service rep to get my home phone switched to my cell.  My favorite quote 'I dont think that is possible to do I do not understand it'.  Then the meetings I have seen with the carrier reps these dudes are so well disconnected from their customers they have no idea when a good idea falls in their laps.  They want to nickle and dime an idea and just say 'take it or leave it'.  Then turn around acting all surprised when they overcharged for it and force it on everyone.</p><p>There is a reason we all pay 20 cents and up per text message.  Its not thru greed or malace.  It is just serious malaise and a general lack of caring for the customer.</p><p>So yes they will kill the android before it gets out the door.  They will cripple the hell out of it.  Dont want to erode a possible profit.  Then wonder what went wrong.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple * KNEW * it had a good product .
They came in and said we will run this * OUR * way if you do not like that ... well tough we will not launch it.Many of these companies are so process heavy they wouldnt know what to do with a good idea anyway .
It took me 7 phone calls to my service rep to get my home phone switched to my cell .
My favorite quote 'I dont think that is possible to do I do not understand it' .
Then the meetings I have seen with the carrier reps these dudes are so well disconnected from their customers they have no idea when a good idea falls in their laps .
They want to nickle and dime an idea and just say 'take it or leave it' .
Then turn around acting all surprised when they overcharged for it and force it on everyone.There is a reason we all pay 20 cents and up per text message .
Its not thru greed or malace .
It is just serious malaise and a general lack of caring for the customer.So yes they will kill the android before it gets out the door .
They will cripple the hell out of it .
Dont want to erode a possible profit .
Then wonder what went wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple *KNEW* it had a good product.
They came in and said we will run this *OUR* way if you do not like that ... well tough we will not launch it.Many of these companies are so process heavy they wouldnt know what to do with a good idea anyway.
It took me 7 phone calls to my service rep to get my home phone switched to my cell.
My favorite quote 'I dont think that is possible to do I do not understand it'.
Then the meetings I have seen with the carrier reps these dudes are so well disconnected from their customers they have no idea when a good idea falls in their laps.
They want to nickle and dime an idea and just say 'take it or leave it'.
Then turn around acting all surprised when they overcharged for it and force it on everyone.There is a reason we all pay 20 cents and up per text message.
Its not thru greed or malace.
It is just serious malaise and a general lack of caring for the customer.So yes they will kill the android before it gets out the door.
They will cripple the hell out of it.
Dont want to erode a possible profit.
Then wonder what went wrong.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500832</id>
	<title>Really hope this takes off</title>
	<author>DJRumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1261221660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm an iPhone user, but I really hope this takes off. There are some interesting features in the Droid and competition is always a good thing. On top of that, separating the phone from the provider is a Win in my book. Yes, it will remove the overt control from the provider, but it will also have the effect of eliminating contract termination fees, and it could also potentially bring about better standards that ALL cell providers would be forced to follow as well as better pricing in the long run if they are no longer subsidizing the phones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm an iPhone user , but I really hope this takes off .
There are some interesting features in the Droid and competition is always a good thing .
On top of that , separating the phone from the provider is a Win in my book .
Yes , it will remove the overt control from the provider , but it will also have the effect of eliminating contract termination fees , and it could also potentially bring about better standards that ALL cell providers would be forced to follow as well as better pricing in the long run if they are no longer subsidizing the phones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm an iPhone user, but I really hope this takes off.
There are some interesting features in the Droid and competition is always a good thing.
On top of that, separating the phone from the provider is a Win in my book.
Yes, it will remove the overt control from the provider, but it will also have the effect of eliminating contract termination fees, and it could also potentially bring about better standards that ALL cell providers would be forced to follow as well as better pricing in the long run if they are no longer subsidizing the phones.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30502276</id>
	<title>Re:A naive question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261246080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There is apparently a standard for a similar CDMA smartcard system, but it's now too late and nobody cares.</p></div><p>Well here in India (which is apparently the second largest mobile phone network in the world), people do care. Pretty much all CDMA here, uses the CDMA Sim card system.<br>So we buy handsets from handset retailers and buy sim + connections from network operators.<br>We get to pick and choose whatever suits us best and the system produces one of the cheapest services on the planet.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is apparently a standard for a similar CDMA smartcard system , but it 's now too late and nobody cares.Well here in India ( which is apparently the second largest mobile phone network in the world ) , people do care .
Pretty much all CDMA here , uses the CDMA Sim card system.So we buy handsets from handset retailers and buy sim + connections from network operators.We get to pick and choose whatever suits us best and the system produces one of the cheapest services on the planet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is apparently a standard for a similar CDMA smartcard system, but it's now too late and nobody cares.Well here in India (which is apparently the second largest mobile phone network in the world), people do care.
Pretty much all CDMA here, uses the CDMA Sim card system.So we buy handsets from handset retailers and buy sim + connections from network operators.We get to pick and choose whatever suits us best and the system produces one of the cheapest services on the planet.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500734</id>
	<title>In other news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261220160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>CmdrTaco has been arrested on suspicion of strangling a baby with his micropenis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CmdrTaco has been arrested on suspicion of strangling a baby with his micropenis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CmdrTaco has been arrested on suspicion of strangling a baby with his micropenis.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500986</id>
	<title>And here is why people love the iPhone ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261223820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple maintains total control over it, sticks to their guns, and the product isn't bad.</p><p>Google gives the carriers complete control, and it turns to shit.</p><p>This isn't a new pattern, this is the way its been all along and is one of the reasons the iPhone is doing well.</p><p>You wouldn't get email on your phone with out an extra $10/month charge from AT&amp;T if it was in their control.  Maps would be the same way.  Data would be $0.10/kb or packet, whichever amounts to the largest possible bill.</p><p>Apple and the iPhone didn't sell so well just because of the hardware or software specifically.  Apple's total control over the system is actually a blessing, contrary to what most seem to think.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple maintains total control over it , sticks to their guns , and the product is n't bad.Google gives the carriers complete control , and it turns to shit.This is n't a new pattern , this is the way its been all along and is one of the reasons the iPhone is doing well.You would n't get email on your phone with out an extra $ 10/month charge from AT&amp;T if it was in their control .
Maps would be the same way .
Data would be $ 0.10/kb or packet , whichever amounts to the largest possible bill.Apple and the iPhone did n't sell so well just because of the hardware or software specifically .
Apple 's total control over the system is actually a blessing , contrary to what most seem to think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple maintains total control over it, sticks to their guns, and the product isn't bad.Google gives the carriers complete control, and it turns to shit.This isn't a new pattern, this is the way its been all along and is one of the reasons the iPhone is doing well.You wouldn't get email on your phone with out an extra $10/month charge from AT&amp;T if it was in their control.
Maps would be the same way.
Data would be $0.10/kb or packet, whichever amounts to the largest possible bill.Apple and the iPhone didn't sell so well just because of the hardware or software specifically.
Apple's total control over the system is actually a blessing, contrary to what most seem to think.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500822</id>
	<title>Here is my dream phone</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261221540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>1) (Practically)Free VOIP when in WIFI zones instead of using minutes.  <br> <br>

2) Internet Browser in WIFI zones.<br> <br>

3) No commitment plan, but maybe minutes bought on a trak phone style buying.<br> <br>

4) Ability to write my own custom aps on the phone.<br> <br> <br> <br>

This is my dream phone because I can use it as a home phone and never have to pay for it.  Everything past that is bonus.</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) ( Practically ) Free VOIP when in WIFI zones instead of using minutes .
2 ) Internet Browser in WIFI zones .
3 ) No commitment plan , but maybe minutes bought on a trak phone style buying .
4 ) Ability to write my own custom aps on the phone .
This is my dream phone because I can use it as a home phone and never have to pay for it .
Everything past that is bonus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) (Practically)Free VOIP when in WIFI zones instead of using minutes.
2) Internet Browser in WIFI zones.
3) No commitment plan, but maybe minutes bought on a trak phone style buying.
4) Ability to write my own custom aps on the phone.
This is my dream phone because I can use it as a home phone and never have to pay for it.
Everything past that is bonus.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30508852</id>
	<title>Re:One More Time</title>
	<author>cboslin</author>
	<datestamp>1261328640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hope you get mod-ed way up!  I could not agree more.  With the "Fear" for me has become a lack of TRUST of all American cellular providers.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I've owned four cell phones in my life. My first, a Qualcomm brick was very cool - it was a phone. I torched it and got a Motorola StarTac and it was very cool</p></div><p>I too had a phone, a brick, before my Motorola StarTAc, love Motorola products.  Just can not stand the carriers at all.  I had over seven years with the first provider before they tried to stick charges on my bill, well over $500 of charges I did not make.  I was surprised when they simply did not remove the charges.  I had gone back through my bills, had never called any of the numbers.  I offered to come to their office, let them call the numbers and find who was at the number in order to prove I did not know them.  (<i>I was not going to be stupid and call them myself and have the carrier use that discovery call against me, in order to get them to remove them from my bill.</i>)

</p><p>My seven year positive track record mattered NOT.  They said pay up or else.  I made the normal monthly and told them I expected them to remove the other charges.  They refused, turned off my service and sent me to collections.  Customer-No-Service and I was paying between $150 - $200 per month for service, so I was not just a basic customer.  They simply did not care.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>What chance do you have if you are only a basic customer paying $50 per month to your provider for service?  <i>Yea, your screwed!</i></p> </div><p>I had switched providers before they cut me off.  You have that ability when you are month to month without a contract/plan.  If the carrier screws you over you can churn.  I did.  There is a company in New York, Mobile City, that will sell to you, <i>at retail prices of course</i>, a hand set that will work on your preferred carrier/provider's network.  If you walk into a provider, they can enable that hand set to work on their network and you will have no contract!  Month to month baby, worth it to be free to CHURN if they mess with you!

</p><p>Everything was okay with the second provider for the first three years; until I purchased unlimited text messaging.  I had to pay an additional premium amount above and beyond my monthly plan in order to prevent surprise charges.  I think it cost me an extra $40 per month above and beyond my over $100 per month cellular service.  So once again the carrier was going to have me in their preferred monthly payment range of $150 per month.  <i>You think they would be happy with that</i> and be more willing to work with you to resolve problems, NOT.

</p><p>They provisioned the text messaging part of my plan incorrectly, so my text messages were eating into my voice minutes and when I needed voice minutes I was paying per minute charges above and beyond my normal per minute plan, which I was now exceeding thanks to the mistake in provisioning of the text messaging, geez.  The end result was an inflated bill of around $800, not around $150 as I expected.  Even more bizarre is that the first time in 3 years the itemized bill (<i>that I paid extra each month for because of that first negative experience three years earlier</i>) was missing.  <b>I received a total bill ONLY</b>.  When I called my carrier, they first tried to tell me that I had not paid for itemized billing.  <b>That was a lie.</b>  I told the rep to look again, at that point they said an itemized bill would be sent to me.  I never got it from them.  Three times different reps said they would send it to me and everything would be taken care of.  I never received an itemized bill via official channels.  A friend of mine working at the company was able to get me an itemized bill.  They actually had the nerve to deny me an itemized bill, even though I had been paying an extra charge per month, for it, for over 3 years.  Instead of taking care of me, their customer, they attempted to extort me into paying the full bill.  (<i>I do not know about you, but I simply will not pay for something that I did not use, cause or create...to me its fraud, plain and simple, and should be illegal.</i>) One rep told me that the service had been provisioned wrong, said it would be taken care of.  It never was.  I was never able to speak to that rep ever again.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Screw me once, <i>shame on you</i>; screw me twice, <i>shame on me</i>...not going to give them <i>a third chance</i> and <b>neither should you</b>!</p></div><p>I went to VoIP + Skype + Internet for a Total Cost of Ownership of less than $100 per year (<i>$60 per year, see below</i>) and never looked back.  <b>Thank goodness I was month to month</b> and had not gotten suckered into a new contract when the shiny new hand sets came out or I would have really been screwed.

</p><p>Trust the carriers, absolutely NOT.  Fear the carriers, absolutely, based on <b>actual, personal, first hand experience</b>.  Even though I feared being messed with the second time and did everything in my power (<i>itemized billing</i>) to prevent it, the next carrier treated me in the same Customer-No-Service manne as the last.  They simply do not care and wrongly believe you have no other choice.

</p><p>As for Price, if you ditch your cellular plan, Skype + VoIP will only cost you less than $100 per year, <b>around $60 or less PER YEAR!</b>.  There are cheaper services out there, so I have been told.  For that $60 per year, I get:
</p><ul>
<li>a SkypeIn phone number (aaa) ppp-ssss that others can call 24X7 (<i>yes even from cell phones</i>)</li>
<li>Unlimited calling to North America, you pick your calling area for unlimited calling, I could have picked Europe if I wanted it.</li>
<li>an automatic Voice answering service should I not be connected to the Internet when someone calls me.</li>
</ul><p>Take the price of the new hand set, and divide by your savings per month and that is how many months it takes to recoup your costs.  Best of all in future years, you have a bought and paid for hand set, no additional charges.

</p><p>My Nokia N800 cost me $600, I have used it for three of the four years I have had VoIP phone service.  <b>That Nokia N800 is most definitely my SMART PHONE!</b> I also purchased a prepaid handset, leave it turned off except in emergencies, so add in another $130; $100 one time payment and 3 X $10 annual renewals, again, if you must.  At least I know there will be no surprises with a pre-paid account.

</p><p>My Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) is way less than the cost of cellular service through the carriers.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If you have a son or daugher in college, anywhere in the world, they can run Skype on their computer, its FREE, no charge and you can talk to them via the Internet for FREE!</p></div><p>For instance, this year when I paid for my phone service for the next year it cost me $24 (<i>discounted from $60 because I bought SkypePro years ago</i>).  SkypePro use to cost $36 for the year.  Now you put money in your Skype account in $10 or $20 dollar increments and they deduct $3.00 per month for unlimited calling to the continent of your choice, for me its North America.  So in 2010, I will pay $24 (once) + $3.00 per month for a TCO of $60.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>That's all folks!!!!</i>, <b>$60 for a year of Skype VoIP unlimited calling, North America, service and I LOVE IT!</b>  <i>How much are <b>you paying</b> per month for Cellular service? I bet its <b>more than $5.00</b> per month!</i> <b> <i>?</i> </b></p> </div><p>If a company purchased Skype tomorrow and turned it off, I would provision my own Linux Asterisk VoIP server ($5 - $50 per month) and start offering service to others (<i>positive cash flow</i>).  I simply can not imagine a situation where the cellular carriers would go <i>7 years without a single complaint from anyone</i>.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I reset my 7 year clock with cellular each time I hear of a Customer-No-Service issue with anyone by any provider!</p></div><p>Until I see a positive customer service track record based on their actions, I do not personally believe that I can ever TRUST them again.  That loss of my TRUST made me FEAR them, drove me to VoIP and now I am THRILLED!

</p><p>If I had to pick a carrier, it would probably be Metro PCS, because they have been offering no frills monthly service, with no extra surprises, for years now.  I simply do NOT TRUST cellular providers or American Telco carriers.  You should not either!  If you need more incentive, go out and read about your carrier on RipOffReports.com!</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Its not a matter of if you will be messed with, but when...hopefully you will not get a $5,000 or $20,000 cellular / texting bill!</p></div><p>At least I gave them one more chance after they screwed with me!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope you get mod-ed way up !
I could not agree more .
With the " Fear " for me has become a lack of TRUST of all American cellular providers.I 've owned four cell phones in my life .
My first , a Qualcomm brick was very cool - it was a phone .
I torched it and got a Motorola StarTac and it was very coolI too had a phone , a brick , before my Motorola StarTAc , love Motorola products .
Just can not stand the carriers at all .
I had over seven years with the first provider before they tried to stick charges on my bill , well over $ 500 of charges I did not make .
I was surprised when they simply did not remove the charges .
I had gone back through my bills , had never called any of the numbers .
I offered to come to their office , let them call the numbers and find who was at the number in order to prove I did not know them .
( I was not going to be stupid and call them myself and have the carrier use that discovery call against me , in order to get them to remove them from my bill .
) My seven year positive track record mattered NOT .
They said pay up or else .
I made the normal monthly and told them I expected them to remove the other charges .
They refused , turned off my service and sent me to collections .
Customer-No-Service and I was paying between $ 150 - $ 200 per month for service , so I was not just a basic customer .
They simply did not care.What chance do you have if you are only a basic customer paying $ 50 per month to your provider for service ?
Yea , your screwed !
I had switched providers before they cut me off .
You have that ability when you are month to month without a contract/plan .
If the carrier screws you over you can churn .
I did .
There is a company in New York , Mobile City , that will sell to you , at retail prices of course , a hand set that will work on your preferred carrier/provider 's network .
If you walk into a provider , they can enable that hand set to work on their network and you will have no contract !
Month to month baby , worth it to be free to CHURN if they mess with you !
Everything was okay with the second provider for the first three years ; until I purchased unlimited text messaging .
I had to pay an additional premium amount above and beyond my monthly plan in order to prevent surprise charges .
I think it cost me an extra $ 40 per month above and beyond my over $ 100 per month cellular service .
So once again the carrier was going to have me in their preferred monthly payment range of $ 150 per month .
You think they would be happy with that and be more willing to work with you to resolve problems , NOT .
They provisioned the text messaging part of my plan incorrectly , so my text messages were eating into my voice minutes and when I needed voice minutes I was paying per minute charges above and beyond my normal per minute plan , which I was now exceeding thanks to the mistake in provisioning of the text messaging , geez .
The end result was an inflated bill of around $ 800 , not around $ 150 as I expected .
Even more bizarre is that the first time in 3 years the itemized bill ( that I paid extra each month for because of that first negative experience three years earlier ) was missing .
I received a total bill ONLY .
When I called my carrier , they first tried to tell me that I had not paid for itemized billing .
That was a lie .
I told the rep to look again , at that point they said an itemized bill would be sent to me .
I never got it from them .
Three times different reps said they would send it to me and everything would be taken care of .
I never received an itemized bill via official channels .
A friend of mine working at the company was able to get me an itemized bill .
They actually had the nerve to deny me an itemized bill , even though I had been paying an extra charge per month , for it , for over 3 years .
Instead of taking care of me , their customer , they attempted to extort me into paying the full bill .
( I do not know about you , but I simply will not pay for something that I did not use , cause or create...to me its fraud , plain and simple , and should be illegal .
) One rep told me that the service had been provisioned wrong , said it would be taken care of .
It never was .
I was never able to speak to that rep ever again.Screw me once , shame on you ; screw me twice , shame on me...not going to give them a third chance and neither should you ! I went to VoIP + Skype + Internet for a Total Cost of Ownership of less than $ 100 per year ( $ 60 per year , see below ) and never looked back .
Thank goodness I was month to month and had not gotten suckered into a new contract when the shiny new hand sets came out or I would have really been screwed .
Trust the carriers , absolutely NOT .
Fear the carriers , absolutely , based on actual , personal , first hand experience .
Even though I feared being messed with the second time and did everything in my power ( itemized billing ) to prevent it , the next carrier treated me in the same Customer-No-Service manne as the last .
They simply do not care and wrongly believe you have no other choice .
As for Price , if you ditch your cellular plan , Skype + VoIP will only cost you less than $ 100 per year , around $ 60 or less PER YEAR ! .
There are cheaper services out there , so I have been told .
For that $ 60 per year , I get : a SkypeIn phone number ( aaa ) ppp-ssss that others can call 24X7 ( yes even from cell phones ) Unlimited calling to North America , you pick your calling area for unlimited calling , I could have picked Europe if I wanted it .
an automatic Voice answering service should I not be connected to the Internet when someone calls me .
Take the price of the new hand set , and divide by your savings per month and that is how many months it takes to recoup your costs .
Best of all in future years , you have a bought and paid for hand set , no additional charges .
My Nokia N800 cost me $ 600 , I have used it for three of the four years I have had VoIP phone service .
That Nokia N800 is most definitely my SMART PHONE !
I also purchased a prepaid handset , leave it turned off except in emergencies , so add in another $ 130 ; $ 100 one time payment and 3 X $ 10 annual renewals , again , if you must .
At least I know there will be no surprises with a pre-paid account .
My Total Cost of Ownership ( TCO ) is way less than the cost of cellular service through the carriers.If you have a son or daugher in college , anywhere in the world , they can run Skype on their computer , its FREE , no charge and you can talk to them via the Internet for FREE ! For instance , this year when I paid for my phone service for the next year it cost me $ 24 ( discounted from $ 60 because I bought SkypePro years ago ) .
SkypePro use to cost $ 36 for the year .
Now you put money in your Skype account in $ 10 or $ 20 dollar increments and they deduct $ 3.00 per month for unlimited calling to the continent of your choice , for me its North America .
So in 2010 , I will pay $ 24 ( once ) + $ 3.00 per month for a TCO of $ 60 .
That 's all folks ! ! !
! , $ 60 for a year of Skype VoIP unlimited calling , North America , service and I LOVE IT !
How much are you paying per month for Cellular service ?
I bet its more than $ 5.00 per month !
? If a company purchased Skype tomorrow and turned it off , I would provision my own Linux Asterisk VoIP server ( $ 5 - $ 50 per month ) and start offering service to others ( positive cash flow ) .
I simply can not imagine a situation where the cellular carriers would go 7 years without a single complaint from anyone.I reset my 7 year clock with cellular each time I hear of a Customer-No-Service issue with anyone by any provider ! Until I see a positive customer service track record based on their actions , I do not personally believe that I can ever TRUST them again .
That loss of my TRUST made me FEAR them , drove me to VoIP and now I am THRILLED !
If I had to pick a carrier , it would probably be Metro PCS , because they have been offering no frills monthly service , with no extra surprises , for years now .
I simply do NOT TRUST cellular providers or American Telco carriers .
You should not either !
If you need more incentive , go out and read about your carrier on RipOffReports.com ! Its not a matter of if you will be messed with , but when...hopefully you will not get a $ 5,000 or $ 20,000 cellular / texting bill ! At least I gave them one more chance after they screwed with me !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope you get mod-ed way up!
I could not agree more.
With the "Fear" for me has become a lack of TRUST of all American cellular providers.I've owned four cell phones in my life.
My first, a Qualcomm brick was very cool - it was a phone.
I torched it and got a Motorola StarTac and it was very coolI too had a phone, a brick, before my Motorola StarTAc, love Motorola products.
Just can not stand the carriers at all.
I had over seven years with the first provider before they tried to stick charges on my bill, well over $500 of charges I did not make.
I was surprised when they simply did not remove the charges.
I had gone back through my bills, had never called any of the numbers.
I offered to come to their office, let them call the numbers and find who was at the number in order to prove I did not know them.
(I was not going to be stupid and call them myself and have the carrier use that discovery call against me, in order to get them to remove them from my bill.
)

My seven year positive track record mattered NOT.
They said pay up or else.
I made the normal monthly and told them I expected them to remove the other charges.
They refused, turned off my service and sent me to collections.
Customer-No-Service and I was paying between $150 - $200 per month for service, so I was not just a basic customer.
They simply did not care.What chance do you have if you are only a basic customer paying $50 per month to your provider for service?
Yea, your screwed!
I had switched providers before they cut me off.
You have that ability when you are month to month without a contract/plan.
If the carrier screws you over you can churn.
I did.
There is a company in New York, Mobile City, that will sell to you, at retail prices of course, a hand set that will work on your preferred carrier/provider's network.
If you walk into a provider, they can enable that hand set to work on their network and you will have no contract!
Month to month baby, worth it to be free to CHURN if they mess with you!
Everything was okay with the second provider for the first three years; until I purchased unlimited text messaging.
I had to pay an additional premium amount above and beyond my monthly plan in order to prevent surprise charges.
I think it cost me an extra $40 per month above and beyond my over $100 per month cellular service.
So once again the carrier was going to have me in their preferred monthly payment range of $150 per month.
You think they would be happy with that and be more willing to work with you to resolve problems, NOT.
They provisioned the text messaging part of my plan incorrectly, so my text messages were eating into my voice minutes and when I needed voice minutes I was paying per minute charges above and beyond my normal per minute plan, which I was now exceeding thanks to the mistake in provisioning of the text messaging, geez.
The end result was an inflated bill of around $800, not around $150 as I expected.
Even more bizarre is that the first time in 3 years the itemized bill (that I paid extra each month for because of that first negative experience three years earlier) was missing.
I received a total bill ONLY.
When I called my carrier, they first tried to tell me that I had not paid for itemized billing.
That was a lie.
I told the rep to look again, at that point they said an itemized bill would be sent to me.
I never got it from them.
Three times different reps said they would send it to me and everything would be taken care of.
I never received an itemized bill via official channels.
A friend of mine working at the company was able to get me an itemized bill.
They actually had the nerve to deny me an itemized bill, even though I had been paying an extra charge per month, for it, for over 3 years.
Instead of taking care of me, their customer, they attempted to extort me into paying the full bill.
(I do not know about you, but I simply will not pay for something that I did not use, cause or create...to me its fraud, plain and simple, and should be illegal.
) One rep told me that the service had been provisioned wrong, said it would be taken care of.
It never was.
I was never able to speak to that rep ever again.Screw me once, shame on you; screw me twice, shame on me...not going to give them a third chance and neither should you!I went to VoIP + Skype + Internet for a Total Cost of Ownership of less than $100 per year ($60 per year, see below) and never looked back.
Thank goodness I was month to month and had not gotten suckered into a new contract when the shiny new hand sets came out or I would have really been screwed.
Trust the carriers, absolutely NOT.
Fear the carriers, absolutely, based on actual, personal, first hand experience.
Even though I feared being messed with the second time and did everything in my power (itemized billing) to prevent it, the next carrier treated me in the same Customer-No-Service manne as the last.
They simply do not care and wrongly believe you have no other choice.
As for Price, if you ditch your cellular plan, Skype + VoIP will only cost you less than $100 per year, around $60 or less PER YEAR!.
There are cheaper services out there, so I have been told.
For that $60 per year, I get:

a SkypeIn phone number (aaa) ppp-ssss that others can call 24X7 (yes even from cell phones)
Unlimited calling to North America, you pick your calling area for unlimited calling, I could have picked Europe if I wanted it.
an automatic Voice answering service should I not be connected to the Internet when someone calls me.
Take the price of the new hand set, and divide by your savings per month and that is how many months it takes to recoup your costs.
Best of all in future years, you have a bought and paid for hand set, no additional charges.
My Nokia N800 cost me $600, I have used it for three of the four years I have had VoIP phone service.
That Nokia N800 is most definitely my SMART PHONE!
I also purchased a prepaid handset, leave it turned off except in emergencies, so add in another $130; $100 one time payment and 3 X $10 annual renewals, again, if you must.
At least I know there will be no surprises with a pre-paid account.
My Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) is way less than the cost of cellular service through the carriers.If you have a son or daugher in college, anywhere in the world, they can run Skype on their computer, its FREE, no charge and you can talk to them via the Internet for FREE!For instance, this year when I paid for my phone service for the next year it cost me $24 (discounted from $60 because I bought SkypePro years ago).
SkypePro use to cost $36 for the year.
Now you put money in your Skype account in $10 or $20 dollar increments and they deduct $3.00 per month for unlimited calling to the continent of your choice, for me its North America.
So in 2010, I will pay $24 (once) + $3.00 per month for a TCO of $60.
That's all folks!!!
!, $60 for a year of Skype VoIP unlimited calling, North America, service and I LOVE IT!
How much are you paying per month for Cellular service?
I bet its more than $5.00 per month!
?  If a company purchased Skype tomorrow and turned it off, I would provision my own Linux Asterisk VoIP server ($5 - $50 per month) and start offering service to others (positive cash flow).
I simply can not imagine a situation where the cellular carriers would go 7 years without a single complaint from anyone.I reset my 7 year clock with cellular each time I hear of a Customer-No-Service issue with anyone by any provider!Until I see a positive customer service track record based on their actions, I do not personally believe that I can ever TRUST them again.
That loss of my TRUST made me FEAR them, drove me to VoIP and now I am THRILLED!
If I had to pick a carrier, it would probably be Metro PCS, because they have been offering no frills monthly service, with no extra surprises, for years now.
I simply do NOT TRUST cellular providers or American Telco carriers.
You should not either!
If you need more incentive, go out and read about your carrier on RipOffReports.com!Its not a matter of if you will be messed with, but when...hopefully you will not get a $5,000 or $20,000 cellular / texting bill!At least I gave them one more chance after they screwed with me!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30506216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501448</id>
	<title>Re:What a nightmare.</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1261230420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well my Nokia 5800 works with a mobile network just like an Internet network. As does my mobile 3G USB dongle, come to that. No contracts, no strings, with either of them. So your excuse for Apple's locked down phone doesn't really work, and I don't see any problem with Google doing things the way that the vast majority of the mobile market already does things. I'd much rather the mobile networks be like the Internet works in general, and not to end up as being Apple's locked down vision.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well my Nokia 5800 works with a mobile network just like an Internet network .
As does my mobile 3G USB dongle , come to that .
No contracts , no strings , with either of them .
So your excuse for Apple 's locked down phone does n't really work , and I do n't see any problem with Google doing things the way that the vast majority of the mobile market already does things .
I 'd much rather the mobile networks be like the Internet works in general , and not to end up as being Apple 's locked down vision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well my Nokia 5800 works with a mobile network just like an Internet network.
As does my mobile 3G USB dongle, come to that.
No contracts, no strings, with either of them.
So your excuse for Apple's locked down phone doesn't really work, and I don't see any problem with Google doing things the way that the vast majority of the mobile market already does things.
I'd much rather the mobile networks be like the Internet works in general, and not to end up as being Apple's locked down vision.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501836</id>
	<title>Re:A naive question</title>
	<author>Bri3D</author>
	<datestamp>1261237140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If I want a landline, I can go buy any old phone I want, and as long as it speaks the right protocols (which are pretty simple for analog landlines) I can plug it into my wall, and it works.</p></div><p>It took the US government to end enforced landline phone rentals and open up the analog telephone network in 13 F.C.C.2d 420.</p><p>With today's moves towards "deregulation" I don't think we'll see the cell industry being forced to do anything similar in the near future.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I want a landline , I can go buy any old phone I want , and as long as it speaks the right protocols ( which are pretty simple for analog landlines ) I can plug it into my wall , and it works.It took the US government to end enforced landline phone rentals and open up the analog telephone network in 13 F.C.C.2d 420.With today 's moves towards " deregulation " I do n't think we 'll see the cell industry being forced to do anything similar in the near future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I want a landline, I can go buy any old phone I want, and as long as it speaks the right protocols (which are pretty simple for analog landlines) I can plug it into my wall, and it works.It took the US government to end enforced landline phone rentals and open up the analog telephone network in 13 F.C.C.2d 420.With today's moves towards "deregulation" I don't think we'll see the cell industry being forced to do anything similar in the near future.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30505626</id>
	<title>Re:It is different because it is a different era</title>
	<author>mlts</author>
	<datestamp>1261338900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Windows Mobile may be locked down on non touch screen/keyboard devices, where the WM6 API has two levels of security, but if you get a PocketPC, it definitely is not locked down.  I'm sure there are exceptions though.  I purchased my PocketPC from a provider who does not lock down their stuff in general.</p><p>My last WM phone allowed for incredible customization.  Not just unlocking it for any GSM provider, but being able to completely cook a custom, flashable ROM for the device.  This allowed me to have remove provider personalization stuff that took up precious memory, while letting me have the apps I wanted.  It even allowed me to overclock it which made things like Skype run better.  And of course, security was good because there were two methods to remotely wipe the phone, and anything stored on the external card was encrypted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows Mobile may be locked down on non touch screen/keyboard devices , where the WM6 API has two levels of security , but if you get a PocketPC , it definitely is not locked down .
I 'm sure there are exceptions though .
I purchased my PocketPC from a provider who does not lock down their stuff in general.My last WM phone allowed for incredible customization .
Not just unlocking it for any GSM provider , but being able to completely cook a custom , flashable ROM for the device .
This allowed me to have remove provider personalization stuff that took up precious memory , while letting me have the apps I wanted .
It even allowed me to overclock it which made things like Skype run better .
And of course , security was good because there were two methods to remotely wipe the phone , and anything stored on the external card was encrypted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows Mobile may be locked down on non touch screen/keyboard devices, where the WM6 API has two levels of security, but if you get a PocketPC, it definitely is not locked down.
I'm sure there are exceptions though.
I purchased my PocketPC from a provider who does not lock down their stuff in general.My last WM phone allowed for incredible customization.
Not just unlocking it for any GSM provider, but being able to completely cook a custom, flashable ROM for the device.
This allowed me to have remove provider personalization stuff that took up precious memory, while letting me have the apps I wanted.
It even allowed me to overclock it which made things like Skype run better.
And of course, security was good because there were two methods to remotely wipe the phone, and anything stored on the external card was encrypted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501502</id>
	<title>Re:The RDF strikes again</title>
	<author>spinkham</author>
	<datestamp>1261231380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple has a large percentage of the smartphone market. Phones that are optimized for making calls just ain't sexy any more, even if they are popular and useful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple has a large percentage of the smartphone market .
Phones that are optimized for making calls just ai n't sexy any more , even if they are popular and useful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple has a large percentage of the smartphone market.
Phones that are optimized for making calls just ain't sexy any more, even if they are popular and useful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500744</id>
	<title>Doesn't matter if users ca upgrade.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261220280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think it's reasonable to complain about the spread of updates yet, I think over time they will tend to smooth out.</p><p>Plus, I don't think it matters.  Look at all the people will ing to jailbreak iPhones, or to apply custom firmware to Windows Mobile devices.  If the carriers don't update, most users will if it's possible - and I think for the most part users will be able to upgrade phones since Android is open.  It will just be a more quirky process than the iPhone offers, but in the end people can make a choice they feel comfortable with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think it 's reasonable to complain about the spread of updates yet , I think over time they will tend to smooth out.Plus , I do n't think it matters .
Look at all the people will ing to jailbreak iPhones , or to apply custom firmware to Windows Mobile devices .
If the carriers do n't update , most users will if it 's possible - and I think for the most part users will be able to upgrade phones since Android is open .
It will just be a more quirky process than the iPhone offers , but in the end people can make a choice they feel comfortable with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think it's reasonable to complain about the spread of updates yet, I think over time they will tend to smooth out.Plus, I don't think it matters.
Look at all the people will ing to jailbreak iPhones, or to apply custom firmware to Windows Mobile devices.
If the carriers don't update, most users will if it's possible - and I think for the most part users will be able to upgrade phones since Android is open.
It will just be a more quirky process than the iPhone offers, but in the end people can make a choice they feel comfortable with.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30505322</id>
	<title>Re:A naive question</title>
	<author>metamatic</author>
	<datestamp>1261336080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I will admit that I don't understand the standards behind the cell phone industry, but why are cell phones so strongly coupled to the service providers and, well, not open?</p></div></blockquote><p>Because way back in the mists of time, Qualcomm approached the US government and said "Hey, we shouldn't be using a European technology like GSM... We should be using American technology, CDMA, which is so much better! (And by the way, we have a stack of patents on it.)"  Qualcomm were upset because Europe had decided that it made sense to have a single interoperable phone system, and had therefore mandated that only GSM be deployed.</p><p>The US government said "OK" and allocated the standard GSM frequencies to CDMA, and Verizon and Sprint rolled out CDMA services. And the undeniable <a href="http://denbeste.nu/cd\_log\_entries/2002/10/GSM3G.shtml" title="denbeste.nu">technical advantages of CDMA</a> [denbeste.nu] turned out to be invisible to the end user.</p><p>Then VoiceStream (later T-Mobile) and Cingular (later AT&amp;T) decided to try using European GSM service, but on different frequencies. It turned out that because of economies of scale (i.e. 2 billion GSM users vs 60 million CDMA users so manufacturers make GSM equipment first), they could offer cheaper service and a better selection of phones.</p><p>Then GSM circuitry got smaller, and it became plausible to offer multiple frequency bands on a single phone. So quad band phones became the norm, and it became possible to switch between AT&amp;T and T-Mobile. But Verizon and Sprint were stuck with their US-only CDMA network. Next, Verizon are dropping CDMA in favor of LTE, the 4G sequel to GSM. So that'll just leave Sprint.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I will admit that I do n't understand the standards behind the cell phone industry , but why are cell phones so strongly coupled to the service providers and , well , not open ? Because way back in the mists of time , Qualcomm approached the US government and said " Hey , we should n't be using a European technology like GSM... We should be using American technology , CDMA , which is so much better !
( And by the way , we have a stack of patents on it .
) " Qualcomm were upset because Europe had decided that it made sense to have a single interoperable phone system , and had therefore mandated that only GSM be deployed.The US government said " OK " and allocated the standard GSM frequencies to CDMA , and Verizon and Sprint rolled out CDMA services .
And the undeniable technical advantages of CDMA [ denbeste.nu ] turned out to be invisible to the end user.Then VoiceStream ( later T-Mobile ) and Cingular ( later AT&amp;T ) decided to try using European GSM service , but on different frequencies .
It turned out that because of economies of scale ( i.e .
2 billion GSM users vs 60 million CDMA users so manufacturers make GSM equipment first ) , they could offer cheaper service and a better selection of phones.Then GSM circuitry got smaller , and it became plausible to offer multiple frequency bands on a single phone .
So quad band phones became the norm , and it became possible to switch between AT&amp;T and T-Mobile .
But Verizon and Sprint were stuck with their US-only CDMA network .
Next , Verizon are dropping CDMA in favor of LTE , the 4G sequel to GSM .
So that 'll just leave Sprint .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I will admit that I don't understand the standards behind the cell phone industry, but why are cell phones so strongly coupled to the service providers and, well, not open?Because way back in the mists of time, Qualcomm approached the US government and said "Hey, we shouldn't be using a European technology like GSM... We should be using American technology, CDMA, which is so much better!
(And by the way, we have a stack of patents on it.
)"  Qualcomm were upset because Europe had decided that it made sense to have a single interoperable phone system, and had therefore mandated that only GSM be deployed.The US government said "OK" and allocated the standard GSM frequencies to CDMA, and Verizon and Sprint rolled out CDMA services.
And the undeniable technical advantages of CDMA [denbeste.nu] turned out to be invisible to the end user.Then VoiceStream (later T-Mobile) and Cingular (later AT&amp;T) decided to try using European GSM service, but on different frequencies.
It turned out that because of economies of scale (i.e.
2 billion GSM users vs 60 million CDMA users so manufacturers make GSM equipment first), they could offer cheaper service and a better selection of phones.Then GSM circuitry got smaller, and it became plausible to offer multiple frequency bands on a single phone.
So quad band phones became the norm, and it became possible to switch between AT&amp;T and T-Mobile.
But Verizon and Sprint were stuck with their US-only CDMA network.
Next, Verizon are dropping CDMA in favor of LTE, the 4G sequel to GSM.
So that'll just leave Sprint.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501354</id>
	<title>Phone providers got what they wanted from Android</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261228860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They got what they wanted: a low or no cost OS that works, that they can customize, that isn't Windows Mobile, Palm, or some other legacy anchor most consumers know already they don't want.  They do not want or need an upgradable phone O.S.  They would much prefer that people renew their phones every two or three years and so stay obligated on their contracts than that they upgrade their phone O.S.  That they have to buy all their ringtones and apps again is just bonus.
</p><p>The NexusOne isn't for the phone providers.  It's for the phone buyer who would rather pay for the phone up front and not get contractually committed to a wireless company (all of whom are notorious for milking their contractually obligated customers untily they're dry).  It's for the hardware buyer who wants to stay in control of his hardware.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They got what they wanted : a low or no cost OS that works , that they can customize , that is n't Windows Mobile , Palm , or some other legacy anchor most consumers know already they do n't want .
They do not want or need an upgradable phone O.S .
They would much prefer that people renew their phones every two or three years and so stay obligated on their contracts than that they upgrade their phone O.S .
That they have to buy all their ringtones and apps again is just bonus .
The NexusOne is n't for the phone providers .
It 's for the phone buyer who would rather pay for the phone up front and not get contractually committed to a wireless company ( all of whom are notorious for milking their contractually obligated customers untily they 're dry ) .
It 's for the hardware buyer who wants to stay in control of his hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They got what they wanted: a low or no cost OS that works, that they can customize, that isn't Windows Mobile, Palm, or some other legacy anchor most consumers know already they don't want.
They do not want or need an upgradable phone O.S.
They would much prefer that people renew their phones every two or three years and so stay obligated on their contracts than that they upgrade their phone O.S.
That they have to buy all their ringtones and apps again is just bonus.
The NexusOne isn't for the phone providers.
It's for the phone buyer who would rather pay for the phone up front and not get contractually committed to a wireless company (all of whom are notorious for milking their contractually obligated customers untily they're dry).
It's for the hardware buyer who wants to stay in control of his hardware.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500854</id>
	<title>Android won't die</title>
	<author>rovolo</author>
	<datestamp>1261221900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The manufactures aren't trying to destroy Android, but the negligence is sure to stunt its growth. As long as Android is free and provides a good tech demo companies will continue to use it to sell the newest version of their phone.</p><p>Without a more cohesive foundation it will probably stagnate though. The same thing happened with Linux; 'the year of the linux desktop'. Linux has survived not because of market viability but because technical people liked it. It still doesn't have more than a couple percent of marketshare (in the consumer market.) Android has an advantage in that smartphones are more integrated platforms than desktops, and people expect less expandability, but each smartphone will be a part of the manufacturers brand, rather than the Android brand. On a fragmented market it's much more difficult to deliver expanded functionality in the form of applications to consumers. It will be more like the crappy java games that you'd see on old phones than the market for desktop software.</p><p>It's a new concept for phone companies though, and they'll probably start updating the OS once they get used to it. If they don't though, Android will probably see a limited success.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The manufactures are n't trying to destroy Android , but the negligence is sure to stunt its growth .
As long as Android is free and provides a good tech demo companies will continue to use it to sell the newest version of their phone.Without a more cohesive foundation it will probably stagnate though .
The same thing happened with Linux ; 'the year of the linux desktop' .
Linux has survived not because of market viability but because technical people liked it .
It still does n't have more than a couple percent of marketshare ( in the consumer market .
) Android has an advantage in that smartphones are more integrated platforms than desktops , and people expect less expandability , but each smartphone will be a part of the manufacturers brand , rather than the Android brand .
On a fragmented market it 's much more difficult to deliver expanded functionality in the form of applications to consumers .
It will be more like the crappy java games that you 'd see on old phones than the market for desktop software.It 's a new concept for phone companies though , and they 'll probably start updating the OS once they get used to it .
If they do n't though , Android will probably see a limited success .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The manufactures aren't trying to destroy Android, but the negligence is sure to stunt its growth.
As long as Android is free and provides a good tech demo companies will continue to use it to sell the newest version of their phone.Without a more cohesive foundation it will probably stagnate though.
The same thing happened with Linux; 'the year of the linux desktop'.
Linux has survived not because of market viability but because technical people liked it.
It still doesn't have more than a couple percent of marketshare (in the consumer market.
) Android has an advantage in that smartphones are more integrated platforms than desktops, and people expect less expandability, but each smartphone will be a part of the manufacturers brand, rather than the Android brand.
On a fragmented market it's much more difficult to deliver expanded functionality in the form of applications to consumers.
It will be more like the crappy java games that you'd see on old phones than the market for desktop software.It's a new concept for phone companies though, and they'll probably start updating the OS once they get used to it.
If they don't though, Android will probably see a limited success.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501390</id>
	<title>The Android OS is doing fine.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261229400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure there are a few different versions, but saying they are strangling it is like saying Redhat or Ubuntu are strangling Linux by offering differences/choice, etc. The Nexus One is simply a phone that Google will be sure to keep rather "Vanilla" -- and it looks like you can run that OS on other smart phones already (You can run the Nexus One OS on Droid already: http://www.droidforums.net/forum/droid-news/10006-android-os-2-1-available-droid-use-your-own-risk.html)</p><p>To check out more Nexus One stuff, check out http://www.nexusoneforum.net</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure there are a few different versions , but saying they are strangling it is like saying Redhat or Ubuntu are strangling Linux by offering differences/choice , etc .
The Nexus One is simply a phone that Google will be sure to keep rather " Vanilla " -- and it looks like you can run that OS on other smart phones already ( You can run the Nexus One OS on Droid already : http : //www.droidforums.net/forum/droid-news/10006-android-os-2-1-available-droid-use-your-own-risk.html ) To check out more Nexus One stuff , check out http : //www.nexusoneforum.net</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure there are a few different versions, but saying they are strangling it is like saying Redhat or Ubuntu are strangling Linux by offering differences/choice, etc.
The Nexus One is simply a phone that Google will be sure to keep rather "Vanilla" -- and it looks like you can run that OS on other smart phones already (You can run the Nexus One OS on Droid already: http://www.droidforums.net/forum/droid-news/10006-android-os-2-1-available-droid-use-your-own-risk.html)To check out more Nexus One stuff, check out http://www.nexusoneforum.net</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501100</id>
	<title>Why should they care?</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1261225740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All the carriers care about is getting people to use air time.. anything else is an expense the cuts into their profits. .</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All the carriers care about is getting people to use air time.. anything else is an expense the cuts into their profits .
.</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All the carriers care about is getting people to use air time.. anything else is an expense the cuts into their profits.
.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500868</id>
	<title>What is the point?</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1261222080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wasn't the point of android to give the carriers and users the freedom to have the phone they wanted, instead of having a single company push a phone down their throats?  What is the difference between a google pjhone, and apple phone, or a RIM phone?  The promise of an android phone is that one might have a application based smart phone that could be used between providers.  That one might have a phone made for end users, with apps made for end users.
<p>
Even with fragmentation, it should be possible to write compatible apps for most phones.  If, otoh, google makes a reference phone, then Apps are going to be for this phone, and no progress will be made.
</p><p>
The issue still seems to be carriers, at least in the US, wanting strict control over features.  T-mobile seems to be the only US carrier that will allow tethering. Sprint seems to have said it will never happen, and ATT and Verizon both will do so only with additional fees.  This seems to imply that additioanl features one might have with an android phone might only happen with additional fees.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Was n't the point of android to give the carriers and users the freedom to have the phone they wanted , instead of having a single company push a phone down their throats ?
What is the difference between a google pjhone , and apple phone , or a RIM phone ?
The promise of an android phone is that one might have a application based smart phone that could be used between providers .
That one might have a phone made for end users , with apps made for end users .
Even with fragmentation , it should be possible to write compatible apps for most phones .
If , otoh , google makes a reference phone , then Apps are going to be for this phone , and no progress will be made .
The issue still seems to be carriers , at least in the US , wanting strict control over features .
T-mobile seems to be the only US carrier that will allow tethering .
Sprint seems to have said it will never happen , and ATT and Verizon both will do so only with additional fees .
This seems to imply that additioanl features one might have with an android phone might only happen with additional fees .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wasn't the point of android to give the carriers and users the freedom to have the phone they wanted, instead of having a single company push a phone down their throats?
What is the difference between a google pjhone, and apple phone, or a RIM phone?
The promise of an android phone is that one might have a application based smart phone that could be used between providers.
That one might have a phone made for end users, with apps made for end users.
Even with fragmentation, it should be possible to write compatible apps for most phones.
If, otoh, google makes a reference phone, then Apps are going to be for this phone, and no progress will be made.
The issue still seems to be carriers, at least in the US, wanting strict control over features.
T-mobile seems to be the only US carrier that will allow tethering.
Sprint seems to have said it will never happen, and ATT and Verizon both will do so only with additional fees.
This seems to imply that additioanl features one might have with an android phone might only happen with additional fees.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500844</id>
	<title>Re:Carriers are a real problem.</title>
	<author>Nerdfest</author>
	<datestamp>1261221780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Phone companies have no interest in supplying phones that allow you to use information (over their pipes) as efficiently as possible. The more you are online, the more it costs them in infrastructure. They have have to appear minimally better than their competition.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Phone companies have no interest in supplying phones that allow you to use information ( over their pipes ) as efficiently as possible .
The more you are online , the more it costs them in infrastructure .
They have have to appear minimally better than their competition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Phone companies have no interest in supplying phones that allow you to use information (over their pipes) as efficiently as possible.
The more you are online, the more it costs them in infrastructure.
They have have to appear minimally better than their competition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501970</id>
	<title>Re:A naive question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261239600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>(If you hunt around you can actually find SIM-only options for GSM phones in America, but of course this requires you to live in a GSM area; plus, the terms are usually terrible with unpleasant features like evaporating credit if you don't use it.)</p></div></blockquote><p>I'm confused by this comment; maybe I'm reading it wrong.  AT&amp;T and T-Mobile USA have GSM coverage over pretty much the entirety of the United States.  This constitutes a fairly large percentage of US cell phone usage.</p><p>Today, the worst part about US GSM is that the two GSM carriers, AT&amp;T and T-Mobile USA, use different frequencies for 3G.  I noticed that T-Mobile USA's web ordering system now allows you to sign up for service and have them simply mail you a SIM, and the pricing is better than AT&amp;T.  I'd like to be able to switch, and pop my SIM into my unlocked AT&amp;T device, but AT&amp;T does 3G at 850MHz/1900MHz and T-Mobile requires 1700MHz/2100MHz.  If I switch to T-Mobile, the best I can get is EDGE of GPRS.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( If you hunt around you can actually find SIM-only options for GSM phones in America , but of course this requires you to live in a GSM area ; plus , the terms are usually terrible with unpleasant features like evaporating credit if you do n't use it .
) I 'm confused by this comment ; maybe I 'm reading it wrong .
AT&amp;T and T-Mobile USA have GSM coverage over pretty much the entirety of the United States .
This constitutes a fairly large percentage of US cell phone usage.Today , the worst part about US GSM is that the two GSM carriers , AT&amp;T and T-Mobile USA , use different frequencies for 3G .
I noticed that T-Mobile USA 's web ordering system now allows you to sign up for service and have them simply mail you a SIM , and the pricing is better than AT&amp;T .
I 'd like to be able to switch , and pop my SIM into my unlocked AT&amp;T device , but AT&amp;T does 3G at 850MHz/1900MHz and T-Mobile requires 1700MHz/2100MHz .
If I switch to T-Mobile , the best I can get is EDGE of GPRS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(If you hunt around you can actually find SIM-only options for GSM phones in America, but of course this requires you to live in a GSM area; plus, the terms are usually terrible with unpleasant features like evaporating credit if you don't use it.
)I'm confused by this comment; maybe I'm reading it wrong.
AT&amp;T and T-Mobile USA have GSM coverage over pretty much the entirety of the United States.
This constitutes a fairly large percentage of US cell phone usage.Today, the worst part about US GSM is that the two GSM carriers, AT&amp;T and T-Mobile USA, use different frequencies for 3G.
I noticed that T-Mobile USA's web ordering system now allows you to sign up for service and have them simply mail you a SIM, and the pricing is better than AT&amp;T.
I'd like to be able to switch, and pop my SIM into my unlocked AT&amp;T device, but AT&amp;T does 3G at 850MHz/1900MHz and T-Mobile requires 1700MHz/2100MHz.
If I switch to T-Mobile, the best I can get is EDGE of GPRS.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30505868</id>
	<title>the IBM-PC/MS DOS for mobiles</title>
	<author>DaveGod</author>
	<datestamp>1261340820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Android is successful the cell phone industry repeats the MS-DOS (and perhaps IBM-PC) scenario. The "other guy" is even Apple.</p><p>What happens next is practically nobody makes good money except for Google and Apple, particularly not the cell network cartel who have to become mere telecoms utilities. They'll directly lose half their business (phone distribution) and the telecoms side will have to compete on things like pricing instead of phone hardware exclusives. </p><p>The telecoms companies absolutely do not want Android. Ironically, they are having to accept it because for some carriers is all they have against the iPhone - one exclusive that went too far.</p><p>Disclaimer: this is based on UK where all carriers have pretty much 99\% coverage. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Android is successful the cell phone industry repeats the MS-DOS ( and perhaps IBM-PC ) scenario .
The " other guy " is even Apple.What happens next is practically nobody makes good money except for Google and Apple , particularly not the cell network cartel who have to become mere telecoms utilities .
They 'll directly lose half their business ( phone distribution ) and the telecoms side will have to compete on things like pricing instead of phone hardware exclusives .
The telecoms companies absolutely do not want Android .
Ironically , they are having to accept it because for some carriers is all they have against the iPhone - one exclusive that went too far.Disclaimer : this is based on UK where all carriers have pretty much 99 \ % coverage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Android is successful the cell phone industry repeats the MS-DOS (and perhaps IBM-PC) scenario.
The "other guy" is even Apple.What happens next is practically nobody makes good money except for Google and Apple, particularly not the cell network cartel who have to become mere telecoms utilities.
They'll directly lose half their business (phone distribution) and the telecoms side will have to compete on things like pricing instead of phone hardware exclusives.
The telecoms companies absolutely do not want Android.
Ironically, they are having to accept it because for some carriers is all they have against the iPhone - one exclusive that went too far.Disclaimer: this is based on UK where all carriers have pretty much 99\% coverage. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501084</id>
	<title>It is different because it is a different era</title>
	<author>forand</author>
	<datestamp>1261225620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The 10 years when WinMo was a major player was characterized by NO consumer choice after the original purchase. Blackberry and Palm were the same way. Now the consumer is beginning to understand the benefits of having an open platform untied to their carrier. So if Android phones get locked down to the same level that WinMo, Palm, and Blackberries where for years then it will have to compete on crutches with the iPhone. Sure there are unlocked phones available but not enough to justify a vibrant marketplace al la iTunes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The 10 years when WinMo was a major player was characterized by NO consumer choice after the original purchase .
Blackberry and Palm were the same way .
Now the consumer is beginning to understand the benefits of having an open platform untied to their carrier .
So if Android phones get locked down to the same level that WinMo , Palm , and Blackberries where for years then it will have to compete on crutches with the iPhone .
Sure there are unlocked phones available but not enough to justify a vibrant marketplace al la iTunes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 10 years when WinMo was a major player was characterized by NO consumer choice after the original purchase.
Blackberry and Palm were the same way.
Now the consumer is beginning to understand the benefits of having an open platform untied to their carrier.
So if Android phones get locked down to the same level that WinMo, Palm, and Blackberries where for years then it will have to compete on crutches with the iPhone.
Sure there are unlocked phones available but not enough to justify a vibrant marketplace al la iTunes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501016</id>
	<title>Re:Here is my dream phone</title>
	<author>icebraining</author>
	<datestamp>1261224240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My E65 can do all that. It doesn't have a large touch screen, but I can <a href="http://wiki.opensource.nokia.com/projects/PyS60" title="nokia.com">program it in Python!</a> [nokia.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My E65 can do all that .
It does n't have a large touch screen , but I can program it in Python !
[ nokia.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My E65 can do all that.
It doesn't have a large touch screen, but I can program it in Python!
[nokia.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501834</id>
	<title>Points to Apple?</title>
	<author>srothroc</author>
	<datestamp>1261237020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guess a situation like this makes you stop and realize why Apple institutes such draconian controls on its hardware/software. Anything wrong with any "Google phone" reflects badly on Google, regardless of whether it's their fault or not. After all, people like us who read these kinds of articles and have some idea of what Google can and cannot do will understand that it's not entirely Google's fault... but for other people, it spoils the brand.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess a situation like this makes you stop and realize why Apple institutes such draconian controls on its hardware/software .
Anything wrong with any " Google phone " reflects badly on Google , regardless of whether it 's their fault or not .
After all , people like us who read these kinds of articles and have some idea of what Google can and can not do will understand that it 's not entirely Google 's fault... but for other people , it spoils the brand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess a situation like this makes you stop and realize why Apple institutes such draconian controls on its hardware/software.
Anything wrong with any "Google phone" reflects badly on Google, regardless of whether it's their fault or not.
After all, people like us who read these kinds of articles and have some idea of what Google can and cannot do will understand that it's not entirely Google's fault... but for other people, it spoils the brand.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501060</id>
	<title>Re:Here is my dream phone</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261225260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You must be in America. This is standard in Europe. You can buy the latest and greatest gadget phone, then pick your service provider for voice and data, even with PAYG. If you don't want to buy the phone, you have to use the American model of bigger monthly fees to cover for the fact you didn't buy the phone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You must be in America .
This is standard in Europe .
You can buy the latest and greatest gadget phone , then pick your service provider for voice and data , even with PAYG .
If you do n't want to buy the phone , you have to use the American model of bigger monthly fees to cover for the fact you did n't buy the phone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You must be in America.
This is standard in Europe.
You can buy the latest and greatest gadget phone, then pick your service provider for voice and data, even with PAYG.
If you don't want to buy the phone, you have to use the American model of bigger monthly fees to cover for the fact you didn't buy the phone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500938</id>
	<title>Re:A naive question</title>
	<author>Scrameustache</author>
	<datestamp>1261223160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why the hell can't cell phones be this way, instead of the current quagmire where they're hopelessly entangled with what the carrier wants?</p></div><p>Because that's how <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly" title="wikipedia.org">the carriers</a> [wikipedia.org] like it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why the hell ca n't cell phones be this way , instead of the current quagmire where they 're hopelessly entangled with what the carrier wants ? Because that 's how the carriers [ wikipedia.org ] like it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why the hell can't cell phones be this way, instead of the current quagmire where they're hopelessly entangled with what the carrier wants?Because that's how the carriers [wikipedia.org] like it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30531330</id>
	<title>Rogers , HTC Are Strangling Android</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261488600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rogers, Rogers, Rogers.......</p><p>I guess Rogers really does not care to catch on the android wave and support their products they would just rather sell us new phones. Well all this negative publicity in regards to android will cause new users to look elsewhere due to the lack of support and spend their money with another company. I have no desire to support Rogers when they will not even stand by their own products.</p><p>It is very baffling why Rogers would not support the HTC Dream / Magic and update to version 1.6 and eventually 2.0 and so on. Android is the fastest growing market in smart phones and leaving their customers with old OS will ensure that Canada lags behind in Android support.</p><p>HTC, HTC, HTC</p><p>Well all the blame cannot go to Rogers either cause at the end of the day this is a HTC phone and is obvious they just want to sell handsets but by allowing carriers to not provide updates for the phones they certainly are hurting their image and will cause android users to look at others brands as well.</p><p>Google, Google, Google</p><p>Great OS but.......You need to learn a thing or two from the iphone and that you need to rollout these updates across the board on these phones just not ones you brand and make. Failing to do so is a major mistake and will cost you in the long run. While android may be taking off and getting a larger market share how do you think the sales are going to be in a few years when android owners are tired of being handcuffed from the carriers and manufactures of your phones by poor support....I love my android phone but i tell you a unlocked iphone is looking allot more attractive to me specially in the long run....Having updates for the android is what makes the Google experience much richer and with carriers not supporting 1.6 or 2.0 android is sure to upset many customers as it has done in Canada already.</p><p>In the mean time putting pressure on Rogers and all the negative press they are going to receive on this and loss of revenue may force their hands to actually do something about it instead of responding with their generic corporate responses.<br>If need be the Android users of Rogers who have the HTC Dream, Magic and EVE will pursue this diligently.</p><p>All i have to say is thank god my contract is up this summer<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....Nexus One, Wind, Dave, Public Mobile will all get a chance to get my money since Rogers has proven all they care about is your money not customer satisfaction.<br>To educate yourself more on this topic and find out all that has been done and said by the customers, Rogers, HTC regarding Android updates for Canadian users please read the forums.</p><p>http://androidforums.com/rogers/10647-rogers-dream-1-6-update.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rogers , Rogers , Rogers.......I guess Rogers really does not care to catch on the android wave and support their products they would just rather sell us new phones .
Well all this negative publicity in regards to android will cause new users to look elsewhere due to the lack of support and spend their money with another company .
I have no desire to support Rogers when they will not even stand by their own products.It is very baffling why Rogers would not support the HTC Dream / Magic and update to version 1.6 and eventually 2.0 and so on .
Android is the fastest growing market in smart phones and leaving their customers with old OS will ensure that Canada lags behind in Android support.HTC , HTC , HTCWell all the blame can not go to Rogers either cause at the end of the day this is a HTC phone and is obvious they just want to sell handsets but by allowing carriers to not provide updates for the phones they certainly are hurting their image and will cause android users to look at others brands as well.Google , Google , GoogleGreat OS but.......You need to learn a thing or two from the iphone and that you need to rollout these updates across the board on these phones just not ones you brand and make .
Failing to do so is a major mistake and will cost you in the long run .
While android may be taking off and getting a larger market share how do you think the sales are going to be in a few years when android owners are tired of being handcuffed from the carriers and manufactures of your phones by poor support....I love my android phone but i tell you a unlocked iphone is looking allot more attractive to me specially in the long run....Having updates for the android is what makes the Google experience much richer and with carriers not supporting 1.6 or 2.0 android is sure to upset many customers as it has done in Canada already.In the mean time putting pressure on Rogers and all the negative press they are going to receive on this and loss of revenue may force their hands to actually do something about it instead of responding with their generic corporate responses.If need be the Android users of Rogers who have the HTC Dream , Magic and EVE will pursue this diligently.All i have to say is thank god my contract is up this summer ....Nexus One , Wind , Dave , Public Mobile will all get a chance to get my money since Rogers has proven all they care about is your money not customer satisfaction.To educate yourself more on this topic and find out all that has been done and said by the customers , Rogers , HTC regarding Android updates for Canadian users please read the forums.http : //androidforums.com/rogers/10647-rogers-dream-1-6-update.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rogers, Rogers, Rogers.......I guess Rogers really does not care to catch on the android wave and support their products they would just rather sell us new phones.
Well all this negative publicity in regards to android will cause new users to look elsewhere due to the lack of support and spend their money with another company.
I have no desire to support Rogers when they will not even stand by their own products.It is very baffling why Rogers would not support the HTC Dream / Magic and update to version 1.6 and eventually 2.0 and so on.
Android is the fastest growing market in smart phones and leaving their customers with old OS will ensure that Canada lags behind in Android support.HTC, HTC, HTCWell all the blame cannot go to Rogers either cause at the end of the day this is a HTC phone and is obvious they just want to sell handsets but by allowing carriers to not provide updates for the phones they certainly are hurting their image and will cause android users to look at others brands as well.Google, Google, GoogleGreat OS but.......You need to learn a thing or two from the iphone and that you need to rollout these updates across the board on these phones just not ones you brand and make.
Failing to do so is a major mistake and will cost you in the long run.
While android may be taking off and getting a larger market share how do you think the sales are going to be in a few years when android owners are tired of being handcuffed from the carriers and manufactures of your phones by poor support....I love my android phone but i tell you a unlocked iphone is looking allot more attractive to me specially in the long run....Having updates for the android is what makes the Google experience much richer and with carriers not supporting 1.6 or 2.0 android is sure to upset many customers as it has done in Canada already.In the mean time putting pressure on Rogers and all the negative press they are going to receive on this and loss of revenue may force their hands to actually do something about it instead of responding with their generic corporate responses.If need be the Android users of Rogers who have the HTC Dream, Magic and EVE will pursue this diligently.All i have to say is thank god my contract is up this summer ....Nexus One, Wind, Dave, Public Mobile will all get a chance to get my money since Rogers has proven all they care about is your money not customer satisfaction.To educate yourself more on this topic and find out all that has been done and said by the customers, Rogers, HTC regarding Android updates for Canadian users please read the forums.http://androidforums.com/rogers/10647-rogers-dream-1-6-update.html</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30506146</id>
	<title>Re:Here is my dream phone</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261299660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even my HTC wizard could do all that, except when not on Wi-Fi, it only had EDGE and no 3G.  I could fire up Skype for the VoIP stuff, Opera Mobile/Opera Mini worked well everywhere, Wi-Fi included.  With no SIM card lock, I could drop in any SIM card that supported data.  Even though VS<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net is commercial, it is great for writing custom stuff and copying it to a device.  It is recommended you sign your executables when selling commercially (and some company phone policies block unsigned apps), but nobody is preventing you from not doing it.</p><p>What I'd like to see in a phone are more esoteric things:</p><p>5:  The ability to not just do basic tethering, but for the phone to have the functionality of a MiFi device, allowing people in a room to connect to the Internet.  It would only be fair for the cellular provider to charge extra for this functionality, but having one less device to lose on the road is always a good thing.</p><p>6:  The ability to remotely wipe the device.  Not just delete the files, but remotely zero all unencrypted data.  iPhones have this functionality, as well as RIM devices and Windows Mobile handsets.  The support for this in Android is conspiciously absent.  There are apps that try to do this, but this functionality should be done on an OS level, not in userspace.</p><p>7:  A decent UI.  Windows Mobile's UI was great in the days of PDA and using a stylus for everything.  However haptics, multitouch, and finger friendly apps are the par for the course.  The base Android UI is decent, but it seems that makers add their own non-disable-without-root stuff that add little to the device's usability, but take up precious memory and CPU time.  The main reason I'd root an Android phone is to disable or delete the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.apk files that add nothing to a phone's functionality (the spinning cube on one maker is a good example of a CPU hog that doesn't really add that much.)</p><p>8:  Ability to run apps from a removable card.  Again, one of the few reasons I'd root and Android phone is to be able to move apps from main memory and add symlinks in their place.</p><p>9:  A decent recovery mode.  Say a flash image gets interrupted while being written to storage, or on Android, I accidently trash a file in the system directory (which isn't rebuilt on a phone's hard reset.)  It would be nice to go to a recovery state, load a file in from a SD card, redo all the filesystems and get back a working device.  My WM device had this, which ensured a phone won't become a brick if a bad flash image got loaded.  This is the next best thing to having a JTAG port and the equipment needed for this job.</p><p>10:  A standardized way to back up the phone on multiple levels.  On my WM device, I ended up using SPB backup to allow for a complete restore as a complete image.  Then, files and such were copied off, and contacts, events, and E-mails, Exchange syncing took care of that.  It would be nice to see similar in Android, even if it is just a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.tar.bz2 file dumped over adb with the ability to restore it.</p><p>11:  A standard headset jack that doesn't require an adapter for earphones.</p><p>12:  Encryption of data.  Android has apps that can do this, but again, this needs to be on the OS level.  Since the Linux kernel already has support for loopback AES encryption, why not use it?  If block encryption isn't the best, then why not EncFS via FUSE?  This would be excellent for transparently protecting data on the memory card and on internal filesystems.  This way, the device can be remotely wiped, but the data on the memory card is still recoverable if the passphrase is known.  Also, if a remote wipe is done, any stored traces of the key are removed, so a thief would have a blank phone with encrypted files on their hand... yes, they have the hardware, but the data is not accessible to them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even my HTC wizard could do all that , except when not on Wi-Fi , it only had EDGE and no 3G .
I could fire up Skype for the VoIP stuff , Opera Mobile/Opera Mini worked well everywhere , Wi-Fi included .
With no SIM card lock , I could drop in any SIM card that supported data .
Even though VS .Net is commercial , it is great for writing custom stuff and copying it to a device .
It is recommended you sign your executables when selling commercially ( and some company phone policies block unsigned apps ) , but nobody is preventing you from not doing it.What I 'd like to see in a phone are more esoteric things : 5 : The ability to not just do basic tethering , but for the phone to have the functionality of a MiFi device , allowing people in a room to connect to the Internet .
It would only be fair for the cellular provider to charge extra for this functionality , but having one less device to lose on the road is always a good thing.6 : The ability to remotely wipe the device .
Not just delete the files , but remotely zero all unencrypted data .
iPhones have this functionality , as well as RIM devices and Windows Mobile handsets .
The support for this in Android is conspiciously absent .
There are apps that try to do this , but this functionality should be done on an OS level , not in userspace.7 : A decent UI .
Windows Mobile 's UI was great in the days of PDA and using a stylus for everything .
However haptics , multitouch , and finger friendly apps are the par for the course .
The base Android UI is decent , but it seems that makers add their own non-disable-without-root stuff that add little to the device 's usability , but take up precious memory and CPU time .
The main reason I 'd root an Android phone is to disable or delete the .apk files that add nothing to a phone 's functionality ( the spinning cube on one maker is a good example of a CPU hog that does n't really add that much .
) 8 : Ability to run apps from a removable card .
Again , one of the few reasons I 'd root and Android phone is to be able to move apps from main memory and add symlinks in their place.9 : A decent recovery mode .
Say a flash image gets interrupted while being written to storage , or on Android , I accidently trash a file in the system directory ( which is n't rebuilt on a phone 's hard reset .
) It would be nice to go to a recovery state , load a file in from a SD card , redo all the filesystems and get back a working device .
My WM device had this , which ensured a phone wo n't become a brick if a bad flash image got loaded .
This is the next best thing to having a JTAG port and the equipment needed for this job.10 : A standardized way to back up the phone on multiple levels .
On my WM device , I ended up using SPB backup to allow for a complete restore as a complete image .
Then , files and such were copied off , and contacts , events , and E-mails , Exchange syncing took care of that .
It would be nice to see similar in Android , even if it is just a .tar.bz2 file dumped over adb with the ability to restore it.11 : A standard headset jack that does n't require an adapter for earphones.12 : Encryption of data .
Android has apps that can do this , but again , this needs to be on the OS level .
Since the Linux kernel already has support for loopback AES encryption , why not use it ?
If block encryption is n't the best , then why not EncFS via FUSE ?
This would be excellent for transparently protecting data on the memory card and on internal filesystems .
This way , the device can be remotely wiped , but the data on the memory card is still recoverable if the passphrase is known .
Also , if a remote wipe is done , any stored traces of the key are removed , so a thief would have a blank phone with encrypted files on their hand... yes , they have the hardware , but the data is not accessible to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even my HTC wizard could do all that, except when not on Wi-Fi, it only had EDGE and no 3G.
I could fire up Skype for the VoIP stuff, Opera Mobile/Opera Mini worked well everywhere, Wi-Fi included.
With no SIM card lock, I could drop in any SIM card that supported data.
Even though VS .Net is commercial, it is great for writing custom stuff and copying it to a device.
It is recommended you sign your executables when selling commercially (and some company phone policies block unsigned apps), but nobody is preventing you from not doing it.What I'd like to see in a phone are more esoteric things:5:  The ability to not just do basic tethering, but for the phone to have the functionality of a MiFi device, allowing people in a room to connect to the Internet.
It would only be fair for the cellular provider to charge extra for this functionality, but having one less device to lose on the road is always a good thing.6:  The ability to remotely wipe the device.
Not just delete the files, but remotely zero all unencrypted data.
iPhones have this functionality, as well as RIM devices and Windows Mobile handsets.
The support for this in Android is conspiciously absent.
There are apps that try to do this, but this functionality should be done on an OS level, not in userspace.7:  A decent UI.
Windows Mobile's UI was great in the days of PDA and using a stylus for everything.
However haptics, multitouch, and finger friendly apps are the par for the course.
The base Android UI is decent, but it seems that makers add their own non-disable-without-root stuff that add little to the device's usability, but take up precious memory and CPU time.
The main reason I'd root an Android phone is to disable or delete the .apk files that add nothing to a phone's functionality (the spinning cube on one maker is a good example of a CPU hog that doesn't really add that much.
)8:  Ability to run apps from a removable card.
Again, one of the few reasons I'd root and Android phone is to be able to move apps from main memory and add symlinks in their place.9:  A decent recovery mode.
Say a flash image gets interrupted while being written to storage, or on Android, I accidently trash a file in the system directory (which isn't rebuilt on a phone's hard reset.
)  It would be nice to go to a recovery state, load a file in from a SD card, redo all the filesystems and get back a working device.
My WM device had this, which ensured a phone won't become a brick if a bad flash image got loaded.
This is the next best thing to having a JTAG port and the equipment needed for this job.10:  A standardized way to back up the phone on multiple levels.
On my WM device, I ended up using SPB backup to allow for a complete restore as a complete image.
Then, files and such were copied off, and contacts, events, and E-mails, Exchange syncing took care of that.
It would be nice to see similar in Android, even if it is just a .tar.bz2 file dumped over adb with the ability to restore it.11:  A standard headset jack that doesn't require an adapter for earphones.12:  Encryption of data.
Android has apps that can do this, but again, this needs to be on the OS level.
Since the Linux kernel already has support for loopback AES encryption, why not use it?
If block encryption isn't the best, then why not EncFS via FUSE?
This would be excellent for transparently protecting data on the memory card and on internal filesystems.
This way, the device can be remotely wiped, but the data on the memory card is still recoverable if the passphrase is known.
Also, if a remote wipe is done, any stored traces of the key are removed, so a thief would have a blank phone with encrypted files on their hand... yes, they have the hardware, but the data is not accessible to them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501178</id>
	<title>Re:What a nightmare.</title>
	<author>kdart</author>
	<datestamp>1261226700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google does get it. But Google does not want to play by the existing rules. They want to change the rules.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google does get it .
But Google does not want to play by the existing rules .
They want to change the rules .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google does get it.
But Google does not want to play by the existing rules.
They want to change the rules.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501376</id>
	<title>Re:A naive question</title>
	<author>kdart</author>
	<datestamp>1261229220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because, unlike land-line phones, a cellular phone is a complex device that is an integral part of the system. A buggy or hacked radio software can potentially disrupt service to many other paying customers. It needs to be tightly controlled to assure network availability for everyone. Therefore every phone needs to undergo an expensive battery of tests and certification.</p><p>Therefore these phones are actully quite expensive. In order to get the price down to a level to attract the most customers they have to be subsidized. Therefore, you have to sign a contract promising to stick with them for some amount of time to cover that cost.</p><p>But you can also pay full price for a phone and get a monthly service plan from most carriers. Many people overlook this.</p><p>You can also, in fact, buy a GSM or CDMA modem (only) and attach it to a PC (or TI-89) by serial or USB, add some custom software, and make a smart phone out of it. It won't be very compact, however. Getting all that into one hand-held device is not so easy either.</p><p>Modern smart phones, like the G1, actually have two CPUs in them, one for the apps and interface and one for the radio interface. The radio CPU and memory are isolated by hardware.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because , unlike land-line phones , a cellular phone is a complex device that is an integral part of the system .
A buggy or hacked radio software can potentially disrupt service to many other paying customers .
It needs to be tightly controlled to assure network availability for everyone .
Therefore every phone needs to undergo an expensive battery of tests and certification.Therefore these phones are actully quite expensive .
In order to get the price down to a level to attract the most customers they have to be subsidized .
Therefore , you have to sign a contract promising to stick with them for some amount of time to cover that cost.But you can also pay full price for a phone and get a monthly service plan from most carriers .
Many people overlook this.You can also , in fact , buy a GSM or CDMA modem ( only ) and attach it to a PC ( or TI-89 ) by serial or USB , add some custom software , and make a smart phone out of it .
It wo n't be very compact , however .
Getting all that into one hand-held device is not so easy either.Modern smart phones , like the G1 , actually have two CPUs in them , one for the apps and interface and one for the radio interface .
The radio CPU and memory are isolated by hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because, unlike land-line phones, a cellular phone is a complex device that is an integral part of the system.
A buggy or hacked radio software can potentially disrupt service to many other paying customers.
It needs to be tightly controlled to assure network availability for everyone.
Therefore every phone needs to undergo an expensive battery of tests and certification.Therefore these phones are actully quite expensive.
In order to get the price down to a level to attract the most customers they have to be subsidized.
Therefore, you have to sign a contract promising to stick with them for some amount of time to cover that cost.But you can also pay full price for a phone and get a monthly service plan from most carriers.
Many people overlook this.You can also, in fact, buy a GSM or CDMA modem (only) and attach it to a PC (or TI-89) by serial or USB, add some custom software, and make a smart phone out of it.
It won't be very compact, however.
Getting all that into one hand-held device is not so easy either.Modern smart phones, like the G1, actually have two CPUs in them, one for the apps and interface and one for the radio interface.
The radio CPU and memory are isolated by hardware.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501412</id>
	<title>Re:What a nightmare.</title>
	<author>bananaquackmoo</author>
	<datestamp>1261229820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I respectfully disagree sir.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I respectfully disagree sir .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I respectfully disagree sir.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30502470</id>
	<title>Re:A naive question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261251060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wrong.  I can activate any CDMA phone on any carrier if they let me.  People activate phones across carriers all the time using the carrier's web tools where you just type in your phone's ESN and 5 minutes later you can use your US Cellular phone on Verizon.</p><p>What you can't do is walk into a Verizon store with your Sprint phone and say "activate this for me" because it's the carrier's policy that they do no activate other network's phones on their network.  It's nothing to do with the technology and all to do with the carrier's policies.</p><p>(yes, activation standards are a problem, since Sprint uses IOTA and Verizon uses OTASP, but often phones support both)</p><p>It's possible for GSM carriers to blacklist certain IMEIs (the GSM equivalent of a CDMA ESN/MEID) or to refuse to activate a T-Mobile phone on AT&amp;T.  It's all up to the carrier.  Not the technology.</p><p>The CDMA SIM is called RUIM and it's used extensively in Korea where CDMA is also very popular.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wrong .
I can activate any CDMA phone on any carrier if they let me .
People activate phones across carriers all the time using the carrier 's web tools where you just type in your phone 's ESN and 5 minutes later you can use your US Cellular phone on Verizon.What you ca n't do is walk into a Verizon store with your Sprint phone and say " activate this for me " because it 's the carrier 's policy that they do no activate other network 's phones on their network .
It 's nothing to do with the technology and all to do with the carrier 's policies .
( yes , activation standards are a problem , since Sprint uses IOTA and Verizon uses OTASP , but often phones support both ) It 's possible for GSM carriers to blacklist certain IMEIs ( the GSM equivalent of a CDMA ESN/MEID ) or to refuse to activate a T-Mobile phone on AT&amp;T .
It 's all up to the carrier .
Not the technology.The CDMA SIM is called RUIM and it 's used extensively in Korea where CDMA is also very popular .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wrong.
I can activate any CDMA phone on any carrier if they let me.
People activate phones across carriers all the time using the carrier's web tools where you just type in your phone's ESN and 5 minutes later you can use your US Cellular phone on Verizon.What you can't do is walk into a Verizon store with your Sprint phone and say "activate this for me" because it's the carrier's policy that they do no activate other network's phones on their network.
It's nothing to do with the technology and all to do with the carrier's policies.
(yes, activation standards are a problem, since Sprint uses IOTA and Verizon uses OTASP, but often phones support both)It's possible for GSM carriers to blacklist certain IMEIs (the GSM equivalent of a CDMA ESN/MEID) or to refuse to activate a T-Mobile phone on AT&amp;T.
It's all up to the carrier.
Not the technology.The CDMA SIM is called RUIM and it's used extensively in Korea where CDMA is also very popular.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501744</id>
	<title>Re:The RDF strikes again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261235220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Except Apple have a few per cent market share</p></div></blockquote><p>You mispronounced fifty.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except Apple have a few per cent market shareYou mispronounced fifty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except Apple have a few per cent market shareYou mispronounced fifty.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30502078</id>
	<title>Re:Frequently replaced.</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1261242000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Still, how is that a good thing? Are we supposed to shun pointless consumptionism, especially when the only thing stopping you from latest and greatest, software-wise, is lack of will of carrier/manufacturer, planned obsolescence?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Still , how is that a good thing ?
Are we supposed to shun pointless consumptionism , especially when the only thing stopping you from latest and greatest , software-wise , is lack of will of carrier/manufacturer , planned obsolescence ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Still, how is that a good thing?
Are we supposed to shun pointless consumptionism, especially when the only thing stopping you from latest and greatest, software-wise, is lack of will of carrier/manufacturer, planned obsolescence?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501866</id>
	<title>The Solution?</title>
	<author>Skythe</author>
	<datestamp>1261237740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Buy your phone outright. Then you can do whatever the hell you want with it. I've done this with my last 2 phones (Nokia N93i and Android Dev Phone 1) and haven't had any problems. The only problem is that it is a large upfront cost ($830 and $650 respectively for me), but the costs work out to be almost the same if you divide it by the standard 2-year contract plus handset repayments. I managed to front up the money as the typical struggling university student in both occasions, i can't see why anybody else couldn't.
<br>
<br>
I feel like Google's had to shoot themselves in the foot a little to gain the attention they wanted for Android. The HTC Dream was the first "flagship" android phone and I think they deliberately chose a different carrier (Motorola) for the flagship 2.0 so that HTC was not just the only manufacturer throwing dollars at Android.
<br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open\_Handset\_Alliance" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">I wonder which company will have the flagship phone for the next version of Android?</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Buy your phone outright .
Then you can do whatever the hell you want with it .
I 've done this with my last 2 phones ( Nokia N93i and Android Dev Phone 1 ) and have n't had any problems .
The only problem is that it is a large upfront cost ( $ 830 and $ 650 respectively for me ) , but the costs work out to be almost the same if you divide it by the standard 2-year contract plus handset repayments .
I managed to front up the money as the typical struggling university student in both occasions , i ca n't see why anybody else could n't .
I feel like Google 's had to shoot themselves in the foot a little to gain the attention they wanted for Android .
The HTC Dream was the first " flagship " android phone and I think they deliberately chose a different carrier ( Motorola ) for the flagship 2.0 so that HTC was not just the only manufacturer throwing dollars at Android .
I wonder which company will have the flagship phone for the next version of Android ?
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Buy your phone outright.
Then you can do whatever the hell you want with it.
I've done this with my last 2 phones (Nokia N93i and Android Dev Phone 1) and haven't had any problems.
The only problem is that it is a large upfront cost ($830 and $650 respectively for me), but the costs work out to be almost the same if you divide it by the standard 2-year contract plus handset repayments.
I managed to front up the money as the typical struggling university student in both occasions, i can't see why anybody else couldn't.
I feel like Google's had to shoot themselves in the foot a little to gain the attention they wanted for Android.
The HTC Dream was the first "flagship" android phone and I think they deliberately chose a different carrier (Motorola) for the flagship 2.0 so that HTC was not just the only manufacturer throwing dollars at Android.
I wonder which company will have the flagship phone for the next version of Android?
[wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501678</id>
	<title>Re:The RDF strikes again</title>
	<author>vakuona</author>
	<datestamp>1261234080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's one way of looking at it. The other is to say Apple has the most successful single smartphone out right now. Nokia may sell more, but Apple is selling 3 variations of one phone which look and work exactly the same. (OK, maybe two if you count the 3G as different from the 3GS) For that reason alone, its return on investment is stellar. They design one phone, and sell 20 million of them at premium prices, and everything just works. Getting 15\% of the market with exactly one product is the stuff companies sweat over, and Apple seems to be able to do without breaking a sweat. Blackberry has at least 10 models out there, and Nokia is in the same boat. These are Apple's two largest competitors in the smartphone space. Everyone else barely registers. Apple has a very smart strategy!</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's one way of looking at it .
The other is to say Apple has the most successful single smartphone out right now .
Nokia may sell more , but Apple is selling 3 variations of one phone which look and work exactly the same .
( OK , maybe two if you count the 3G as different from the 3GS ) For that reason alone , its return on investment is stellar .
They design one phone , and sell 20 million of them at premium prices , and everything just works .
Getting 15 \ % of the market with exactly one product is the stuff companies sweat over , and Apple seems to be able to do without breaking a sweat .
Blackberry has at least 10 models out there , and Nokia is in the same boat .
These are Apple 's two largest competitors in the smartphone space .
Everyone else barely registers .
Apple has a very smart strategy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's one way of looking at it.
The other is to say Apple has the most successful single smartphone out right now.
Nokia may sell more, but Apple is selling 3 variations of one phone which look and work exactly the same.
(OK, maybe two if you count the 3G as different from the 3GS) For that reason alone, its return on investment is stellar.
They design one phone, and sell 20 million of them at premium prices, and everything just works.
Getting 15\% of the market with exactly one product is the stuff companies sweat over, and Apple seems to be able to do without breaking a sweat.
Blackberry has at least 10 models out there, and Nokia is in the same boat.
These are Apple's two largest competitors in the smartphone space.
Everyone else barely registers.
Apple has a very smart strategy!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501210</id>
	<title>The RDF strikes again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261227060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except Apple have a few per cent market share - so actually, by your logic, people prefer more open solutions.</p><p>Believe it or not, there's more (far more) to the mobile phone market than Apple and Google. Nokia, Samsung, LG, Motorola, RIM. But you wouldn't know it from reading Slashdot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except Apple have a few per cent market share - so actually , by your logic , people prefer more open solutions.Believe it or not , there 's more ( far more ) to the mobile phone market than Apple and Google .
Nokia , Samsung , LG , Motorola , RIM .
But you would n't know it from reading Slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except Apple have a few per cent market share - so actually, by your logic, people prefer more open solutions.Believe it or not, there's more (far more) to the mobile phone market than Apple and Google.
Nokia, Samsung, LG, Motorola, RIM.
But you wouldn't know it from reading Slashdot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30502812</id>
	<title>Re:It is different because it is a different era</title>
	<author>4phun</author>
	<datestamp>1261302060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The 10 years when WinMo was a major player was characterized by NO consumer choice after the original purchase. Blackberry and Palm were the same way. Now the consumer is beginning to understand the benefits of having an open platform untied to their carrier. So if Android phones get locked down to the same level that WinMo, Palm, and Blackberries where for years then it will have to compete on crutches with the iPhone. Sure there are unlocked phones available but not enough to justify a vibrant marketplace al la iTunes.</p></div><p>How is the 'Droid' not locked down to Verizon? You can not move a Verizon Droid to Sprint another CDMA carrier can you? Can you sell it to anyone elsewhere in the world for use? What will a Droid be worth in two years to anyone? Some are anxious about what a Droid  will be worth in six months with all the better Google phones in development.


 People can sell used iPhones two years old overseas for the same amount of money they paid for them when new. Isn't that what you would call a vibrant marketplace? I have gone through four or five iPhones and my cost has been almost nil except for the normal carrier monthly charge everyone faces.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The 10 years when WinMo was a major player was characterized by NO consumer choice after the original purchase .
Blackberry and Palm were the same way .
Now the consumer is beginning to understand the benefits of having an open platform untied to their carrier .
So if Android phones get locked down to the same level that WinMo , Palm , and Blackberries where for years then it will have to compete on crutches with the iPhone .
Sure there are unlocked phones available but not enough to justify a vibrant marketplace al la iTunes.How is the 'Droid ' not locked down to Verizon ?
You can not move a Verizon Droid to Sprint another CDMA carrier can you ?
Can you sell it to anyone elsewhere in the world for use ?
What will a Droid be worth in two years to anyone ?
Some are anxious about what a Droid will be worth in six months with all the better Google phones in development .
People can sell used iPhones two years old overseas for the same amount of money they paid for them when new .
Is n't that what you would call a vibrant marketplace ?
I have gone through four or five iPhones and my cost has been almost nil except for the normal carrier monthly charge everyone faces .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 10 years when WinMo was a major player was characterized by NO consumer choice after the original purchase.
Blackberry and Palm were the same way.
Now the consumer is beginning to understand the benefits of having an open platform untied to their carrier.
So if Android phones get locked down to the same level that WinMo, Palm, and Blackberries where for years then it will have to compete on crutches with the iPhone.
Sure there are unlocked phones available but not enough to justify a vibrant marketplace al la iTunes.How is the 'Droid' not locked down to Verizon?
You can not move a Verizon Droid to Sprint another CDMA carrier can you?
Can you sell it to anyone elsewhere in the world for use?
What will a Droid be worth in two years to anyone?
Some are anxious about what a Droid  will be worth in six months with all the better Google phones in development.
People can sell used iPhones two years old overseas for the same amount of money they paid for them when new.
Isn't that what you would call a vibrant marketplace?
I have gone through four or five iPhones and my cost has been almost nil except for the normal carrier monthly charge everyone faces.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500946</id>
	<title>Re:Here is my dream phone</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261223220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>* An android phone with <a href="http://code.google.com/p/sipdroid/" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">SIPDroid</a> [google.com] shoud do the trick for number 1.<br>* Number 2 is ok also with android.<br>* No 3 is ok if you buy an used HTC G1 on ebay. They go for an average of 165$ right now.<br>* 4 is also ok woth android.</p><p>Buy an used Android phone.. best bang for the buck!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* An android phone with SIPDroid [ google.com ] shoud do the trick for number 1 .
* Number 2 is ok also with android .
* No 3 is ok if you buy an used HTC G1 on ebay .
They go for an average of 165 $ right now .
* 4 is also ok woth android.Buy an used Android phone.. best bang for the buck !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>* An android phone with SIPDroid [google.com] shoud do the trick for number 1.
* Number 2 is ok also with android.
* No 3 is ok if you buy an used HTC G1 on ebay.
They go for an average of 165$ right now.
* 4 is also ok woth android.Buy an used Android phone.. best bang for the buck!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500914</id>
	<title>Thanks to Cyano ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261222800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>for keeping Android up to date<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... seeing that it had been rumored that anything beyond 1.5 might not be available due to (flash) memory size, we're up to a partial 2.0 release, with many of the 2.0 fixes and enhancements already available<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... at least for the geeks that have managed (or dared) to root their device<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... otherwise, I don't know how long it would take to see anything newer than 1.6, if any at all<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>for keeping Android up to date ... seeing that it had been rumored that anything beyond 1.5 might not be available due to ( flash ) memory size , we 're up to a partial 2.0 release , with many of the 2.0 fixes and enhancements already available ... at least for the geeks that have managed ( or dared ) to root their device ... otherwise , I do n't know how long it would take to see anything newer than 1.6 , if any at all .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>for keeping Android up to date ... seeing that it had been rumored that anything beyond 1.5 might not be available due to (flash) memory size, we're up to a partial 2.0 release, with many of the 2.0 fixes and enhancements already available ... at least for the geeks that have managed (or dared) to root their device ... otherwise, I don't know how long it would take to see anything newer than 1.6, if any at all ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30504512</id>
	<title>Re:Here is my dream phone</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261330020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nokia 5800 is the answer (and Symbian got GPL-ed recently), or Nokia N900. I have the Nokia 5800 and I am very, very satisfied with it. USB modem for a PC? No problem. Applications? No problem. Skype over 3G? No problem - three ways of doing that - Fring, IM+ and Skype's own client, now in Beta phase.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nokia 5800 is the answer ( and Symbian got GPL-ed recently ) , or Nokia N900 .
I have the Nokia 5800 and I am very , very satisfied with it .
USB modem for a PC ?
No problem .
Applications ? No problem .
Skype over 3G ?
No problem - three ways of doing that - Fring , IM + and Skype 's own client , now in Beta phase .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nokia 5800 is the answer (and Symbian got GPL-ed recently), or Nokia N900.
I have the Nokia 5800 and I am very, very satisfied with it.
USB modem for a PC?
No problem.
Applications? No problem.
Skype over 3G?
No problem - three ways of doing that - Fring, IM+ and Skype's own client, now in Beta phase.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30502006</id>
	<title>Re:And here is why people love the iPhone ...</title>
	<author>pydev</author>
	<datestamp>1261240560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Apple maintains total control over it, sticks to their guns, and the product isn't bad. Google gives the carriers complete control, and it turns to shit.</i></p><p>Whoa, stop right there.  I've owned both, and let me tell you: I prefer any Android phone to an iPhone.</p><p><i>You wouldn't get email on your phone with out an extra $10/month charge from AT&amp;T if it was in their control</i></p><p>That's because the US phone market isn't competitive.  Apple has nothing to do with it; in fact, Apple has made carrier lock-in worse, rather than better.  Bad Apple.</p><p>If there's hope for the US phone market, it comes from Google, not from Apple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple maintains total control over it , sticks to their guns , and the product is n't bad .
Google gives the carriers complete control , and it turns to shit.Whoa , stop right there .
I 've owned both , and let me tell you : I prefer any Android phone to an iPhone.You would n't get email on your phone with out an extra $ 10/month charge from AT&amp;T if it was in their controlThat 's because the US phone market is n't competitive .
Apple has nothing to do with it ; in fact , Apple has made carrier lock-in worse , rather than better .
Bad Apple.If there 's hope for the US phone market , it comes from Google , not from Apple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple maintains total control over it, sticks to their guns, and the product isn't bad.
Google gives the carriers complete control, and it turns to shit.Whoa, stop right there.
I've owned both, and let me tell you: I prefer any Android phone to an iPhone.You wouldn't get email on your phone with out an extra $10/month charge from AT&amp;T if it was in their controlThat's because the US phone market isn't competitive.
Apple has nothing to do with it; in fact, Apple has made carrier lock-in worse, rather than better.
Bad Apple.If there's hope for the US phone market, it comes from Google, not from Apple.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30503392</id>
	<title>Re:Hard to believe</title>
	<author>IamTheRealMike</author>
	<datestamp>1261317780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There <i>is</i> a reference phone, it's the G1. </p><p>I'm not sure what the big deal is, really. Dealing with users who have older platform versions is a fundamental part of software engineering. Apple certainly isn't immune to that, look at MacOS X. If the iPhone has less of a problem with it, that's only because it's been introducing new APIs at a far slower rate.</p><p>But I'm not convinced there really is a problem. All the "Android Fragmentation" stories I read are coming from bloggers who are not active mobile software developers. Android is pretty darn backwards compatible - issues with app incompatibilities are rare, and when they occur tend to be due to Android getting a bit stricter with API usage so the fixes are easy. What's more, the Android system makes it pretty easy to write apps that gracefully degrade down to old platform versions if your app needs newer features, and the emulator lets you easily test each version. There's also a pretty rigorous compatibility suite for people making customized versions of Android.</p><p>I'm sure that compared to the iPhone, Android will have more issues with compatibility bugs and general fragmentation, but then Android is also more likely to produce devices that appeal to everyone - that's the cost:benefit of openness. There's a historical precedent to this with the Mac vs PC market in the 80s/ early 90s. Apple lost, remember.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a reference phone , it 's the G1 .
I 'm not sure what the big deal is , really .
Dealing with users who have older platform versions is a fundamental part of software engineering .
Apple certainly is n't immune to that , look at MacOS X. If the iPhone has less of a problem with it , that 's only because it 's been introducing new APIs at a far slower rate.But I 'm not convinced there really is a problem .
All the " Android Fragmentation " stories I read are coming from bloggers who are not active mobile software developers .
Android is pretty darn backwards compatible - issues with app incompatibilities are rare , and when they occur tend to be due to Android getting a bit stricter with API usage so the fixes are easy .
What 's more , the Android system makes it pretty easy to write apps that gracefully degrade down to old platform versions if your app needs newer features , and the emulator lets you easily test each version .
There 's also a pretty rigorous compatibility suite for people making customized versions of Android.I 'm sure that compared to the iPhone , Android will have more issues with compatibility bugs and general fragmentation , but then Android is also more likely to produce devices that appeal to everyone - that 's the cost : benefit of openness .
There 's a historical precedent to this with the Mac vs PC market in the 80s/ early 90s .
Apple lost , remember .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a reference phone, it's the G1.
I'm not sure what the big deal is, really.
Dealing with users who have older platform versions is a fundamental part of software engineering.
Apple certainly isn't immune to that, look at MacOS X. If the iPhone has less of a problem with it, that's only because it's been introducing new APIs at a far slower rate.But I'm not convinced there really is a problem.
All the "Android Fragmentation" stories I read are coming from bloggers who are not active mobile software developers.
Android is pretty darn backwards compatible - issues with app incompatibilities are rare, and when they occur tend to be due to Android getting a bit stricter with API usage so the fixes are easy.
What's more, the Android system makes it pretty easy to write apps that gracefully degrade down to old platform versions if your app needs newer features, and the emulator lets you easily test each version.
There's also a pretty rigorous compatibility suite for people making customized versions of Android.I'm sure that compared to the iPhone, Android will have more issues with compatibility bugs and general fragmentation, but then Android is also more likely to produce devices that appeal to everyone - that's the cost:benefit of openness.
There's a historical precedent to this with the Mac vs PC market in the 80s/ early 90s.
Apple lost, remember.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500750</id>
	<title>Frequently replaced.</title>
	<author>Z00L00K</author>
	<datestamp>1261220400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since phones are frequently replaced for various reasons the software upgrade issue seems to be less interesting anyway.</p><p>A new model replacing the old with better hardware comes at least every year. And people do drop their phones and a lot of other things happens too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since phones are frequently replaced for various reasons the software upgrade issue seems to be less interesting anyway.A new model replacing the old with better hardware comes at least every year .
And people do drop their phones and a lot of other things happens too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since phones are frequently replaced for various reasons the software upgrade issue seems to be less interesting anyway.A new model replacing the old with better hardware comes at least every year.
And people do drop their phones and a lot of other things happens too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30502520</id>
	<title>It's an appliance, stupid.</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1261252140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
The problem is that Google created a system that needs to be updated, but is sold as an appliance.  Appliances shouldn't need software updates.
</p><p>
Software updates for appliance-type devices are huge headaches.  Do you send users a message "New updates are available for your computer", like Microsoft?  Do you install them forcibly by remote control?  What if someone is relying on their phone and <a href="http://news.techworld.com/mobile-wireless/3201604/apple-software-update-breaks-iphone/" title="techworld.com">an update fails?</a> [techworld.com]  Who provides tech support?
</p><p>
"Agile" development for appliances is a recipe for user misery.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that Google created a system that needs to be updated , but is sold as an appliance .
Appliances should n't need software updates .
Software updates for appliance-type devices are huge headaches .
Do you send users a message " New updates are available for your computer " , like Microsoft ?
Do you install them forcibly by remote control ?
What if someone is relying on their phone and an update fails ?
[ techworld.com ] Who provides tech support ?
" Agile " development for appliances is a recipe for user misery .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The problem is that Google created a system that needs to be updated, but is sold as an appliance.
Appliances shouldn't need software updates.
Software updates for appliance-type devices are huge headaches.
Do you send users a message "New updates are available for your computer", like Microsoft?
Do you install them forcibly by remote control?
What if someone is relying on their phone and an update fails?
[techworld.com]  Who provides tech support?
"Agile" development for appliances is a recipe for user misery.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501658</id>
	<title>Only hope we have is if telcos act as utilities</title>
	<author>westcoast-south</author>
	<datestamp>1261233660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The only hope we have is if the telcos are forced to be only carriers of data packets and not have anything to do with phone hardware or have any say in what use is made of the data they transfer. They should be like the electric utilities, supply the network and send me the bill and shut up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only hope we have is if the telcos are forced to be only carriers of data packets and not have anything to do with phone hardware or have any say in what use is made of the data they transfer .
They should be like the electric utilities , supply the network and send me the bill and shut up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only hope we have is if the telcos are forced to be only carriers of data packets and not have anything to do with phone hardware or have any say in what use is made of the data they transfer.
They should be like the electric utilities, supply the network and send me the bill and shut up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30502456</id>
	<title>Re:One More Time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261250820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why does Android matter?</p><p>Follow the developers.  Anyone and their uncle can develop for RIM (downloadable IDE), Android, and iPhone.  Windows Mobile has stagnated due to having to pay ($$$) for the development environment.  No one in the US knows anything about Symbian.  Pre is there but since it's made by Palm it's laughable.</p><p>A lot of devs want an Android to play with.  The next generation of apps is going to be Android.  THAT'S why it matters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does Android matter ? Follow the developers .
Anyone and their uncle can develop for RIM ( downloadable IDE ) , Android , and iPhone .
Windows Mobile has stagnated due to having to pay ( $ $ $ ) for the development environment .
No one in the US knows anything about Symbian .
Pre is there but since it 's made by Palm it 's laughable.A lot of devs want an Android to play with .
The next generation of apps is going to be Android .
THAT 'S why it matters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does Android matter?Follow the developers.
Anyone and their uncle can develop for RIM (downloadable IDE), Android, and iPhone.
Windows Mobile has stagnated due to having to pay ($$$) for the development environment.
No one in the US knows anything about Symbian.
Pre is there but since it's made by Palm it's laughable.A lot of devs want an Android to play with.
The next generation of apps is going to be Android.
THAT'S why it matters.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30502036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501266</id>
	<title>Re:Here is my dream phone</title>
	<author>lamapper</author>
	<datestamp>1261227720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1) (Practically)Free VOIP when in WIFI zones instead of using minutes.

<br>2) Internet Browser in WIFI zones.

<br>3) No commitment plan, but maybe minutes bought on a trak phone style buying.

<br>4) Ability to write my own custom aps on the phone.</p></div><p>If you do not want to bite the bullet and purchase the N900 (<i>around $599</i>) you can get a N800, first came out in 2006 for around $200.  Remember even with the price of the Nokia N900, if you ditch your $50 per month cellular plan, you will recoup your costs in 1 year.  If your cellular plan is more than $50 per month, you will recoup the cost of the phone faster.

</p><p>The ONLY thing the N800 does NOT have when compared to the N900 is cellular.  Based on your list, no cellular, you can do everything you want to do with the Nokia N800.  The N800 still has the FM chip like the N900 also.  A plus with the Nokia N800 is it has a reversible webcam, you simply rotate it to change from taking a picture of you to a picture of something/someone in front of you.

</p><p>Most important, ONLY with the Nokia Nxxx (<i>which you have root access to</i>) can you install any Linux app you want.  Expect to do some tweaking.  But the reality is you have a shot at it.  Remember the first Nokia Nxxx, the N770 came out in 2005.  At one point there were over 450 apps for the Nokia N800.  While I was NOT surprised that the website for apps for the N900 did not list them all, I would be surprised if you could not get them to work on the Nokia N900.

</p><p>Ideally you want an application to just install on your phone, even Linux apps.  Thanks to apt-get and yum, most Linux software applications can be configured to work on pretty much any Linux distro.  All it takes is your patience and time.  However if you do NOT have root access, you will be limited with what you can configure.  You always want access to root with any Linux distro, or do not use it as you will end up frustrated in a blind alley one day.  Just not worth wasting your precious time that way.  (I use su and sudo, but I must have access to root, just in case, period, end of discussion)

</p><p>Next years Androids are suppose to come (with the ability to root day 1, or so the rumor goes) from Google.  If they follow through with that hope, then those phones will be equivalent (and possibly better than) the Nokia Nxxx.  Currently the Android can be rooted, however Google has sent Cease and Desist orders to people who not only root the phone, but include other Google apps on it.  In other words, Google does not officially sanction rooting at this time.  They tolerate it as long as you do not include other apps, but that is it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) ( Practically ) Free VOIP when in WIFI zones instead of using minutes .
2 ) Internet Browser in WIFI zones .
3 ) No commitment plan , but maybe minutes bought on a trak phone style buying .
4 ) Ability to write my own custom aps on the phone.If you do not want to bite the bullet and purchase the N900 ( around $ 599 ) you can get a N800 , first came out in 2006 for around $ 200 .
Remember even with the price of the Nokia N900 , if you ditch your $ 50 per month cellular plan , you will recoup your costs in 1 year .
If your cellular plan is more than $ 50 per month , you will recoup the cost of the phone faster .
The ONLY thing the N800 does NOT have when compared to the N900 is cellular .
Based on your list , no cellular , you can do everything you want to do with the Nokia N800 .
The N800 still has the FM chip like the N900 also .
A plus with the Nokia N800 is it has a reversible webcam , you simply rotate it to change from taking a picture of you to a picture of something/someone in front of you .
Most important , ONLY with the Nokia Nxxx ( which you have root access to ) can you install any Linux app you want .
Expect to do some tweaking .
But the reality is you have a shot at it .
Remember the first Nokia Nxxx , the N770 came out in 2005 .
At one point there were over 450 apps for the Nokia N800 .
While I was NOT surprised that the website for apps for the N900 did not list them all , I would be surprised if you could not get them to work on the Nokia N900 .
Ideally you want an application to just install on your phone , even Linux apps .
Thanks to apt-get and yum , most Linux software applications can be configured to work on pretty much any Linux distro .
All it takes is your patience and time .
However if you do NOT have root access , you will be limited with what you can configure .
You always want access to root with any Linux distro , or do not use it as you will end up frustrated in a blind alley one day .
Just not worth wasting your precious time that way .
( I use su and sudo , but I must have access to root , just in case , period , end of discussion ) Next years Androids are suppose to come ( with the ability to root day 1 , or so the rumor goes ) from Google .
If they follow through with that hope , then those phones will be equivalent ( and possibly better than ) the Nokia Nxxx .
Currently the Android can be rooted , however Google has sent Cease and Desist orders to people who not only root the phone , but include other Google apps on it .
In other words , Google does not officially sanction rooting at this time .
They tolerate it as long as you do not include other apps , but that is it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) (Practically)Free VOIP when in WIFI zones instead of using minutes.
2) Internet Browser in WIFI zones.
3) No commitment plan, but maybe minutes bought on a trak phone style buying.
4) Ability to write my own custom aps on the phone.If you do not want to bite the bullet and purchase the N900 (around $599) you can get a N800, first came out in 2006 for around $200.
Remember even with the price of the Nokia N900, if you ditch your $50 per month cellular plan, you will recoup your costs in 1 year.
If your cellular plan is more than $50 per month, you will recoup the cost of the phone faster.
The ONLY thing the N800 does NOT have when compared to the N900 is cellular.
Based on your list, no cellular, you can do everything you want to do with the Nokia N800.
The N800 still has the FM chip like the N900 also.
A plus with the Nokia N800 is it has a reversible webcam, you simply rotate it to change from taking a picture of you to a picture of something/someone in front of you.
Most important, ONLY with the Nokia Nxxx (which you have root access to) can you install any Linux app you want.
Expect to do some tweaking.
But the reality is you have a shot at it.
Remember the first Nokia Nxxx, the N770 came out in 2005.
At one point there were over 450 apps for the Nokia N800.
While I was NOT surprised that the website for apps for the N900 did not list them all, I would be surprised if you could not get them to work on the Nokia N900.
Ideally you want an application to just install on your phone, even Linux apps.
Thanks to apt-get and yum, most Linux software applications can be configured to work on pretty much any Linux distro.
All it takes is your patience and time.
However if you do NOT have root access, you will be limited with what you can configure.
You always want access to root with any Linux distro, or do not use it as you will end up frustrated in a blind alley one day.
Just not worth wasting your precious time that way.
(I use su and sudo, but I must have access to root, just in case, period, end of discussion)

Next years Androids are suppose to come (with the ability to root day 1, or so the rumor goes) from Google.
If they follow through with that hope, then those phones will be equivalent (and possibly better than) the Nokia Nxxx.
Currently the Android can be rooted, however Google has sent Cease and Desist orders to people who not only root the phone, but include other Google apps on it.
In other words, Google does not officially sanction rooting at this time.
They tolerate it as long as you do not include other apps, but that is it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30504868</id>
	<title>Re:What a nightmare.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261332660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh, no they don't.</p><p>There's stuff that won't work on the 3G but will the 3GS...</p><p>What the Gizmodo article refers to is no different, really.  Or with any of the current crop of "smartphones" really.</p><p>There's tons of apps that just simply won't work for varying reasons including older firmware revs and hardware out there on any WinMo, Blackberry, PalmOS, etc. phone.</p><p>It's not fragmentation.  It's relative youth of the OS and platform as much as anything else with the API edge thing.  And you can't<br>expect everything in creation to go onto 1.5 when 1.6 got new API edges and you might be needing them for an app.</p><p>It's a grim fact of reality that being on a smartphone doesn't change any differently than it would with a Computer or a Console.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , no they do n't.There 's stuff that wo n't work on the 3G but will the 3GS...What the Gizmodo article refers to is no different , really .
Or with any of the current crop of " smartphones " really.There 's tons of apps that just simply wo n't work for varying reasons including older firmware revs and hardware out there on any WinMo , Blackberry , PalmOS , etc .
phone.It 's not fragmentation .
It 's relative youth of the OS and platform as much as anything else with the API edge thing .
And you can'texpect everything in creation to go onto 1.5 when 1.6 got new API edges and you might be needing them for an app.It 's a grim fact of reality that being on a smartphone does n't change any differently than it would with a Computer or a Console .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, no they don't.There's stuff that won't work on the 3G but will the 3GS...What the Gizmodo article refers to is no different, really.
Or with any of the current crop of "smartphones" really.There's tons of apps that just simply won't work for varying reasons including older firmware revs and hardware out there on any WinMo, Blackberry, PalmOS, etc.
phone.It's not fragmentation.
It's relative youth of the OS and platform as much as anything else with the API edge thing.
And you can'texpect everything in creation to go onto 1.5 when 1.6 got new API edges and you might be needing them for an app.It's a grim fact of reality that being on a smartphone doesn't change any differently than it would with a Computer or a Console.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30531034</id>
	<title>symbolset = the "BIG TALKER" (&amp; nothing more)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261486200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SymbolNOBODY:</p><p>You said what's quoted below from you, here -&gt; <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1476008&amp;cid=30428430" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1476008&amp;cid=30428430</a> [slashdot.org] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>"It's tolerated (perhaps encouraged) in part because these annoying actors are otherwised engaged in improving Linux. Major Debian and BSD contributors, for example, use slashdot as a workspace for their human-machine interaction side experiments, of which <b>APK is probably one. In addition many of these trolls post links which, if you follow them, will completely hose a Windows machine. This is part of the game.</b> - by symbolset (646467) on Monday December 14, @01:15AM (#30428430) Journal</p></div><p>I took offense to the BOLDED part... &amp; ALL you EVER seem to have is "ad hominem" based attacks on people, not the points they make. So, my reply in the URL below was simple (and logical):</p><p><a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1476008&amp;threshold=-1&amp;commentsort=0&amp;mode=thread&amp;pid=30428430#30430244" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1476008&amp;threshold=-1&amp;commentsort=0&amp;mode=thread&amp;pid=30428430#30430244</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>Additionally, "symbolNOBODY"?  Well - the day you can make something like this (&amp; that got you PAID for it, &amp; that has done as well for others online):</p><p><a href="http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=b861a743aa23c4568b7d73e07ef7ecec&amp;showtopic=2662" title="tcmagazine.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=b861a743aa23c4568b7d73e07ef7ecec&amp;showtopic=2662</a> [tcmagazine.com]</p><p>That's also gone over 250.000 views worldwide in 1++ yrs.' time online, &amp; across 15 forums where that guide for Windows Security has been made either an:</p><p>1.) "Sticky/Pinned" thread<br>2.) An "Essential Guide"<br>3.) Rates 5/5 stars (etc.)</p><p>AND, gets "feedback" like this from users that have applied it:</p><p>----</p><p><a href="http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28430" title="xtremepccentral.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28430</a> [xtremepccentral.com]</p><p><b>PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT:</b></p><p>"...recently, months ago when you finally got this guide done, had authorization to try this on simple work station for kids. My client, who paid me an ungodly amount of money to do this, has been PROBLEM FREE FOR MONTHS! I haven't even had a follow up call which is unusual. Now I don't recommend this for the average joe, but it if can work for a kids PC it can work for anything! Now, i substituted OpenDNS and activated the Adult Content filter with them for this kids computer. I know its not perfect, but will catch over 99.5\% of said sites."</p><p>and</p><p><a href="http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=10f9ba9ad5ff990aaae1e7ec91f593a2&amp;t=28430&amp;page=3" title="xtremepccentral.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=10f9ba9ad5ff990aaae1e7ec91f593a2&amp;t=28430&amp;page=3</a> [xtremepccentral.com]</p><p>"Its 2009 - still trouble free! I was told last week by a co worker who does active directory administration, and he said I was doing overkill. I told him yes, but I just eliminated the half life in windows that you usually get. He said good point. So from 2008 till 2009. No speed decreases, its been to a lan party, moved around in a move, and it still NEVER has had the OS reinstalled besides the fact I imaged the drive over in 2008. Great stuff! My client STILL Hasn't called me back in regards to that one machine to get it locked down for the kid. I am glad it worked and I am sure her wallet is appreciated too now that it works. Speaking of which, I need to call her to see if I can get some leads. APK - I will say it again, the guide is FANTASTIC! Its made my PC experience much easier. Sandboxing was great. Getting my host file updated, setting services to system service, rather than system local. (except AVG updater, needed system local)"</p><p><b>Thronka - forums member @ xtremepccentral.com</b></p><p>----</p><p>THEN, when you have done so, on THAT account? THEN, you can talk (and, ESPECIALLY about that which you said about myself which I quoted from you above shows YOU, libelling ME, clearly. It's clearly immaterial &amp; outright b.s. from you, vs. the kind of feedback my guide on securing Windows gets, quoted above from others? It CLEARLY disproved your outright b.s., period...)</p><p>Also?</p><p>When you have done all of this as I have over time in this Art &amp; Science of computing:</p><p><b>"My Name is Ozymandias: King of Kings - Look upon my works, ye mighty, &amp; DESPAIR..."</b></p><p>----</p><p><b>Windows NT Magazine</b> (now Windows IT Pro) <b>April 1997 "BACK OFFICE PERFORMANCE" issue</b>, page 61</p><p>(&amp;, for work done for EEC Systems/SuperSpeed.com on PAID CONTRACT (writing portions of their SuperCache program increasing its performance by up to 40\% via my work) albeit, for their SuperDisk &amp; HOW TO APPLY IT, took them to a finalist position @ MS Tech Ed, two years in a row).</p><p><b>WINDOWS MAGAZINE, 1997, "Top Freeware &amp; Shareware of the Year" issue page 210</b>, #1/first entry in fact (my work is there)</p><p><b>PC-WELT FEB 1998 - page 84</b>, again, my work is featured there</p><p><b>WINDOWS MAGAZINE, WINTER 1998 - page 92</b>, insert section, MUST HAVE WARES, my work is again, there</p><p><b>PC-WELT FEB 1999 - page 83</b>, again, my work is featured there</p><p><b>CHIP Magazine 7/99 - page 100</b>, my work is there</p><p><b>GERMAN PC BOOK, Data Becker publisher "PC Aufrusten und Repairen" 2000</b>, where my work is contained in it</p><p><b>HOT SHAREWARE Numero 46 issue, pg. 54 (PC ware mag from Spain), 2001</b> my work is there, first one featured, yet again!</p><p><b>Also, a British PC Mag in 2002 for many utilities I wrote</b>, saw it @ BORDERS BOOKS but didn't buy it... by that point, I had moved onto other areas in this field besides coding only...</p><p>Lastly, <b>being paid for an article that made me money over @ PCPitstop in 2008</b> for writing up a guide that has people showing NO VIRUSES/SPYWARES &amp; other screwups, via following its point, such as THRONKA sees here -&gt; <a href="http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=ee926d913b81bf6d63c3c7372fd2a24c&amp;t=28430&amp;page=3" title="xtremepccentral.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=ee926d913b81bf6d63c3c7372fd2a24c&amp;t=28430&amp;page=3</a> [xtremepccentral.com]</p><p>What do I have to say about that much above? I can't say it any better, than this was stated already (from the greatest book of all time, the "tech manual for life" imo):</p><p><b>"But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me."</b> - Corinthians Chapter 10, Verse 10</p><p>----</p><p>Then? MAYBE THEN, you can talk like that which I quote from you above!</p><p>(I truly DO KNOW, that YOU? You never will... because you are nothing BUT a "big talker", &amp; that's about it...)</p><p>APK</p><p>P.S.=&gt; Prove otherwise, show us something like my list of appearances in publications of note in this field (as I have done as far back as 12++ yrs. ago no less &amp; straight up into 2002 when I was "into that" type of thing) OR, a guide that's done as well (that also got you PAID for writing it as mine did over at PCPitstop.com)?</p><p>Again - Then, maybe ONLY then, can you talk "symbolNOBODY"... until then, "symbolNOBODY"? Stew in your lack of accomplishment &amp; ILLOGICALLY constructed arguments &amp; ad hominem attacks on others along with the other forms of b.s. you always spout... apk</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>SymbolNOBODY : You said what 's quoted below from you , here - &gt; http : //slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1476008&amp;cid = 30428430 [ slashdot.org ] " It 's tolerated ( perhaps encouraged ) in part because these annoying actors are otherwised engaged in improving Linux .
Major Debian and BSD contributors , for example , use slashdot as a workspace for their human-machine interaction side experiments , of which APK is probably one .
In addition many of these trolls post links which , if you follow them , will completely hose a Windows machine .
This is part of the game .
- by symbolset ( 646467 ) on Monday December 14 , @ 01 : 15AM ( # 30428430 ) JournalI took offense to the BOLDED part... &amp; ALL you EVER seem to have is " ad hominem " based attacks on people , not the points they make .
So , my reply in the URL below was simple ( and logical ) : http : //slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1476008&amp;threshold = -1&amp;commentsort = 0&amp;mode = thread&amp;pid = 30428430 # 30430244 [ slashdot.org ] Additionally , " symbolNOBODY " ?
Well - the day you can make something like this ( &amp; that got you PAID for it , &amp; that has done as well for others online ) : http : //www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php ? s = b861a743aa23c4568b7d73e07ef7ecec&amp;showtopic = 2662 [ tcmagazine.com ] That 's also gone over 250.000 views worldwide in 1 + + yrs .
' time online , &amp; across 15 forums where that guide for Windows Security has been made either an : 1 .
) " Sticky/Pinned " thread2 .
) An " Essential Guide " 3 .
) Rates 5/5 stars ( etc .
) AND , gets " feedback " like this from users that have applied it : ----http : //www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php ? t = 28430 [ xtremepccentral.com ] PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT : " ...recently , months ago when you finally got this guide done , had authorization to try this on simple work station for kids .
My client , who paid me an ungodly amount of money to do this , has been PROBLEM FREE FOR MONTHS !
I have n't even had a follow up call which is unusual .
Now I do n't recommend this for the average joe , but it if can work for a kids PC it can work for anything !
Now , i substituted OpenDNS and activated the Adult Content filter with them for this kids computer .
I know its not perfect , but will catch over 99.5 \ % of said sites .
" andhttp : //www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php ? s = 10f9ba9ad5ff990aaae1e7ec91f593a2&amp;t = 28430&amp;page = 3 [ xtremepccentral.com ] " Its 2009 - still trouble free !
I was told last week by a co worker who does active directory administration , and he said I was doing overkill .
I told him yes , but I just eliminated the half life in windows that you usually get .
He said good point .
So from 2008 till 2009 .
No speed decreases , its been to a lan party , moved around in a move , and it still NEVER has had the OS reinstalled besides the fact I imaged the drive over in 2008 .
Great stuff !
My client STILL Has n't called me back in regards to that one machine to get it locked down for the kid .
I am glad it worked and I am sure her wallet is appreciated too now that it works .
Speaking of which , I need to call her to see if I can get some leads .
APK - I will say it again , the guide is FANTASTIC !
Its made my PC experience much easier .
Sandboxing was great .
Getting my host file updated , setting services to system service , rather than system local .
( except AVG updater , needed system local ) " Thronka - forums member @ xtremepccentral.com----THEN , when you have done so , on THAT account ?
THEN , you can talk ( and , ESPECIALLY about that which you said about myself which I quoted from you above shows YOU , libelling ME , clearly .
It 's clearly immaterial &amp; outright b.s .
from you , vs. the kind of feedback my guide on securing Windows gets , quoted above from others ?
It CLEARLY disproved your outright b.s. , period... ) Also ? When you have done all of this as I have over time in this Art &amp; Science of computing : " My Name is Ozymandias : King of Kings - Look upon my works , ye mighty , &amp; DESPAIR... " ----Windows NT Magazine ( now Windows IT Pro ) April 1997 " BACK OFFICE PERFORMANCE " issue , page 61 ( &amp; , for work done for EEC Systems/SuperSpeed.com on PAID CONTRACT ( writing portions of their SuperCache program increasing its performance by up to 40 \ % via my work ) albeit , for their SuperDisk &amp; HOW TO APPLY IT , took them to a finalist position @ MS Tech Ed , two years in a row ) .WINDOWS MAGAZINE , 1997 , " Top Freeware &amp; Shareware of the Year " issue page 210 , # 1/first entry in fact ( my work is there ) PC-WELT FEB 1998 - page 84 , again , my work is featured thereWINDOWS MAGAZINE , WINTER 1998 - page 92 , insert section , MUST HAVE WARES , my work is again , therePC-WELT FEB 1999 - page 83 , again , my work is featured thereCHIP Magazine 7/99 - page 100 , my work is thereGERMAN PC BOOK , Data Becker publisher " PC Aufrusten und Repairen " 2000 , where my work is contained in itHOT SHAREWARE Numero 46 issue , pg .
54 ( PC ware mag from Spain ) , 2001 my work is there , first one featured , yet again ! Also , a British PC Mag in 2002 for many utilities I wrote , saw it @ BORDERS BOOKS but did n't buy it... by that point , I had moved onto other areas in this field besides coding only...Lastly , being paid for an article that made me money over @ PCPitstop in 2008 for writing up a guide that has people showing NO VIRUSES/SPYWARES &amp; other screwups , via following its point , such as THRONKA sees here - &gt; http : //www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php ? s = ee926d913b81bf6d63c3c7372fd2a24c&amp;t = 28430&amp;page = 3 [ xtremepccentral.com ] What do I have to say about that much above ?
I ca n't say it any better , than this was stated already ( from the greatest book of all time , the " tech manual for life " imo ) : " But by the grace of God I am what I am : and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain ; but I labored more abundantly than they all : yet not I , but the grace of God which was with me .
" - Corinthians Chapter 10 , Verse 10----Then ?
MAYBE THEN , you can talk like that which I quote from you above !
( I truly DO KNOW , that YOU ?
You never will... because you are nothing BUT a " big talker " , &amp; that 's about it... ) APKP.S. = &gt; Prove otherwise , show us something like my list of appearances in publications of note in this field ( as I have done as far back as 12 + + yrs .
ago no less &amp; straight up into 2002 when I was " into that " type of thing ) OR , a guide that 's done as well ( that also got you PAID for writing it as mine did over at PCPitstop.com ) ? Again - Then , maybe ONLY then , can you talk " symbolNOBODY " ... until then , " symbolNOBODY " ?
Stew in your lack of accomplishment &amp; ILLOGICALLY constructed arguments &amp; ad hominem attacks on others along with the other forms of b.s .
you always spout... apk</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SymbolNOBODY:You said what's quoted below from you, here -&gt; http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1476008&amp;cid=30428430 [slashdot.org] "It's tolerated (perhaps encouraged) in part because these annoying actors are otherwised engaged in improving Linux.
Major Debian and BSD contributors, for example, use slashdot as a workspace for their human-machine interaction side experiments, of which APK is probably one.
In addition many of these trolls post links which, if you follow them, will completely hose a Windows machine.
This is part of the game.
- by symbolset (646467) on Monday December 14, @01:15AM (#30428430) JournalI took offense to the BOLDED part... &amp; ALL you EVER seem to have is "ad hominem" based attacks on people, not the points they make.
So, my reply in the URL below was simple (and logical):http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1476008&amp;threshold=-1&amp;commentsort=0&amp;mode=thread&amp;pid=30428430#30430244 [slashdot.org]Additionally, "symbolNOBODY"?
Well - the day you can make something like this (&amp; that got you PAID for it, &amp; that has done as well for others online):http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=b861a743aa23c4568b7d73e07ef7ecec&amp;showtopic=2662 [tcmagazine.com]That's also gone over 250.000 views worldwide in 1++ yrs.
' time online, &amp; across 15 forums where that guide for Windows Security has been made either an:1.
) "Sticky/Pinned" thread2.
) An "Essential Guide"3.
) Rates 5/5 stars (etc.
)AND, gets "feedback" like this from users that have applied it:----http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28430 [xtremepccentral.com]PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT:"...recently, months ago when you finally got this guide done, had authorization to try this on simple work station for kids.
My client, who paid me an ungodly amount of money to do this, has been PROBLEM FREE FOR MONTHS!
I haven't even had a follow up call which is unusual.
Now I don't recommend this for the average joe, but it if can work for a kids PC it can work for anything!
Now, i substituted OpenDNS and activated the Adult Content filter with them for this kids computer.
I know its not perfect, but will catch over 99.5\% of said sites.
"andhttp://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=10f9ba9ad5ff990aaae1e7ec91f593a2&amp;t=28430&amp;page=3 [xtremepccentral.com]"Its 2009 - still trouble free!
I was told last week by a co worker who does active directory administration, and he said I was doing overkill.
I told him yes, but I just eliminated the half life in windows that you usually get.
He said good point.
So from 2008 till 2009.
No speed decreases, its been to a lan party, moved around in a move, and it still NEVER has had the OS reinstalled besides the fact I imaged the drive over in 2008.
Great stuff!
My client STILL Hasn't called me back in regards to that one machine to get it locked down for the kid.
I am glad it worked and I am sure her wallet is appreciated too now that it works.
Speaking of which, I need to call her to see if I can get some leads.
APK - I will say it again, the guide is FANTASTIC!
Its made my PC experience much easier.
Sandboxing was great.
Getting my host file updated, setting services to system service, rather than system local.
(except AVG updater, needed system local)"Thronka - forums member @ xtremepccentral.com----THEN, when you have done so, on THAT account?
THEN, you can talk (and, ESPECIALLY about that which you said about myself which I quoted from you above shows YOU, libelling ME, clearly.
It's clearly immaterial &amp; outright b.s.
from you, vs. the kind of feedback my guide on securing Windows gets, quoted above from others?
It CLEARLY disproved your outright b.s., period...)Also?When you have done all of this as I have over time in this Art &amp; Science of computing:"My Name is Ozymandias: King of Kings - Look upon my works, ye mighty, &amp; DESPAIR..."----Windows NT Magazine (now Windows IT Pro) April 1997 "BACK OFFICE PERFORMANCE" issue, page 61(&amp;, for work done for EEC Systems/SuperSpeed.com on PAID CONTRACT (writing portions of their SuperCache program increasing its performance by up to 40\% via my work) albeit, for their SuperDisk &amp; HOW TO APPLY IT, took them to a finalist position @ MS Tech Ed, two years in a row).WINDOWS MAGAZINE, 1997, "Top Freeware &amp; Shareware of the Year" issue page 210, #1/first entry in fact (my work is there)PC-WELT FEB 1998 - page 84, again, my work is featured thereWINDOWS MAGAZINE, WINTER 1998 - page 92, insert section, MUST HAVE WARES, my work is again, therePC-WELT FEB 1999 - page 83, again, my work is featured thereCHIP Magazine 7/99 - page 100, my work is thereGERMAN PC BOOK, Data Becker publisher "PC Aufrusten und Repairen" 2000, where my work is contained in itHOT SHAREWARE Numero 46 issue, pg.
54 (PC ware mag from Spain), 2001 my work is there, first one featured, yet again!Also, a British PC Mag in 2002 for many utilities I wrote, saw it @ BORDERS BOOKS but didn't buy it... by that point, I had moved onto other areas in this field besides coding only...Lastly, being paid for an article that made me money over @ PCPitstop in 2008 for writing up a guide that has people showing NO VIRUSES/SPYWARES &amp; other screwups, via following its point, such as THRONKA sees here -&gt; http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=ee926d913b81bf6d63c3c7372fd2a24c&amp;t=28430&amp;page=3 [xtremepccentral.com]What do I have to say about that much above?
I can't say it any better, than this was stated already (from the greatest book of all time, the "tech manual for life" imo):"But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.
" - Corinthians Chapter 10, Verse 10----Then?
MAYBE THEN, you can talk like that which I quote from you above!
(I truly DO KNOW, that YOU?
You never will... because you are nothing BUT a "big talker", &amp; that's about it...)APKP.S.=&gt; Prove otherwise, show us something like my list of appearances in publications of note in this field (as I have done as far back as 12++ yrs.
ago no less &amp; straight up into 2002 when I was "into that" type of thing) OR, a guide that's done as well (that also got you PAID for writing it as mine did over at PCPitstop.com)?Again - Then, maybe ONLY then, can you talk "symbolNOBODY"... until then, "symbolNOBODY"?
Stew in your lack of accomplishment &amp; ILLOGICALLY constructed arguments &amp; ad hominem attacks on others along with the other forms of b.s.
you always spout... apk
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30502310</id>
	<title>Good I have a Nokia 5530</title>
	<author>rimugu</author>
	<datestamp>1261247160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good I have a Nokia 5530, unbranded, unlocked, prepaid chip. No GPS and no 3G (I have a stand alone GPS for when I really need it and 3G is too expensive).<br>I use the wifi to browse, check mail, play music, read books, keep my agenda, some games, light office applications use, and only occasionally the phone features.<br>Nokia gets updates from time to time and I can even change it to get the updates of other zones (not officially tough)</p><p>Symbian S60 5th may not be the best of the best. But ranks in the top 5. And for 150USD it cost me less than my previous phone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good I have a Nokia 5530 , unbranded , unlocked , prepaid chip .
No GPS and no 3G ( I have a stand alone GPS for when I really need it and 3G is too expensive ) .I use the wifi to browse , check mail , play music , read books , keep my agenda , some games , light office applications use , and only occasionally the phone features.Nokia gets updates from time to time and I can even change it to get the updates of other zones ( not officially tough ) Symbian S60 5th may not be the best of the best .
But ranks in the top 5 .
And for 150USD it cost me less than my previous phone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good I have a Nokia 5530, unbranded, unlocked, prepaid chip.
No GPS and no 3G (I have a stand alone GPS for when I really need it and 3G is too expensive).I use the wifi to browse, check mail, play music, read books, keep my agenda, some games, light office applications use, and only occasionally the phone features.Nokia gets updates from time to time and I can even change it to get the updates of other zones (not officially tough)Symbian S60 5th may not be the best of the best.
But ranks in the top 5.
And for 150USD it cost me less than my previous phone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_193258_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_193258_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_193258_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_193258_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_193258_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_193258_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_193258_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_193258_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_193258_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_193258_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30505626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_193258_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30504512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_193258_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_193258_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30502284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_193258_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_193258_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30502856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_193258_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30502888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_193258_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30504868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_193258_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_193258_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30503180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_193258_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_193258_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30503270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_193258_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_193258_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30531034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_193258_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_193258_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_193258_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30502470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_193258_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_193258_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_193258_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30502932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_193258_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_193258_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30507280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_193258_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_193258_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_193258_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30508852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30506216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30502036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_193258_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_193258_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_193258_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_193258_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_193258_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30504814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_193258_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30502078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_193258_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30503392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_193258_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_193258_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30502014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_193258_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30502006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_193258_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_193258_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30502276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_193258_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30516728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30502036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_193258_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_193258_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30506146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_193258_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_193258_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30502456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30502036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_193258_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30505322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_193258_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_193258_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30502812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_193258.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501210
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30502856
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501744
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501678
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30502006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30502284
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_193258.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501290
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501012
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501178
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30503270
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30502014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30504868
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_193258.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500832
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_193258.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501084
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30502888
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30505626
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30502812
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_193258.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500894
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_193258.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500752
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_193258.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30502078
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_193258.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30502036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30516728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30502456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30506216
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30508852
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_193258.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500868
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_193258.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500914
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_193258.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501032
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_193258.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30505322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30504814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501218
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501162
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30502470
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501970
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30502276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501376
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_193258.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501838
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_193258.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500734
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_193258.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30502520
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_193258.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500844
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30502932
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_193258.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500966
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30503180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501354
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30531034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30503392
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_193258.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500824
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_193258.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30507280
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_193258.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500822
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30504512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501266
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30500946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501186
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30506146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501060
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_193258.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_193258.30501536
</commentlist>
</conversation>
