<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_19_1533250</id>
	<title>Open-Source JavaScript Flash Player (HTML5/SVG)</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1263919140000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>gbutler69 writes <i>"Someone has gone and done it. Tobias Schneider has created <a href="http://apcmag.com/Content.aspx?id=5078">a Flash player written in JavaScript</a> targeting SVG/HTML5-capable browsers. It's not a complete implementation yet, but it shows real promise. A few <a href="http://paulirish.com/work/gordon/demos/">demos have been posted</a> online. How long before HTML5/SVG next-generation browsers like Chrome, Firefox, Opera, Safari, Epiphany, and other Web-Kit based browsers completely supplant Flash and Silverlight/Moonlight?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>gbutler69 writes " Someone has gone and done it .
Tobias Schneider has created a Flash player written in JavaScript targeting SVG/HTML5-capable browsers .
It 's not a complete implementation yet , but it shows real promise .
A few demos have been posted online .
How long before HTML5/SVG next-generation browsers like Chrome , Firefox , Opera , Safari , Epiphany , and other Web-Kit based browsers completely supplant Flash and Silverlight/Moonlight ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>gbutler69 writes "Someone has gone and done it.
Tobias Schneider has created a Flash player written in JavaScript targeting SVG/HTML5-capable browsers.
It's not a complete implementation yet, but it shows real promise.
A few demos have been posted online.
How long before HTML5/SVG next-generation browsers like Chrome, Firefox, Opera, Safari, Epiphany, and other Web-Kit based browsers completely supplant Flash and Silverlight/Moonlight?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821434</id>
	<title>Re:This is great!</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1263926340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's worth noting that Adobe and the browser makers optimise their VMs for different requirements.  Flash tends to run very long-running things, like games which use a big chunk of CPU for several minutes at a time.  JavaScript in a browser tends to do relatively simple things and uses a tiny bit of CPU.  The main requirement for Flash is efficiency of generated code, while for JavaScript it's load time.  The test suite that the WebKit team use runs in a couple of seconds on a decent computer, while a typical Flash game will often take at least 10 seconds to download all of the image and sound files that it needs.  This gives the Flash VM a little while to spend compiling and executing the code.</p><p>
There are, roughly speaking, four ways of implementing a programming language, although the boundaries between them are sometimes blurred.  From slowest to fastest, these are:
</p><ol>
<li>Interpreting the AST (or even parse tree).  Whenever you run a bit of code, you do a traversal of the tree and execute each node in turn.  This is how JavaScript was implemented in browsers until a couple of years ago.  It's very slow, because something like 'a = b' involves three AST nodes and so you need at least three function calls for a trivial assignment.</li>
<li>Compiling the AST to bytecode and interpreting the bytecode.  Bytecodes are instruction sets for virtual stack machines where each opcode is one byte.  You can implement them with a jump table, so the interpreter is fast (typically 50\% native speed or more).  A simple assignment would be a push value, push address and pop value at address bytecode instruction, which would expand to half a dozen or so native instructions.  Significantly faster than interpreting an AST.</li>
<li>Just-in-time compiling to native code.  Functions (or traces in something like Tamarin) are compiled to native code as they are needed, or after running them in an interpreter a few time and getting profiling information.  This can produce the fastest code, because it can be tailored for that specific run of the program, but the cost of generating the code has to be added to the cost of running it every time that you run the program.  Great for long-running programs, not so good for other things.</li>
<li>Statically compiling to native code.  This produces good code.  It doesn't have as much profiling information, but it also can spend longer optimising because the end user isn't waiting for the compiler to run, so it tends to be faster than JIT compilation in practice.</li>
</ol><p>Tamarin, the VM in Flash, uses the JIT approach, while the WebKit JavaScript VM is a bytecode interpreter.  </p><p>
One of the hippyware projects that I maintain is a compilation infrastructure for dynamic languages, with an AST interpreter a JIT and a static compiler.  On one of my test programs, running the JIT-compiled code took 0.023 seconds, but compiling it took over 2 seconds.  In contrast, running it in the interpreter took about 0.9 seconds.  Although the JIT-compiled code was significantly faster than the interpreted code, the total running time was faster.  If you added a loop so that the test program ran twice, it was a bit faster in the JIT, and if you made it loop ten times it was significantly faster.</p><p>
For most browsers, the JavaScript for a given page uses a fraction of a second of CPU time, so spending even one second generating optimised machine code from it is not productive.  In contrast, Flash code can spend several CPU-minutes running, so if spending five seconds on optimisation makes it twice as fast then it's time well spent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's worth noting that Adobe and the browser makers optimise their VMs for different requirements .
Flash tends to run very long-running things , like games which use a big chunk of CPU for several minutes at a time .
JavaScript in a browser tends to do relatively simple things and uses a tiny bit of CPU .
The main requirement for Flash is efficiency of generated code , while for JavaScript it 's load time .
The test suite that the WebKit team use runs in a couple of seconds on a decent computer , while a typical Flash game will often take at least 10 seconds to download all of the image and sound files that it needs .
This gives the Flash VM a little while to spend compiling and executing the code .
There are , roughly speaking , four ways of implementing a programming language , although the boundaries between them are sometimes blurred .
From slowest to fastest , these are : Interpreting the AST ( or even parse tree ) .
Whenever you run a bit of code , you do a traversal of the tree and execute each node in turn .
This is how JavaScript was implemented in browsers until a couple of years ago .
It 's very slow , because something like 'a = b ' involves three AST nodes and so you need at least three function calls for a trivial assignment .
Compiling the AST to bytecode and interpreting the bytecode .
Bytecodes are instruction sets for virtual stack machines where each opcode is one byte .
You can implement them with a jump table , so the interpreter is fast ( typically 50 \ % native speed or more ) .
A simple assignment would be a push value , push address and pop value at address bytecode instruction , which would expand to half a dozen or so native instructions .
Significantly faster than interpreting an AST .
Just-in-time compiling to native code .
Functions ( or traces in something like Tamarin ) are compiled to native code as they are needed , or after running them in an interpreter a few time and getting profiling information .
This can produce the fastest code , because it can be tailored for that specific run of the program , but the cost of generating the code has to be added to the cost of running it every time that you run the program .
Great for long-running programs , not so good for other things .
Statically compiling to native code .
This produces good code .
It does n't have as much profiling information , but it also can spend longer optimising because the end user is n't waiting for the compiler to run , so it tends to be faster than JIT compilation in practice .
Tamarin , the VM in Flash , uses the JIT approach , while the WebKit JavaScript VM is a bytecode interpreter .
One of the hippyware projects that I maintain is a compilation infrastructure for dynamic languages , with an AST interpreter a JIT and a static compiler .
On one of my test programs , running the JIT-compiled code took 0.023 seconds , but compiling it took over 2 seconds .
In contrast , running it in the interpreter took about 0.9 seconds .
Although the JIT-compiled code was significantly faster than the interpreted code , the total running time was faster .
If you added a loop so that the test program ran twice , it was a bit faster in the JIT , and if you made it loop ten times it was significantly faster .
For most browsers , the JavaScript for a given page uses a fraction of a second of CPU time , so spending even one second generating optimised machine code from it is not productive .
In contrast , Flash code can spend several CPU-minutes running , so if spending five seconds on optimisation makes it twice as fast then it 's time well spent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's worth noting that Adobe and the browser makers optimise their VMs for different requirements.
Flash tends to run very long-running things, like games which use a big chunk of CPU for several minutes at a time.
JavaScript in a browser tends to do relatively simple things and uses a tiny bit of CPU.
The main requirement for Flash is efficiency of generated code, while for JavaScript it's load time.
The test suite that the WebKit team use runs in a couple of seconds on a decent computer, while a typical Flash game will often take at least 10 seconds to download all of the image and sound files that it needs.
This gives the Flash VM a little while to spend compiling and executing the code.
There are, roughly speaking, four ways of implementing a programming language, although the boundaries between them are sometimes blurred.
From slowest to fastest, these are:

Interpreting the AST (or even parse tree).
Whenever you run a bit of code, you do a traversal of the tree and execute each node in turn.
This is how JavaScript was implemented in browsers until a couple of years ago.
It's very slow, because something like 'a = b' involves three AST nodes and so you need at least three function calls for a trivial assignment.
Compiling the AST to bytecode and interpreting the bytecode.
Bytecodes are instruction sets for virtual stack machines where each opcode is one byte.
You can implement them with a jump table, so the interpreter is fast (typically 50\% native speed or more).
A simple assignment would be a push value, push address and pop value at address bytecode instruction, which would expand to half a dozen or so native instructions.
Significantly faster than interpreting an AST.
Just-in-time compiling to native code.
Functions (or traces in something like Tamarin) are compiled to native code as they are needed, or after running them in an interpreter a few time and getting profiling information.
This can produce the fastest code, because it can be tailored for that specific run of the program, but the cost of generating the code has to be added to the cost of running it every time that you run the program.
Great for long-running programs, not so good for other things.
Statically compiling to native code.
This produces good code.
It doesn't have as much profiling information, but it also can spend longer optimising because the end user isn't waiting for the compiler to run, so it tends to be faster than JIT compilation in practice.
Tamarin, the VM in Flash, uses the JIT approach, while the WebKit JavaScript VM is a bytecode interpreter.
One of the hippyware projects that I maintain is a compilation infrastructure for dynamic languages, with an AST interpreter a JIT and a static compiler.
On one of my test programs, running the JIT-compiled code took 0.023 seconds, but compiling it took over 2 seconds.
In contrast, running it in the interpreter took about 0.9 seconds.
Although the JIT-compiled code was significantly faster than the interpreted code, the total running time was faster.
If you added a loop so that the test program ran twice, it was a bit faster in the JIT, and if you made it loop ten times it was significantly faster.
For most browsers, the JavaScript for a given page uses a fraction of a second of CPU time, so spending even one second generating optimised machine code from it is not productive.
In contrast, Flash code can spend several CPU-minutes running, so if spending five seconds on optimisation makes it twice as fast then it's time well spent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820834</id>
	<title>It won't be a quick transition.</title>
	<author>Interoperable</author>
	<datestamp>1263923760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How long before HTML5/SVG next-generation browsers [...] completely supplant Flash and Silverlight/Moonlight?"</p></div><p>I can't offer any informed opinion on that, but I can say that Flash and Silverlight/Moonlight will go down kicking and screaming. Much like the IE6 optimized websites that will continue to use them for many years to come.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How long before HTML5/SVG next-generation browsers [ ... ] completely supplant Flash and Silverlight/Moonlight ?
" I ca n't offer any informed opinion on that , but I can say that Flash and Silverlight/Moonlight will go down kicking and screaming .
Much like the IE6 optimized websites that will continue to use them for many years to come .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How long before HTML5/SVG next-generation browsers [...] completely supplant Flash and Silverlight/Moonlight?
"I can't offer any informed opinion on that, but I can say that Flash and Silverlight/Moonlight will go down kicking and screaming.
Much like the IE6 optimized websites that will continue to use them for many years to come.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821610</id>
	<title>Re:This is great!</title>
	<author>Bill, Shooter of Bul</author>
	<datestamp>1263927120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe that won't be so bad then. Javascript will mainly just interpret the binary flash file and represent it back to the browser as svg +javascript. It doesn't have to render each frame of the movie, it could just tells the browser the key frames and the general instructions of how to get from key frame to key frame. Not going to be as fast as flash, but it still has a chance of not being pear pc* slow.
<br> <br>

For you younger folks or older folks with limited mental faculties, Pear pc was an emulator of a power pc based apple system that ran 25 times slower than the host computer. Somethings are technically possible, but practically useless. This doesn't look like one of them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe that wo n't be so bad then .
Javascript will mainly just interpret the binary flash file and represent it back to the browser as svg + javascript .
It does n't have to render each frame of the movie , it could just tells the browser the key frames and the general instructions of how to get from key frame to key frame .
Not going to be as fast as flash , but it still has a chance of not being pear pc * slow .
For you younger folks or older folks with limited mental faculties , Pear pc was an emulator of a power pc based apple system that ran 25 times slower than the host computer .
Somethings are technically possible , but practically useless .
This does n't look like one of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe that won't be so bad then.
Javascript will mainly just interpret the binary flash file and represent it back to the browser as svg +javascript.
It doesn't have to render each frame of the movie, it could just tells the browser the key frames and the general instructions of how to get from key frame to key frame.
Not going to be as fast as flash, but it still has a chance of not being pear pc* slow.
For you younger folks or older folks with limited mental faculties, Pear pc was an emulator of a power pc based apple system that ran 25 times slower than the host computer.
Somethings are technically possible, but practically useless.
This doesn't look like one of them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30822876</id>
	<title>Re:This is great!</title>
	<author>promythyus</author>
	<datestamp>1263931500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>He said *less* retarded...</htmltext>
<tokenext>He said * less * retarded.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He said *less* retarded...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30823068</id>
	<title>Re:OMGWTFPDF</title>
	<author>omnichad</author>
	<datestamp>1263932220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The one thing it does to is progressive downloading.  You can read the first page, while the rest of the document is still loading.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The one thing it does to is progressive downloading .
You can read the first page , while the rest of the document is still loading .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The one thing it does to is progressive downloading.
You can read the first page, while the rest of the document is still loading.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30822472</id>
	<title>Re:OMGWTFPDF</title>
	<author>AntiDragon</author>
	<datestamp>1263930180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Although I agree, it's a convenience thing.  There's been times where I have to browse and view loads of different PDFs via online links and having to first download then open each one is a pain.  Safer, certainly but a nice, non-adobe-full-of-exploits in-tab PDF viewer would be nice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Although I agree , it 's a convenience thing .
There 's been times where I have to browse and view loads of different PDFs via online links and having to first download then open each one is a pain .
Safer , certainly but a nice , non-adobe-full-of-exploits in-tab PDF viewer would be nice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although I agree, it's a convenience thing.
There's been times where I have to browse and view loads of different PDFs via online links and having to first download then open each one is a pain.
Safer, certainly but a nice, non-adobe-full-of-exploits in-tab PDF viewer would be nice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30823424</id>
	<title>Re:This is great!</title>
	<author>Orlando</author>
	<datestamp>1263933720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Although I have big problems with the way a lot of people use Flash, I don't have problems with Flash itself.</p><p>Orlando...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Although I have big problems with the way a lot of people use Flash , I do n't have problems with Flash itself.Orlando.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although I have big problems with the way a lot of people use Flash, I don't have problems with Flash itself.Orlando...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820678</id>
	<title>Re:This is great!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263923220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why?  Most of what a Flash applet does is run ActionScript, which is a dialect of JavaScript.  The drawing in this will be done by the browser, rather than by a plugin, and the code will be run by the browser's JavaScript engine instead of the plugin's one.  If anything, you'll see less memory usage because you'll only need one JavaScript VM instead of two.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ?
Most of what a Flash applet does is run ActionScript , which is a dialect of JavaScript .
The drawing in this will be done by the browser , rather than by a plugin , and the code will be run by the browser 's JavaScript engine instead of the plugin 's one .
If anything , you 'll see less memory usage because you 'll only need one JavaScript VM instead of two .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why?
Most of what a Flash applet does is run ActionScript, which is a dialect of JavaScript.
The drawing in this will be done by the browser, rather than by a plugin, and the code will be run by the browser's JavaScript engine instead of the plugin's one.
If anything, you'll see less memory usage because you'll only need one JavaScript VM instead of two.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820690</id>
	<title>Re:This is great!</title>
	<author>datapharmer</author>
	<datestamp>1263923280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Clearly you aren't on a mac. I can tell a website is running flash with my eyes closed on my mac because the fans turn on.  Other than rendering large amounts of video, flash is the ONLY thing that causes my fans to come on with any sort of regularity. This is not a browser specific issue, it is a adobe wrote and anwful flash implementation for mac.  I am all for a javascript replacement for flash if it gets rid of the adobe crapware. Adobe flash for mac might actually be worse than real media player was on pc in the 90s.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Clearly you are n't on a mac .
I can tell a website is running flash with my eyes closed on my mac because the fans turn on .
Other than rendering large amounts of video , flash is the ONLY thing that causes my fans to come on with any sort of regularity .
This is not a browser specific issue , it is a adobe wrote and anwful flash implementation for mac .
I am all for a javascript replacement for flash if it gets rid of the adobe crapware .
Adobe flash for mac might actually be worse than real media player was on pc in the 90s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clearly you aren't on a mac.
I can tell a website is running flash with my eyes closed on my mac because the fans turn on.
Other than rendering large amounts of video, flash is the ONLY thing that causes my fans to come on with any sort of regularity.
This is not a browser specific issue, it is a adobe wrote and anwful flash implementation for mac.
I am all for a javascript replacement for flash if it gets rid of the adobe crapware.
Adobe flash for mac might actually be worse than real media player was on pc in the 90s.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30824674</id>
	<title>Re:This is great!</title>
	<author>Unequivocal</author>
	<datestamp>1263896520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reading slashdot causes my laptop fan to go b/c of all the gook javascript. Everytime I open an article in a new window the whole computer goes nuts and browser bogs down for about 10 seconds. Grumble. (This is latest version of FF on a reasonably new Toshiba laptop). It also happens on my thinkpad. Just me?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reading slashdot causes my laptop fan to go b/c of all the gook javascript .
Everytime I open an article in a new window the whole computer goes nuts and browser bogs down for about 10 seconds .
Grumble. ( This is latest version of FF on a reasonably new Toshiba laptop ) .
It also happens on my thinkpad .
Just me ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reading slashdot causes my laptop fan to go b/c of all the gook javascript.
Everytime I open an article in a new window the whole computer goes nuts and browser bogs down for about 10 seconds.
Grumble. (This is latest version of FF on a reasonably new Toshiba laptop).
It also happens on my thinkpad.
Just me?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820762</id>
	<title>Re:This is great!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263923520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What makes it slow isn't the language it's the engine. JavaScript and Actionscript are both based off of ECMAScript. The difference is that Adobe/Macromedia has put a crap load of effort into optimizing their scripting engine.</p><p>The latest competitive point among today's browsers happens to be on the JavaScript side. Opera, Chrome, Safari, Firefox are all working hard to optimize their JS engines for top performance to do things exactly like this. Not sure where IE is in all this. Maybe with IE9 they'll work a little harder.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What makes it slow is n't the language it 's the engine .
JavaScript and Actionscript are both based off of ECMAScript .
The difference is that Adobe/Macromedia has put a crap load of effort into optimizing their scripting engine.The latest competitive point among today 's browsers happens to be on the JavaScript side .
Opera , Chrome , Safari , Firefox are all working hard to optimize their JS engines for top performance to do things exactly like this .
Not sure where IE is in all this .
Maybe with IE9 they 'll work a little harder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What makes it slow isn't the language it's the engine.
JavaScript and Actionscript are both based off of ECMAScript.
The difference is that Adobe/Macromedia has put a crap load of effort into optimizing their scripting engine.The latest competitive point among today's browsers happens to be on the JavaScript side.
Opera, Chrome, Safari, Firefox are all working hard to optimize their JS engines for top performance to do things exactly like this.
Not sure where IE is in all this.
Maybe with IE9 they'll work a little harder.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821866</id>
	<title>Re:Before you get all excited...</title>
	<author>eigenstates</author>
	<datestamp>1263928200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> "for, say, internet video sites to work."</p><p>And that is about it- no JS or SVG needed. The thing I think the demo is shooting for is the only thing people keep saying Flash does that HTML5 doesn't- the rendering of vectors in cutesy marketing pleasing animations. Evidently it does so pretty well.</p><p>And with the notion of Workers, it looks like HTML5 might be firing towards the AIR market as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" for , say , internet video sites to work .
" And that is about it- no JS or SVG needed .
The thing I think the demo is shooting for is the only thing people keep saying Flash does that HTML5 does n't- the rendering of vectors in cutesy marketing pleasing animations .
Evidently it does so pretty well.And with the notion of Workers , it looks like HTML5 might be firing towards the AIR market as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "for, say, internet video sites to work.
"And that is about it- no JS or SVG needed.
The thing I think the demo is shooting for is the only thing people keep saying Flash does that HTML5 doesn't- the rendering of vectors in cutesy marketing pleasing animations.
Evidently it does so pretty well.And with the notion of Workers, it looks like HTML5 might be firing towards the AIR market as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821456</id>
	<title>Re:This is great!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263926400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, most of what a Flash applet does -- for values of "Flash applet" equal to what most people in the real world use Flash for -- is decode H.264/MP4 video.  I mean, yeah, there are a few people that use it for crappy menus.  And there are some clueless photographers who use it to let people with miniscule screens browse miniscule "full size" versions of their work.  But really, in the real world, where real people are using the real Flash?  YouTube.</p><p>Or, actually, RedTube or YouPorn or PornTube or whatever they call themselves now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , most of what a Flash applet does -- for values of " Flash applet " equal to what most people in the real world use Flash for -- is decode H.264/MP4 video .
I mean , yeah , there are a few people that use it for crappy menus .
And there are some clueless photographers who use it to let people with miniscule screens browse miniscule " full size " versions of their work .
But really , in the real world , where real people are using the real Flash ?
YouTube.Or , actually , RedTube or YouPorn or PornTube or whatever they call themselves now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, most of what a Flash applet does -- for values of "Flash applet" equal to what most people in the real world use Flash for -- is decode H.264/MP4 video.
I mean, yeah, there are a few people that use it for crappy menus.
And there are some clueless photographers who use it to let people with miniscule screens browse miniscule "full size" versions of their work.
But really, in the real world, where real people are using the real Flash?
YouTube.Or, actually, RedTube or YouPorn or PornTube or whatever they call themselves now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30843318</id>
	<title>Re:OMGWTFPDF</title>
	<author>badkarmadayaccount</author>
	<datestamp>1264107000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>gpdf add-on</htmltext>
<tokenext>gpdf add-on</tokentext>
<sentencetext>gpdf add-on</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30822472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820798</id>
	<title>Re:This is great!</title>
	<author>Jurily</author>
	<datestamp>1263923640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Couldn't we just ditch Flash and use something less retarded?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could n't we just ditch Flash and use something less retarded ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Couldn't we just ditch Flash and use something less retarded?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820982</id>
	<title>OMGWTFPDF</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263924420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great! Now, please, can someone write a PDF renderer in JS + HTML5 Canvas, so we can get rid of the browser killer plugin that is any PDF viewer out there?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great !
Now , please , can someone write a PDF renderer in JS + HTML5 Canvas , so we can get rid of the browser killer plugin that is any PDF viewer out there ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great!
Now, please, can someone write a PDF renderer in JS + HTML5 Canvas, so we can get rid of the browser killer plugin that is any PDF viewer out there?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30829004</id>
	<title>Re:This is great!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263930900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How are you going to ditch all the Flash that is online? Write an SWF-eating worm?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How are you going to ditch all the Flash that is online ?
Write an SWF-eating worm ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How are you going to ditch all the Flash that is online?
Write an SWF-eating worm?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30826654</id>
	<title>Re:Not SVG</title>
	<author>Smurf</author>
	<datestamp>1263906180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>First of all, the main usage of Flash (for me)  is video and I don't expect anyone to write h.232 codec using javascript and canvas anytime soon.</p></div><p>What's H.232? As far as I could tell, apparently it refers to a standard for VoIP (although that may be H.323).</p><p>Maybe you are talking about H.264 or some other H.26x video standard?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all , the main usage of Flash ( for me ) is video and I do n't expect anyone to write h.232 codec using javascript and canvas anytime soon.What 's H.232 ?
As far as I could tell , apparently it refers to a standard for VoIP ( although that may be H.323 ) .Maybe you are talking about H.264 or some other H.26x video standard ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all, the main usage of Flash (for me)  is video and I don't expect anyone to write h.232 codec using javascript and canvas anytime soon.What's H.232?
As far as I could tell, apparently it refers to a standard for VoIP (although that may be H.323).Maybe you are talking about H.264 or some other H.26x video standard?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821122</id>
	<title>Too much fuss</title>
	<author>vagabond\_gr</author>
	<datestamp>1263924900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The work that this guy did is amazing, no doubt. But the player supports SWF v1. The current version is 10!</p><p>Gnash already supports v7 and some features of v8/9 and is still not very usable.</p><p>Doing simple animations is one thing. Do you really expect to have a decent AS3 interpreter running in javascript? No question about video of course.</p><p>On the other hand this player could have some niche applications. If someone knows flash, needs some simple animations without violating standards and without messing with JS/SVG directly, they could use this. But as a general-purpose flash player? I don't think so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The work that this guy did is amazing , no doubt .
But the player supports SWF v1 .
The current version is 10 ! Gnash already supports v7 and some features of v8/9 and is still not very usable.Doing simple animations is one thing .
Do you really expect to have a decent AS3 interpreter running in javascript ?
No question about video of course.On the other hand this player could have some niche applications .
If someone knows flash , needs some simple animations without violating standards and without messing with JS/SVG directly , they could use this .
But as a general-purpose flash player ?
I do n't think so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The work that this guy did is amazing, no doubt.
But the player supports SWF v1.
The current version is 10!Gnash already supports v7 and some features of v8/9 and is still not very usable.Doing simple animations is one thing.
Do you really expect to have a decent AS3 interpreter running in javascript?
No question about video of course.On the other hand this player could have some niche applications.
If someone knows flash, needs some simple animations without violating standards and without messing with JS/SVG directly, they could use this.
But as a general-purpose flash player?
I don't think so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30824986</id>
	<title>Re:This is great!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263897840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Like Silverlight?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Like Silverlight ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like Silverlight?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821898</id>
	<title>Re:Not SVG</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1263928320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>First of all, the main usage of Flash (for me) is video and I don't expect anyone to write h.232 codec using javascript and canvas anytime soon.</p></div><p>But why should they when your OS already has a perfectly good decoder?  Using Flash for video playback was an ugly hack to begin with.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all , the main usage of Flash ( for me ) is video and I do n't expect anyone to write h.232 codec using javascript and canvas anytime soon.But why should they when your OS already has a perfectly good decoder ?
Using Flash for video playback was an ugly hack to begin with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all, the main usage of Flash (for me) is video and I don't expect anyone to write h.232 codec using javascript and canvas anytime soon.But why should they when your OS already has a perfectly good decoder?
Using Flash for video playback was an ugly hack to begin with.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30890834</id>
	<title>Re:Must be an iPhone user</title>
	<author>DaVince21</author>
	<datestamp>1264437900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's also very nice for Linux users (for speed), and users of <i>any</i> platform which doesn't support Flash (or only very slowly)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's also very nice for Linux users ( for speed ) , and users of any platform which does n't support Flash ( or only very slowly )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's also very nice for Linux users (for speed), and users of any platform which doesn't support Flash (or only very slowly)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30826410</id>
	<title>Re:This is great!</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1263904500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Flash tends to run very long-running things, like games which use a big chunk of CPU for several minutes at a time.</p> </div><p>LOL! I haven't found a flash game yet that doesn't leak memory like crazy and slow down over time. On an Athlon XP, give any flash movie 30 mins and it'll be unplayable - even if the framerate started the same as on an Athlon II.</p><p>You got one thing right - flash applets are designed to run for several <i>minutes</i>!..</p><p>Javascript leaks less memory, and with a fast JIT compiler like V8, it's easy to avoid the 10-second function call timeout. After all, if something locks up a flash movie interpretted with javascript for 10 seconds, it's probably an endless loop. With the flash plugin that would turn into a browser crash, rather than just an unresponsive script whose window you have to close.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Flash tends to run very long-running things , like games which use a big chunk of CPU for several minutes at a time .
LOL ! I have n't found a flash game yet that does n't leak memory like crazy and slow down over time .
On an Athlon XP , give any flash movie 30 mins and it 'll be unplayable - even if the framerate started the same as on an Athlon II.You got one thing right - flash applets are designed to run for several minutes ! ..Javascript leaks less memory , and with a fast JIT compiler like V8 , it 's easy to avoid the 10-second function call timeout .
After all , if something locks up a flash movie interpretted with javascript for 10 seconds , it 's probably an endless loop .
With the flash plugin that would turn into a browser crash , rather than just an unresponsive script whose window you have to close .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flash tends to run very long-running things, like games which use a big chunk of CPU for several minutes at a time.
LOL! I haven't found a flash game yet that doesn't leak memory like crazy and slow down over time.
On an Athlon XP, give any flash movie 30 mins and it'll be unplayable - even if the framerate started the same as on an Athlon II.You got one thing right - flash applets are designed to run for several minutes!..Javascript leaks less memory, and with a fast JIT compiler like V8, it's easy to avoid the 10-second function call timeout.
After all, if something locks up a flash movie interpretted with javascript for 10 seconds, it's probably an endless loop.
With the flash plugin that would turn into a browser crash, rather than just an unresponsive script whose window you have to close.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821874</id>
	<title>Re:Variable names</title>
	<author>The End Of Days</author>
	<datestamp>1263928200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Generally it's a size optimization, and/or obfuscation. There are a few libraries that will run through<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.js files and do the replacement for you, so you can work with reasonable names in the dev source.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Generally it 's a size optimization , and/or obfuscation .
There are a few libraries that will run through .js files and do the replacement for you , so you can work with reasonable names in the dev source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Generally it's a size optimization, and/or obfuscation.
There are a few libraries that will run through .js files and do the replacement for you, so you can work with reasonable names in the dev source.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30825062</id>
	<title>Re:This is great!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263898200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not true. Both V8 and JavaScriptCore do native JIT these days. As in, they go from javascript -&gt; machine code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not true .
Both V8 and JavaScriptCore do native JIT these days .
As in , they go from javascript - &gt; machine code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not true.
Both V8 and JavaScriptCore do native JIT these days.
As in, they go from javascript -&gt; machine code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821478</id>
	<title>Re:It won't be a quick transition.</title>
	<author>Ltap</author>
	<datestamp>1263926460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did anything ever use Silverlight in the first place? I only recall stuff using Flash and that's it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did anything ever use Silverlight in the first place ?
I only recall stuff using Flash and that 's it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did anything ever use Silverlight in the first place?
I only recall stuff using Flash and that's it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821038</id>
	<title>Hmm, if it is any better than Flash...</title>
	<author>Rokewaju</author>
	<datestamp>1263924660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thus far I am liking the sounds of this idea.   If it can improve on the CPU side of things (Flash on Linux is such a royal pain in the old rear end), then I won't dread trying to watch a YouTube or other online video that insists on using a Flash player.   However I will take a wait and see approach to see if this concept gets developed into something usable for PC users since this concept is being developed for the iPhone to get around Apple's "App Wall".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thus far I am liking the sounds of this idea .
If it can improve on the CPU side of things ( Flash on Linux is such a royal pain in the old rear end ) , then I wo n't dread trying to watch a YouTube or other online video that insists on using a Flash player .
However I will take a wait and see approach to see if this concept gets developed into something usable for PC users since this concept is being developed for the iPhone to get around Apple 's " App Wall " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thus far I am liking the sounds of this idea.
If it can improve on the CPU side of things (Flash on Linux is such a royal pain in the old rear end), then I won't dread trying to watch a YouTube or other online video that insists on using a Flash player.
However I will take a wait and see approach to see if this concept gets developed into something usable for PC users since this concept is being developed for the iPhone to get around Apple's "App Wall".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30822668</id>
	<title>Re:OMGWTFPDF</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263930840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like to see Grandma use that</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like to see Grandma use that</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like to see Grandma use that</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30825858</id>
	<title>Re:Not SVG</title>
	<author>AVee</author>
	<datestamp>1263901560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But if your browser properly supports the  tag and H.232 it will probably be pretty easy to start that through javascript...</htmltext>
<tokenext>But if your browser properly supports the tag and H.232 it will probably be pretty easy to start that through javascript.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But if your browser properly supports the  tag and H.232 it will probably be pretty easy to start that through javascript...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821192</id>
	<title>Re:OMGWTFPDF</title>
	<author>ReinoutS</author>
	<datestamp>1263925200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The real WTF is that you are trying to view a PDF in your browser in the first place. Try opening it with a <a href="http://projects.gnome.org/evince/" title="gnome.org">real pdf viewer</a> [gnome.org] instead.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The real WTF is that you are trying to view a PDF in your browser in the first place .
Try opening it with a real pdf viewer [ gnome.org ] instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real WTF is that you are trying to view a PDF in your browser in the first place.
Try opening it with a real pdf viewer [gnome.org] instead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821080</id>
	<title>Re:Not SVG</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263924780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only reason here to not use XHTML would be that Internet Explorer doesn't support the relevant XHTML-functionality. The One big reason there's so little SVG-usage is IE's complete lack of support. Okey, now you can go ahead and focus on "different" browsers doing things "differently" and announcing SVG's failure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only reason here to not use XHTML would be that Internet Explorer does n't support the relevant XHTML-functionality .
The One big reason there 's so little SVG-usage is IE 's complete lack of support .
Okey , now you can go ahead and focus on " different " browsers doing things " differently " and announcing SVG 's failure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only reason here to not use XHTML would be that Internet Explorer doesn't support the relevant XHTML-functionality.
The One big reason there's so little SVG-usage is IE's complete lack of support.
Okey, now you can go ahead and focus on "different" browsers doing things "differently" and announcing SVG's failure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30822824</id>
	<title>Re:This is great!</title>
	<author>Thinine</author>
	<datestamp>1263931320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>WebKit has been using JIT compiled native code for over a year now, in addition to bytecode. Safari 4 actually ships with this JIT for the Intel architectures. I believe it has also been ported to ARM and MIPs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>WebKit has been using JIT compiled native code for over a year now , in addition to bytecode .
Safari 4 actually ships with this JIT for the Intel architectures .
I believe it has also been ported to ARM and MIPs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WebKit has been using JIT compiled native code for over a year now, in addition to bytecode.
Safari 4 actually ships with this JIT for the Intel architectures.
I believe it has also been ported to ARM and MIPs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821130</id>
	<title>I can't wait for the Firefox addon</title>
	<author>dunkelfalke</author>
	<datestamp>1263924900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So I can finally switch to 64 bit firefox. And yes, I know that there is a Linux plugin available, but I don't use Linux at home.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So I can finally switch to 64 bit firefox .
And yes , I know that there is a Linux plugin available , but I do n't use Linux at home .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I can finally switch to 64 bit firefox.
And yes, I know that there is a Linux plugin available, but I don't use Linux at home.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820916</id>
	<title>Re:Not SVG</title>
	<author>gehrehmee</author>
	<datestamp>1263924060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As someone rather new to flash, I'm not so sure how flash video works.</p><p>My assumption has always been that flash has support for h263 and other codecs coded into the plugin itself, so no one is writing flash actionscript to actually handle the codecs. If that's the case, the javascript flash implementation could likewise just pass the video decoding/rendering off to code in the browser designed to do that... unless I'm way off base, and people are actually writing actionscript for the video handling code, which I'd consider terribly distasteful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone rather new to flash , I 'm not so sure how flash video works.My assumption has always been that flash has support for h263 and other codecs coded into the plugin itself , so no one is writing flash actionscript to actually handle the codecs .
If that 's the case , the javascript flash implementation could likewise just pass the video decoding/rendering off to code in the browser designed to do that... unless I 'm way off base , and people are actually writing actionscript for the video handling code , which I 'd consider terribly distasteful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone rather new to flash, I'm not so sure how flash video works.My assumption has always been that flash has support for h263 and other codecs coded into the plugin itself, so no one is writing flash actionscript to actually handle the codecs.
If that's the case, the javascript flash implementation could likewise just pass the video decoding/rendering off to code in the browser designed to do that... unless I'm way off base, and people are actually writing actionscript for the video handling code, which I'd consider terribly distasteful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821220</id>
	<title>Before you get all excited...</title>
	<author>Qubit</author>
	<datestamp>1263925320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...according to the article his code <em>only supports the SWF 1.0 format</em>, and he's currently working on <em>adding support for the SWF 2.0 file format.</em></p><p>Adobe Flash 1 and Flash 2 (which I'm going to guess might roughly line up with SWF 1.0 and 2.0), were released in <b>1996</b> and <b>1997</b>, respectively. As in, <em>over a decade ago</em>.</p><p>Much larger, more long-term projects like <a href="http://www.gnashdev.org/" title="gnashdev.org">Gnash</a> [gnashdev.org] have been working on completing a compliant Flash client for several years and still don't have support through Flash 8, 9, and 10. It's apparently a lot of work to support all of the different pieces of Flash, especially as it turns out that the SWF spec has been completely overhauled several times over the past decade, resulting in wide differences between things like ActionScript 1, 2, and 3.</p><p>So while I wish this effort all the best, it would require a <em>lot</em> of time/energy/talent to make this client have the coverage necessary for, say, internet video sites to work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...according to the article his code only supports the SWF 1.0 format , and he 's currently working on adding support for the SWF 2.0 file format.Adobe Flash 1 and Flash 2 ( which I 'm going to guess might roughly line up with SWF 1.0 and 2.0 ) , were released in 1996 and 1997 , respectively .
As in , over a decade ago.Much larger , more long-term projects like Gnash [ gnashdev.org ] have been working on completing a compliant Flash client for several years and still do n't have support through Flash 8 , 9 , and 10 .
It 's apparently a lot of work to support all of the different pieces of Flash , especially as it turns out that the SWF spec has been completely overhauled several times over the past decade , resulting in wide differences between things like ActionScript 1 , 2 , and 3.So while I wish this effort all the best , it would require a lot of time/energy/talent to make this client have the coverage necessary for , say , internet video sites to work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...according to the article his code only supports the SWF 1.0 format, and he's currently working on adding support for the SWF 2.0 file format.Adobe Flash 1 and Flash 2 (which I'm going to guess might roughly line up with SWF 1.0 and 2.0), were released in 1996 and 1997, respectively.
As in, over a decade ago.Much larger, more long-term projects like Gnash [gnashdev.org] have been working on completing a compliant Flash client for several years and still don't have support through Flash 8, 9, and 10.
It's apparently a lot of work to support all of the different pieces of Flash, especially as it turns out that the SWF spec has been completely overhauled several times over the past decade, resulting in wide differences between things like ActionScript 1, 2, and 3.So while I wish this effort all the best, it would require a lot of time/energy/talent to make this client have the coverage necessary for, say, internet video sites to work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820970</id>
	<title>Must be an iPhone user</title>
	<author>omnichad</author>
	<datestamp>1263924360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For anybody else, this would just be a crazy waste of time.  Wish Apple would just allow Flash on the iPod/iPhone</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For anybody else , this would just be a crazy waste of time .
Wish Apple would just allow Flash on the iPod/iPhone</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For anybody else, this would just be a crazy waste of time.
Wish Apple would just allow Flash on the iPod/iPhone</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820730</id>
	<title>Not SVG</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263923460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First of all, the main usage of Flash (for me)  is video and I don't expect anyone to write h.232 codec using javascript and canvas anytime soon.</p><p>SVG has failed a long time ago. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no good way of putting it in the DOM unless you are using XHTML, which you shouldn't, and all other ways of getting it to the client are non-standard and handled differently by different browsers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all , the main usage of Flash ( for me ) is video and I do n't expect anyone to write h.232 codec using javascript and canvas anytime soon.SVG has failed a long time ago .
Correct me if I 'm wrong , but there is no good way of putting it in the DOM unless you are using XHTML , which you should n't , and all other ways of getting it to the client are non-standard and handled differently by different browsers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all, the main usage of Flash (for me)  is video and I don't expect anyone to write h.232 codec using javascript and canvas anytime soon.SVG has failed a long time ago.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no good way of putting it in the DOM unless you are using XHTML, which you shouldn't, and all other ways of getting it to the client are non-standard and handled differently by different browsers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821628</id>
	<title>Re:Not SVG</title>
	<author>klecu</author>
	<datestamp>1263927180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>HTML5 browsers will have built-in video decoding capability without the need for plugins, especially Flash which in my experience has been a terrible medium (as far as resource efficiency) to distribute video. It takes more CPU, more memory, and isn't as clear or as smooth as just playing h.232 video.</htmltext>
<tokenext>HTML5 browsers will have built-in video decoding capability without the need for plugins , especially Flash which in my experience has been a terrible medium ( as far as resource efficiency ) to distribute video .
It takes more CPU , more memory , and is n't as clear or as smooth as just playing h.232 video .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HTML5 browsers will have built-in video decoding capability without the need for plugins, especially Flash which in my experience has been a terrible medium (as far as resource efficiency) to distribute video.
It takes more CPU, more memory, and isn't as clear or as smooth as just playing h.232 video.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30890856</id>
	<title>Re:OMGWTFPDF</title>
	<author>DaVince21</author>
	<datestamp>1264437960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd personally prefer evince to be ported to other platforms and a browser plugin for that to be created.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd personally prefer evince to be ported to other platforms and a browser plugin for that to be created .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd personally prefer evince to be ported to other platforms and a browser plugin for that to be created.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820974</id>
	<title>Variable names</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263924360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What is it with these single letter variable names in the code? I thought we were past that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What is it with these single letter variable names in the code ?
I thought we were past that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is it with these single letter variable names in the code?
I thought we were past that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821022</id>
	<title>Get real</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263924540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Er, um, do you recall the last time someone announced a \_\_\_\_\_\_ player written in some interpreted language?</p><p>It's always a thin shell of interpreted glop around some real codec.</p><p>You see JavaScript is about 10,000 times too slow to do the nitty-gritty video decoding.<br>So they always use a real existing codec to do the heavy lifting.</p><p>Since most of the security issues are in the codec parts, this is rarely a big improvement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Er , um , do you recall the last time someone announced a \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ player written in some interpreted language ? It 's always a thin shell of interpreted glop around some real codec.You see JavaScript is about 10,000 times too slow to do the nitty-gritty video decoding.So they always use a real existing codec to do the heavy lifting.Since most of the security issues are in the codec parts , this is rarely a big improvement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Er, um, do you recall the last time someone announced a \_\_\_\_\_\_ player written in some interpreted language?It's always a thin shell of interpreted glop around some real codec.You see JavaScript is about 10,000 times too slow to do the nitty-gritty video decoding.So they always use a real existing codec to do the heavy lifting.Since most of the security issues are in the codec parts, this is rarely a big improvement.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30829090</id>
	<title>Re:Not SVG</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264018560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Correct me if I'm wrong</p></div><p>You're wrong. SVG can be embedded in any HTML5 document. Microsoft hasn't announced SVG support in IE9 yet, but <a href="http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2010/01/07/internet-explorer-svg/" title="sitepoint.com" rel="nofollow">it's likely</a> [sitepoint.com].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Correct me if I 'm wrongYou 're wrong .
SVG can be embedded in any HTML5 document .
Microsoft has n't announced SVG support in IE9 yet , but it 's likely [ sitepoint.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Correct me if I'm wrongYou're wrong.
SVG can be embedded in any HTML5 document.
Microsoft hasn't announced SVG support in IE9 yet, but it's likely [sitepoint.com].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30822530</id>
	<title>Re:OMGWTFPDF</title>
	<author>chrizlax</author>
	<datestamp>1263930360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It already exists. Use google chrome and the  <a href="https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/egljjohbmnnpicoiddaapkpejfpnmmpe" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">gPDF </a> [google.com] extension, and all pdf files are opened by google's own javascript based viewer. Also availible for <a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/14814" title="mozilla.org" rel="nofollow"> firefox </a> [mozilla.org] as well!</htmltext>
<tokenext>It already exists .
Use google chrome and the gPDF [ google.com ] extension , and all pdf files are opened by google 's own javascript based viewer .
Also availible for firefox [ mozilla.org ] as well !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It already exists.
Use google chrome and the  gPDF  [google.com] extension, and all pdf files are opened by google's own javascript based viewer.
Also availible for  firefox  [mozilla.org] as well!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30822842</id>
	<title>Re:Must be an iPhone user</title>
	<author>Fnkmaster</author>
	<datestamp>1263931380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems like the effort would be much better spent just porting Gnash to iPhone.  It's been talked about for two and a half years now, but to the best of my knowledge, nobody's just done it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems like the effort would be much better spent just porting Gnash to iPhone .
It 's been talked about for two and a half years now , but to the best of my knowledge , nobody 's just done it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems like the effort would be much better spent just porting Gnash to iPhone.
It's been talked about for two and a half years now, but to the best of my knowledge, nobody's just done it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30823260</id>
	<title>Re:This is great!</title>
	<author>pohl</author>
	<datestamp>1263933000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr><i>...while the WebKit JavaScript VM is a bytecode interpreter.</i> </p><p>The world has moved on since those days.   Squirrelfish was a bytecode interpreter, yes...but Squirrelfish Extreme has been using JIT compilation since 2008.   Note that Chrome also uses WebKit, and has been using a different Javascript VM called "V8", and it also compiles just-in-time.   On the mozilla side of the fence, Tracemonkey  also compiles just in time.   The only laggard is IE.</p><p>I recon javascript will be used differently now that the runtimes are more capable.   Your observation about how Javascript is used today only reflects the limited capabilities of yesterday's browsers.  Flash can no longer be thought of as being uniquely optimized for long-running things.  Those days are over.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...while the WebKit JavaScript VM is a bytecode interpreter .
The world has moved on since those days .
Squirrelfish was a bytecode interpreter , yes...but Squirrelfish Extreme has been using JIT compilation since 2008 .
Note that Chrome also uses WebKit , and has been using a different Javascript VM called " V8 " , and it also compiles just-in-time .
On the mozilla side of the fence , Tracemonkey also compiles just in time .
The only laggard is IE.I recon javascript will be used differently now that the runtimes are more capable .
Your observation about how Javascript is used today only reflects the limited capabilities of yesterday 's browsers .
Flash can no longer be thought of as being uniquely optimized for long-running things .
Those days are over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...while the WebKit JavaScript VM is a bytecode interpreter.
The world has moved on since those days.
Squirrelfish was a bytecode interpreter, yes...but Squirrelfish Extreme has been using JIT compilation since 2008.
Note that Chrome also uses WebKit, and has been using a different Javascript VM called "V8", and it also compiles just-in-time.
On the mozilla side of the fence, Tracemonkey  also compiles just in time.
The only laggard is IE.I recon javascript will be used differently now that the runtimes are more capable.
Your observation about how Javascript is used today only reflects the limited capabilities of yesterday's browsers.
Flash can no longer be thought of as being uniquely optimized for long-running things.
Those days are over.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820912</id>
	<title>less than 100\% is good</title>
	<author>f3r</author>
	<datestamp>1263924060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>anything using less than 100\% cpu in linux is better than Flash. Therefore there can in principle be nothing worse than Flash. Unbeatable, indeed a hard goal to achieve.</htmltext>
<tokenext>anything using less than 100 \ % cpu in linux is better than Flash .
Therefore there can in principle be nothing worse than Flash .
Unbeatable , indeed a hard goal to achieve .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>anything using less than 100\% cpu in linux is better than Flash.
Therefore there can in principle be nothing worse than Flash.
Unbeatable, indeed a hard goal to achieve.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821206</id>
	<title>Re:OMGWTFPDF</title>
	<author>Paradigm\_Complex</author>
	<datestamp>1263925260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why view the PDF in your browser?  Download and open in a PDF viewer of your choice.  Doing it this way won't kill your browser, honest!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why view the PDF in your browser ?
Download and open in a PDF viewer of your choice .
Doing it this way wo n't kill your browser , honest !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why view the PDF in your browser?
Download and open in a PDF viewer of your choice.
Doing it this way won't kill your browser, honest!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820616</id>
	<title>This is great!</title>
	<author>the roAm</author>
	<datestamp>1263922920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wait, Javascript? Oh shit. I can feel the slow already.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait , Javascript ?
Oh shit .
I can feel the slow already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait, Javascript?
Oh shit.
I can feel the slow already.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821546</id>
	<title>Re:Not SVG</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1263926760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>First of all, the main usage of Flash (for me) is video and I don't expect anyone to write h.232 codec using javascript and canvas anytime soon.</p></div><p>No, but if your browser supports the video tag and you have the correct codecs installed then something like this can implement the Flash video APIs in terms of that.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> SVG has failed a long time ago. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no good way of putting it in the DOM unless you are using XHTML, which you shouldn't</p></div><p>You should use XHTML.  Then you can mix HTML, MathML, and SVG in the same document, and have elements from all of them in the same DOM.  The entire point of XHTML is to allow different XML formats to be used in the same document.  Saying 'I want to do this without using the solution that was specifically designed for this exact problem' is a very strange thing to do.  You have a long career in management ahead of you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all , the main usage of Flash ( for me ) is video and I do n't expect anyone to write h.232 codec using javascript and canvas anytime soon.No , but if your browser supports the video tag and you have the correct codecs installed then something like this can implement the Flash video APIs in terms of that .
SVG has failed a long time ago .
Correct me if I 'm wrong , but there is no good way of putting it in the DOM unless you are using XHTML , which you shouldn'tYou should use XHTML .
Then you can mix HTML , MathML , and SVG in the same document , and have elements from all of them in the same DOM .
The entire point of XHTML is to allow different XML formats to be used in the same document .
Saying 'I want to do this without using the solution that was specifically designed for this exact problem ' is a very strange thing to do .
You have a long career in management ahead of you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all, the main usage of Flash (for me) is video and I don't expect anyone to write h.232 codec using javascript and canvas anytime soon.No, but if your browser supports the video tag and you have the correct codecs installed then something like this can implement the Flash video APIs in terms of that.
SVG has failed a long time ago.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no good way of putting it in the DOM unless you are using XHTML, which you shouldn'tYou should use XHTML.
Then you can mix HTML, MathML, and SVG in the same document, and have elements from all of them in the same DOM.
The entire point of XHTML is to allow different XML formats to be used in the same document.
Saying 'I want to do this without using the solution that was specifically designed for this exact problem' is a very strange thing to do.
You have a long career in management ahead of you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821536</id>
	<title>Re:Not SVG</title>
	<author>snadrus</author>
	<datestamp>1263926700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All Video happens in C code: HTML5, Flash, Silverlight, MS media embeds. <br>
Firefox can't do h263 for HTML5. There's no chance of reimplementing h263 in Javascript with performance, so game over for this language choice producing a replacement.</htmltext>
<tokenext>All Video happens in C code : HTML5 , Flash , Silverlight , MS media embeds .
Firefox ca n't do h263 for HTML5 .
There 's no chance of reimplementing h263 in Javascript with performance , so game over for this language choice producing a replacement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All Video happens in C code: HTML5, Flash, Silverlight, MS media embeds.
Firefox can't do h263 for HTML5.
There's no chance of reimplementing h263 in Javascript with performance, so game over for this language choice producing a replacement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821336</id>
	<title>Re:This is great!</title>
	<author>IGnatius T Foobar</author>
	<datestamp>1263925920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Couldn't we just ditch Flash and use something less retarded?</p></div></blockquote><p>
Bite your tongue.  If anything replaces Flash it will be Silverlight.  Do you really want Microsoft controlling the non-HTML portion of the Web?  Do you really want Microsoft turning the Web into a Windows-only experience?  Because that's what's going to happen if Flash is supplanted.  Be careful wht you wish for.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could n't we just ditch Flash and use something less retarded ?
Bite your tongue .
If anything replaces Flash it will be Silverlight .
Do you really want Microsoft controlling the non-HTML portion of the Web ?
Do you really want Microsoft turning the Web into a Windows-only experience ?
Because that 's what 's going to happen if Flash is supplanted .
Be careful wht you wish for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Couldn't we just ditch Flash and use something less retarded?
Bite your tongue.
If anything replaces Flash it will be Silverlight.
Do you really want Microsoft controlling the non-HTML portion of the Web?
Do you really want Microsoft turning the Web into a Windows-only experience?
Because that's what's going to happen if Flash is supplanted.
Be careful wht you wish for.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30830458</id>
	<title>Re:This is great!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263992340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's often claimed that JIT compilers could produce better optimized code because they know more about the running program, but in practice, static compilers still produce far better code in just about every scenario, even without profiling.</p><p>Additionally your claim about bytecode speed seems awfully unrealistic...50\% native speed?  Or MORE?  Perhaps for a programming language that is very poorly suited for native compilation, but generally...not even close.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's often claimed that JIT compilers could produce better optimized code because they know more about the running program , but in practice , static compilers still produce far better code in just about every scenario , even without profiling.Additionally your claim about bytecode speed seems awfully unrealistic...50 \ % native speed ?
Or MORE ?
Perhaps for a programming language that is very poorly suited for native compilation , but generally...not even close .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's often claimed that JIT compilers could produce better optimized code because they know more about the running program, but in practice, static compilers still produce far better code in just about every scenario, even without profiling.Additionally your claim about bytecode speed seems awfully unrealistic...50\% native speed?
Or MORE?
Perhaps for a programming language that is very poorly suited for native compilation, but generally...not even close.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30890776</id>
	<title>Re:Not SVG</title>
	<author>DaVince21</author>
	<datestamp>1264437720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>First of all, the main usage of Flash (for me)  is video and I don't expect anyone to write h.232 codec using javascript and canvas anytime soon.</p></div><p>Dude, HTML5 video tag.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all , the main usage of Flash ( for me ) is video and I do n't expect anyone to write h.232 codec using javascript and canvas anytime soon.Dude , HTML5 video tag .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all, the main usage of Flash (for me)  is video and I don't expect anyone to write h.232 codec using javascript and canvas anytime soon.Dude, HTML5 video tag.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821326</id>
	<title>Re:This is great!</title>
	<author>Ltap</author>
	<datestamp>1263925800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The answer to your question relies on a proper definition of "we". "We", to you, means everyone who uses the Internet. However, "we", in reality, are a small minority of people who know what they are doing and what they are talking about.
<br> <br>
It is similar to ipv6 - change can only happen at the level of big companies (or, in this case, video hosting sites like Youtube) who don't want to change for various reasons. HTML5 took forever to get here because it was designed to be easy to transfer to, but people have still ignored it the same way they have ignored web standards since their first conception. The only way to make people change is to make the HTML5 implementation easier than Flash implementation, which is difficult since so many people learn and are comfortable with Flash. Once HTML5 begins to have a little more impact and people (hopefully) learn it, we can all just move on, since nothing, as well all know, is easier than HTML.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The answer to your question relies on a proper definition of " we " .
" We " , to you , means everyone who uses the Internet .
However , " we " , in reality , are a small minority of people who know what they are doing and what they are talking about .
It is similar to ipv6 - change can only happen at the level of big companies ( or , in this case , video hosting sites like Youtube ) who do n't want to change for various reasons .
HTML5 took forever to get here because it was designed to be easy to transfer to , but people have still ignored it the same way they have ignored web standards since their first conception .
The only way to make people change is to make the HTML5 implementation easier than Flash implementation , which is difficult since so many people learn and are comfortable with Flash .
Once HTML5 begins to have a little more impact and people ( hopefully ) learn it , we can all just move on , since nothing , as well all know , is easier than HTML .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The answer to your question relies on a proper definition of "we".
"We", to you, means everyone who uses the Internet.
However, "we", in reality, are a small minority of people who know what they are doing and what they are talking about.
It is similar to ipv6 - change can only happen at the level of big companies (or, in this case, video hosting sites like Youtube) who don't want to change for various reasons.
HTML5 took forever to get here because it was designed to be easy to transfer to, but people have still ignored it the same way they have ignored web standards since their first conception.
The only way to make people change is to make the HTML5 implementation easier than Flash implementation, which is difficult since so many people learn and are comfortable with Flash.
Once HTML5 begins to have a little more impact and people (hopefully) learn it, we can all just move on, since nothing, as well all know, is easier than HTML.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821474</id>
	<title>Re:OMGWTFPDF</title>
	<author>MrNemesis</author>
	<datestamp>1263926460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've never understood the logic of viewing PDF's inside the browser via plugin; I can understand it for flash or java, where they provide certain functionalities and integrate within the web page, but don't see why you'd want to use a PDF in-browser, which doesn't integrate with the rest of the site. Even worse is when the notoriously corpulent Acrobat plugin starts to load, your browser tends to either freeze (thanks IE6) or act like it's just snorted a gram of ketamine.</p><p>I intentionally disable PDF plugins everywhere; my own personal preference on windows is $browser\_of\_choice and SumatraPDF. It makes even Foxit look bloated (no vulns that I know of either whilst even foxit has had some), and has bitchin' fast rendering and startup. For people that mostly only read PDF documents it's an utter godsend.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've never understood the logic of viewing PDF 's inside the browser via plugin ; I can understand it for flash or java , where they provide certain functionalities and integrate within the web page , but do n't see why you 'd want to use a PDF in-browser , which does n't integrate with the rest of the site .
Even worse is when the notoriously corpulent Acrobat plugin starts to load , your browser tends to either freeze ( thanks IE6 ) or act like it 's just snorted a gram of ketamine.I intentionally disable PDF plugins everywhere ; my own personal preference on windows is $ browser \ _of \ _choice and SumatraPDF .
It makes even Foxit look bloated ( no vulns that I know of either whilst even foxit has had some ) , and has bitchin ' fast rendering and startup .
For people that mostly only read PDF documents it 's an utter godsend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've never understood the logic of viewing PDF's inside the browser via plugin; I can understand it for flash or java, where they provide certain functionalities and integrate within the web page, but don't see why you'd want to use a PDF in-browser, which doesn't integrate with the rest of the site.
Even worse is when the notoriously corpulent Acrobat plugin starts to load, your browser tends to either freeze (thanks IE6) or act like it's just snorted a gram of ketamine.I intentionally disable PDF plugins everywhere; my own personal preference on windows is $browser\_of\_choice and SumatraPDF.
It makes even Foxit look bloated (no vulns that I know of either whilst even foxit has had some), and has bitchin' fast rendering and startup.
For people that mostly only read PDF documents it's an utter godsend.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30827556</id>
	<title>Re:OMGWTFPDF</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1263914100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So if you're browsing and you want to look at some online pdf document, you should download it, open up the download directory, find the file and then open it up? I prefer my one click in-browser approach, thank you very much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So if you 're browsing and you want to look at some online pdf document , you should download it , open up the download directory , find the file and then open it up ?
I prefer my one click in-browser approach , thank you very much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if you're browsing and you want to look at some online pdf document, you should download it, open up the download directory, find the file and then open it up?
I prefer my one click in-browser approach, thank you very much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30823212</id>
	<title>Re:Not SVG</title>
	<author>BZ</author>
	<datestamp>1263932820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Note that the current HTML5 draft proposes parsing SVG in text/html.  At least the html5 parser implementation in Gecko (currently trunk-only and not enabled by default yet) supports this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Note that the current HTML5 draft proposes parsing SVG in text/html .
At least the html5 parser implementation in Gecko ( currently trunk-only and not enabled by default yet ) supports this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Note that the current HTML5 draft proposes parsing SVG in text/html.
At least the html5 parser implementation in Gecko (currently trunk-only and not enabled by default yet) supports this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821204</id>
	<title>Re:This is great!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263925260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't feel particularly special. Adobe flash is horrid on ANY platform it is made for. Not just Mac.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't feel particularly special .
Adobe flash is horrid on ANY platform it is made for .
Not just Mac .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't feel particularly special.
Adobe flash is horrid on ANY platform it is made for.
Not just Mac.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30824038</id>
	<title>Some reasons:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263893400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I usually prefer to download them myself, but there are circumstances where it is advantageous to be able to view documents on websites in the browser. That way, you can use the address bar and browser toolbar like you normally would, without a new window popping up, possibly overlapping them, you can bookmark the document in case it's prone to change, you don't have to worry about storage, let it reside in your browser cache and get cleaned up automatically and for some formats you can start reading the first pages while the document is still downloading. In other words, for similar reasons you don't want to read your HTML files in an external viewer.<br>And there's also a software design argument to be made: the browser, that is to say the window and toolbar, should care about navigation, manage bookmarks, maintain the history and so on, but it shouldn't be its job to worry about what kind of content exactly is being displayed in the client area. Implementing a specific file format viewer is logically separate and therefore that part of the browser should be isolated and export an opaque interface to the rest of the browser. In turn the browser should just call methods on that interface and should be agnostic of whatever is actually behind the interface, be it HTML, an SVG drawing, a PDF and so on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I usually prefer to download them myself , but there are circumstances where it is advantageous to be able to view documents on websites in the browser .
That way , you can use the address bar and browser toolbar like you normally would , without a new window popping up , possibly overlapping them , you can bookmark the document in case it 's prone to change , you do n't have to worry about storage , let it reside in your browser cache and get cleaned up automatically and for some formats you can start reading the first pages while the document is still downloading .
In other words , for similar reasons you do n't want to read your HTML files in an external viewer.And there 's also a software design argument to be made : the browser , that is to say the window and toolbar , should care about navigation , manage bookmarks , maintain the history and so on , but it should n't be its job to worry about what kind of content exactly is being displayed in the client area .
Implementing a specific file format viewer is logically separate and therefore that part of the browser should be isolated and export an opaque interface to the rest of the browser .
In turn the browser should just call methods on that interface and should be agnostic of whatever is actually behind the interface , be it HTML , an SVG drawing , a PDF and so on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I usually prefer to download them myself, but there are circumstances where it is advantageous to be able to view documents on websites in the browser.
That way, you can use the address bar and browser toolbar like you normally would, without a new window popping up, possibly overlapping them, you can bookmark the document in case it's prone to change, you don't have to worry about storage, let it reside in your browser cache and get cleaned up automatically and for some formats you can start reading the first pages while the document is still downloading.
In other words, for similar reasons you don't want to read your HTML files in an external viewer.And there's also a software design argument to be made: the browser, that is to say the window and toolbar, should care about navigation, manage bookmarks, maintain the history and so on, but it shouldn't be its job to worry about what kind of content exactly is being displayed in the client area.
Implementing a specific file format viewer is logically separate and therefore that part of the browser should be isolated and export an opaque interface to the rest of the browser.
In turn the browser should just call methods on that interface and should be agnostic of whatever is actually behind the interface, be it HTML, an SVG drawing, a PDF and so on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821534</id>
	<title>Re:This is great!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263926700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would love to do away with the flash player also, because my non-mac laptop fans do the same in Windows and Linux when lots of tabs are loading ads and a flash video.</p><p>HOWEVER, flash is a file format, not just a player. When you right-click on a flash video on pr0n sites and youtube, you'll see a menu with a little blurb showing either Adobe's ID string and configs, or some other video player's name. The browser's flash plugin just loads a site's custom wrapper. That object tends to have some sublicensed FLV loader or a standard Adobe one, which downloads the actual FLV file (that's what gets 'saved' to your hard drive for offline viewing apps that you can find out there). No matter what, Adobe's flash language can't be removed from the equation, even if you can remove the player.</p><p>The problem with the format is that you have to think of Microsoft's own DOC format.<br>1) Flash changes once a year, forcing you to upgrade to newer 'plugins' so you can view some videos. I think redtube.com or one of those top ones fails under Flash 9, which is preposterous. It's like forcing you to have get the latest KDE version so you can load a webpage where the only problem is that an idiot programmer used a new API instead of an old one.<br>2) supposing that any one 'non-adobe' system (say, Gnash) is used to load 90\% of flash websites starting tomorrow, it can't blow away the original format from the creator. Microsoft and Adobe encourage some incompatibility with old releases to push people to newer software (indirectly driving up hardware sales.) The app would need to be updated in an endless cycle. Look at WINE.</p><p>In the end, it comes down to whether the future IT market decides that flash as a file format sucks, and wants it to go the way of the dodo and 1990's VRML. What ends up happening is that another similar or stronger player takes over. The problem with flash's dominance is that it gave us a multi-platform alternative to browser-specific plugins / video formats such as last Active-X and AVI or Quicktime were last decade. That was a good thing, if somewhat accidental, but it has caused us to give up performance and to put all our eggs in Adobe's basket ever since sites like youtube popped up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would love to do away with the flash player also , because my non-mac laptop fans do the same in Windows and Linux when lots of tabs are loading ads and a flash video.HOWEVER , flash is a file format , not just a player .
When you right-click on a flash video on pr0n sites and youtube , you 'll see a menu with a little blurb showing either Adobe 's ID string and configs , or some other video player 's name .
The browser 's flash plugin just loads a site 's custom wrapper .
That object tends to have some sublicensed FLV loader or a standard Adobe one , which downloads the actual FLV file ( that 's what gets 'saved ' to your hard drive for offline viewing apps that you can find out there ) .
No matter what , Adobe 's flash language ca n't be removed from the equation , even if you can remove the player.The problem with the format is that you have to think of Microsoft 's own DOC format.1 ) Flash changes once a year , forcing you to upgrade to newer 'plugins ' so you can view some videos .
I think redtube.com or one of those top ones fails under Flash 9 , which is preposterous .
It 's like forcing you to have get the latest KDE version so you can load a webpage where the only problem is that an idiot programmer used a new API instead of an old one.2 ) supposing that any one 'non-adobe ' system ( say , Gnash ) is used to load 90 \ % of flash websites starting tomorrow , it ca n't blow away the original format from the creator .
Microsoft and Adobe encourage some incompatibility with old releases to push people to newer software ( indirectly driving up hardware sales .
) The app would need to be updated in an endless cycle .
Look at WINE.In the end , it comes down to whether the future IT market decides that flash as a file format sucks , and wants it to go the way of the dodo and 1990 's VRML .
What ends up happening is that another similar or stronger player takes over .
The problem with flash 's dominance is that it gave us a multi-platform alternative to browser-specific plugins / video formats such as last Active-X and AVI or Quicktime were last decade .
That was a good thing , if somewhat accidental , but it has caused us to give up performance and to put all our eggs in Adobe 's basket ever since sites like youtube popped up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would love to do away with the flash player also, because my non-mac laptop fans do the same in Windows and Linux when lots of tabs are loading ads and a flash video.HOWEVER, flash is a file format, not just a player.
When you right-click on a flash video on pr0n sites and youtube, you'll see a menu with a little blurb showing either Adobe's ID string and configs, or some other video player's name.
The browser's flash plugin just loads a site's custom wrapper.
That object tends to have some sublicensed FLV loader or a standard Adobe one, which downloads the actual FLV file (that's what gets 'saved' to your hard drive for offline viewing apps that you can find out there).
No matter what, Adobe's flash language can't be removed from the equation, even if you can remove the player.The problem with the format is that you have to think of Microsoft's own DOC format.1) Flash changes once a year, forcing you to upgrade to newer 'plugins' so you can view some videos.
I think redtube.com or one of those top ones fails under Flash 9, which is preposterous.
It's like forcing you to have get the latest KDE version so you can load a webpage where the only problem is that an idiot programmer used a new API instead of an old one.2) supposing that any one 'non-adobe' system (say, Gnash) is used to load 90\% of flash websites starting tomorrow, it can't blow away the original format from the creator.
Microsoft and Adobe encourage some incompatibility with old releases to push people to newer software (indirectly driving up hardware sales.
) The app would need to be updated in an endless cycle.
Look at WINE.In the end, it comes down to whether the future IT market decides that flash as a file format sucks, and wants it to go the way of the dodo and 1990's VRML.
What ends up happening is that another similar or stronger player takes over.
The problem with flash's dominance is that it gave us a multi-platform alternative to browser-specific plugins / video formats such as last Active-X and AVI or Quicktime were last decade.
That was a good thing, if somewhat accidental, but it has caused us to give up performance and to put all our eggs in Adobe's basket ever since sites like youtube popped up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820596</id>
	<title>eat my shorts slashdot !!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263922860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Eat my shorts slashdot !!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Eat my shorts slashdot !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eat my shorts slashdot !
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30822420</id>
	<title>Re:This is great!</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1263930060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Depends in the browser. Consider that applications in Palm's WebOS are usually written in Javascript. Which is why they've spent so much effort tweaking up Javascript speeds. As this is probably more interesting for mobile devices than PCs (which pretty much get Adobe plug-ins, if you want them), this is not a trivial issue.</p><p>And until the 1.4 release of WebOS, Apple actually had a faster Javascript engine on the iPhone 3GS than either Palm or Android (not huge, but faster). Given that, based on the closed nature of the iPhoneOS, there will NEVER be full Flash support from Apple (because, like the Commodore 64 emulator, it offers a way to add applications that you didn't buy from Apple), this might be rather significant to iPhonies as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Depends in the browser .
Consider that applications in Palm 's WebOS are usually written in Javascript .
Which is why they 've spent so much effort tweaking up Javascript speeds .
As this is probably more interesting for mobile devices than PCs ( which pretty much get Adobe plug-ins , if you want them ) , this is not a trivial issue.And until the 1.4 release of WebOS , Apple actually had a faster Javascript engine on the iPhone 3GS than either Palm or Android ( not huge , but faster ) .
Given that , based on the closed nature of the iPhoneOS , there will NEVER be full Flash support from Apple ( because , like the Commodore 64 emulator , it offers a way to add applications that you did n't buy from Apple ) , this might be rather significant to iPhonies as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Depends in the browser.
Consider that applications in Palm's WebOS are usually written in Javascript.
Which is why they've spent so much effort tweaking up Javascript speeds.
As this is probably more interesting for mobile devices than PCs (which pretty much get Adobe plug-ins, if you want them), this is not a trivial issue.And until the 1.4 release of WebOS, Apple actually had a faster Javascript engine on the iPhone 3GS than either Palm or Android (not huge, but faster).
Given that, based on the closed nature of the iPhoneOS, there will NEVER be full Flash support from Apple (because, like the Commodore 64 emulator, it offers a way to add applications that you didn't buy from Apple), this might be rather significant to iPhonies as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30890880</id>
	<title>Re:Get real</title>
	<author>DaVince21</author>
	<datestamp>1264438080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You see JavaScript is about 10,000 times too slow to do the nitty-gritty video decoding.<br>So they always use a real existing codec to do the heavy lifting.</p></div><p>You answered your own question here; this implementation could just use HTML5's video tag support to do all the decoding work. And in case you didn't know, these videos can be stretched and warped in any way necessary, too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You see JavaScript is about 10,000 times too slow to do the nitty-gritty video decoding.So they always use a real existing codec to do the heavy lifting.You answered your own question here ; this implementation could just use HTML5 's video tag support to do all the decoding work .
And in case you did n't know , these videos can be stretched and warped in any way necessary , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You see JavaScript is about 10,000 times too slow to do the nitty-gritty video decoding.So they always use a real existing codec to do the heavy lifting.You answered your own question here; this implementation could just use HTML5's video tag support to do all the decoding work.
And in case you didn't know, these videos can be stretched and warped in any way necessary, too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30823430</id>
	<title>Re:Too much fuss</title>
	<author>mad.frog</author>
	<datestamp>1263933780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mod this guy up. While it's an impressive demo, saying "He implemented Flash in JavaScript" is severely misleading... he implemented a subset of Flash 1.0 (circa 1996 or so) in JavaScript. It's a nice demo and I'm guessing that it will be useful for some trivial things, but he has a long way to go to get to Flash 10...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod this guy up .
While it 's an impressive demo , saying " He implemented Flash in JavaScript " is severely misleading... he implemented a subset of Flash 1.0 ( circa 1996 or so ) in JavaScript .
It 's a nice demo and I 'm guessing that it will be useful for some trivial things , but he has a long way to go to get to Flash 10.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod this guy up.
While it's an impressive demo, saying "He implemented Flash in JavaScript" is severely misleading... he implemented a subset of Flash 1.0 (circa 1996 or so) in JavaScript.
It's a nice demo and I'm guessing that it will be useful for some trivial things, but he has a long way to go to get to Flash 10...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30824458</id>
	<title>Re:OMGWTFPDF</title>
	<author>DiegoBravo</author>
	<datestamp>1263895380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; The real WTF is that you are trying to view a PDF in your browser in the first place.</p><p>For the same reason the browser allows for viewing JPG/GIF/etc?</p><p>The "scripting" added to PDF by Acrobat doesn't mean that PDF shouldn't be considered as just another graphic format.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; The real WTF is that you are trying to view a PDF in your browser in the first place.For the same reason the browser allows for viewing JPG/GIF/etc ? The " scripting " added to PDF by Acrobat does n't mean that PDF should n't be considered as just another graphic format .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; The real WTF is that you are trying to view a PDF in your browser in the first place.For the same reason the browser allows for viewing JPG/GIF/etc?The "scripting" added to PDF by Acrobat doesn't mean that PDF shouldn't be considered as just another graphic format.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821472</id>
	<title>Re:OMGWTFPDF</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1263926460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Great! Now, please, can someone write a PDF renderer in JS + HTML5 Canvas, so we can get rid of the browser killer plugin that is any PDF viewer out there?</p></div><p>Hopefully you've disabled embedded PDF viewing a long time ago, given the potential security issues..</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Great !
Now , please , can someone write a PDF renderer in JS + HTML5 Canvas , so we can get rid of the browser killer plugin that is any PDF viewer out there ? Hopefully you 've disabled embedded PDF viewing a long time ago , given the potential security issues. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great!
Now, please, can someone write a PDF renderer in JS + HTML5 Canvas, so we can get rid of the browser killer plugin that is any PDF viewer out there?Hopefully you've disabled embedded PDF viewing a long time ago, given the potential security issues..
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30823510</id>
	<title>Re:OMGWTFPDF</title>
	<author>Fahrvergnuugen</author>
	<datestamp>1263934140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Preview.app begs to differ.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Preview.app begs to differ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Preview.app begs to differ.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30825264</id>
	<title>Re:Before you get all excited...</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1263899040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you look at the changes to flash since the beginning, the format has't changed a lot over the years.  Once you get the base down for v1, the rest is mostly trivial changes like adding support for new image formats or more efficient use of various tags by passing in new/more vars.</p><p>Why gnash doesn't have support for the recent formats is beyond me, the newer formats change less and less.  Somewhere between 6-8, the only change was a single modification to an existing tag.  Most of the time its just things like 'this tags now support 32bit color instead of 24 or 15'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you look at the changes to flash since the beginning , the format has't changed a lot over the years .
Once you get the base down for v1 , the rest is mostly trivial changes like adding support for new image formats or more efficient use of various tags by passing in new/more vars.Why gnash does n't have support for the recent formats is beyond me , the newer formats change less and less .
Somewhere between 6-8 , the only change was a single modification to an existing tag .
Most of the time its just things like 'this tags now support 32bit color instead of 24 or 15'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you look at the changes to flash since the beginning, the format has't changed a lot over the years.
Once you get the base down for v1, the rest is mostly trivial changes like adding support for new image formats or more efficient use of various tags by passing in new/more vars.Why gnash doesn't have support for the recent formats is beyond me, the newer formats change less and less.
Somewhere between 6-8, the only change was a single modification to an existing tag.
Most of the time its just things like 'this tags now support 32bit color instead of 24 or 15'</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821552</id>
	<title>Re:This is great!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263926820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can't we ditch JavaScript and \_just\_ use Flash - a nice blockable scripting engine that isn't integrated so deeply with HTML that disabling it breaks scores of sites with otherwise useful information?<br>If I want maximum battery life I block scripting, period.  If I want fancy UI doo-dads and continuous browser-server communication I can enable Flash.  What I don't want is great gobs of busted HTML when I don't want to run any kind of scripting engine.  Just because you can doesn't mean you should, I'd like it if JavaScript became a "can't".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't we ditch JavaScript and \ _just \ _ use Flash - a nice blockable scripting engine that is n't integrated so deeply with HTML that disabling it breaks scores of sites with otherwise useful information ? If I want maximum battery life I block scripting , period .
If I want fancy UI doo-dads and continuous browser-server communication I can enable Flash .
What I do n't want is great gobs of busted HTML when I do n't want to run any kind of scripting engine .
Just because you can does n't mean you should , I 'd like it if JavaScript became a " ca n't " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't we ditch JavaScript and \_just\_ use Flash - a nice blockable scripting engine that isn't integrated so deeply with HTML that disabling it breaks scores of sites with otherwise useful information?If I want maximum battery life I block scripting, period.
If I want fancy UI doo-dads and continuous browser-server communication I can enable Flash.
What I don't want is great gobs of busted HTML when I don't want to run any kind of scripting engine.
Just because you can doesn't mean you should, I'd like it if JavaScript became a "can't".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821332</id>
	<title>Re:This is great!</title>
	<author>ubrgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1263925860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sure, in theory. But clients often see something they think is sexy on the Warner Bro.'s site for some new movie or a really cool sports game on ESPN and they want something similar. Then trying to get them to understand that their desire for something similar on their site requires using something despised by a large number of people (i.e. Flash). Then you're in a tight spot. Most times, my clients want the neat shinies they see, despite the fact that it actually goes against the first requirement they give me: We need to get X information out to the widest audience. That requirement at times becomes unreachable when the second bullet says, "And it needs to [do something that JQuery or whatever can't do.]<br> <br>
So yes, we can ditch it. As soon as the clients stop asking for it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , in theory .
But clients often see something they think is sexy on the Warner Bro .
's site for some new movie or a really cool sports game on ESPN and they want something similar .
Then trying to get them to understand that their desire for something similar on their site requires using something despised by a large number of people ( i.e .
Flash ) . Then you 're in a tight spot .
Most times , my clients want the neat shinies they see , despite the fact that it actually goes against the first requirement they give me : We need to get X information out to the widest audience .
That requirement at times becomes unreachable when the second bullet says , " And it needs to [ do something that JQuery or whatever ca n't do .
] So yes , we can ditch it .
As soon as the clients stop asking for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, in theory.
But clients often see something they think is sexy on the Warner Bro.
's site for some new movie or a really cool sports game on ESPN and they want something similar.
Then trying to get them to understand that their desire for something similar on their site requires using something despised by a large number of people (i.e.
Flash). Then you're in a tight spot.
Most times, my clients want the neat shinies they see, despite the fact that it actually goes against the first requirement they give me: We need to get X information out to the widest audience.
That requirement at times becomes unreachable when the second bullet says, "And it needs to [do something that JQuery or whatever can't do.
] 
So yes, we can ditch it.
As soon as the clients stop asking for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821346</id>
	<title>Re:This is great!</title>
	<author>Ltap</author>
	<datestamp>1263925980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To work harder, you have to already be working.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To work harder , you have to already be working .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To work harder, you have to already be working.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820762</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1533250_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1533250_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1533250_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30890776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1533250_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1533250_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30826654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1533250_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1533250_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1533250_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30822420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1533250_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30822876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1533250_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30824458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1533250_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30824038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1533250_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30890856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1533250_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30890880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1533250_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1533250_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30825264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1533250_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30822842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1533250_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1533250_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30843318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30822472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1533250_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1533250_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1533250_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1533250_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1533250_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30826410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1533250_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30822668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1533250_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30823424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1533250_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1533250_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30823260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1533250_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30825062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1533250_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1533250_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30823510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1533250_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30822824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1533250_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30827556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1533250_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30830458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1533250_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30823430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1533250_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1533250_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30823068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1533250_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1533250_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30890834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1533250_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30824674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1533250_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1533250_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30823212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1533250_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1533250_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30822530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1533250_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30824986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1533250_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30825858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1533250_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30829090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1533250_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30829004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1533250.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821122
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30823430
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1533250.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821130
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1533250.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821478
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1533250.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30890834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30822842
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1533250.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821038
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1533250.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30825264
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821866
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1533250.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30890880
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1533250.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820916
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30826654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30823212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30825858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821628
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30829090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30890776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821546
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1533250.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821874
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1533250.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821192
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30822668
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30827556
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30822472
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30843318
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30824458
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30823510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30822530
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30890856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821206
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30824038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821474
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30823068
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1533250.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820678
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821456
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821610
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820798
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30823424
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821336
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30822876
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821326
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30824986
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821552
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821332
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30829004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820762
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821434
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30826410
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30822824
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30825062
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30823260
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30822420
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30830458
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30820690
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821534
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30821204
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1533250.30824674
</commentlist>
</conversation>
