<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_21_1441210</id>
	<title>YouTube Offers Experimental Opt-In HTML5 Video</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1264088400000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>bonch writes <i>"YouTube is now offering the experimental option to <a href="http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2010/01/introducing-youtube-html5-supported.html">view all YouTube videos using HTML5</a> in H.264 format.  Supported browsers are Chrome, Safari, and the ChromeFrame plug-in for Internet Explorer.  Captions, ads, and annotations aren't yet supported but are coming soon."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>bonch writes " YouTube is now offering the experimental option to view all YouTube videos using HTML5 in H.264 format .
Supported browsers are Chrome , Safari , and the ChromeFrame plug-in for Internet Explorer .
Captions , ads , and annotations are n't yet supported but are coming soon .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bonch writes "YouTube is now offering the experimental option to view all YouTube videos using HTML5 in H.264 format.
Supported browsers are Chrome, Safari, and the ChromeFrame plug-in for Internet Explorer.
Captions, ads, and annotations aren't yet supported but are coming soon.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30850460</id>
	<title>Re:Should be a selling feature...</title>
	<author>OMGcAPSLOCK</author>
	<datestamp>1264065600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>You've got it the wrong way round. Yes, some of us are deaf, but most of us aren't. So if you need it, turn it on, not vice verse. I'm left handed, so I have to move the mouse to the other side of the keyboard every time I use someone else's computer or a public terminal. Do I have a problem with this? No. It's hardly a huge inconvenience (much like enabling annotations on a per-video basis isn't either), and the people that DO "suffer" this inconvenience represent only ~10\% of the population. The hard of hearing I'm confident make up an even smaller group. I'm all for making things accessible, but having things turned on by default just so that a tiny \% of the population don't have to omg click a button is political correctness gone insane. Besides, I don't know why you're getting so hot and bothered. As was clearly said already, this is only a limitation of the current beta. These features will undoubtedly be back to annoy the majority of us and appease yourself by the time it's fit for a full release.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've got it the wrong way round .
Yes , some of us are deaf , but most of us are n't .
So if you need it , turn it on , not vice verse .
I 'm left handed , so I have to move the mouse to the other side of the keyboard every time I use someone else 's computer or a public terminal .
Do I have a problem with this ?
No. It 's hardly a huge inconvenience ( much like enabling annotations on a per-video basis is n't either ) , and the people that DO " suffer " this inconvenience represent only ~ 10 \ % of the population .
The hard of hearing I 'm confident make up an even smaller group .
I 'm all for making things accessible , but having things turned on by default just so that a tiny \ % of the population do n't have to omg click a button is political correctness gone insane .
Besides , I do n't know why you 're getting so hot and bothered .
As was clearly said already , this is only a limitation of the current beta .
These features will undoubtedly be back to annoy the majority of us and appease yourself by the time it 's fit for a full release .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've got it the wrong way round.
Yes, some of us are deaf, but most of us aren't.
So if you need it, turn it on, not vice verse.
I'm left handed, so I have to move the mouse to the other side of the keyboard every time I use someone else's computer or a public terminal.
Do I have a problem with this?
No. It's hardly a huge inconvenience (much like enabling annotations on a per-video basis isn't either), and the people that DO "suffer" this inconvenience represent only ~10\% of the population.
The hard of hearing I'm confident make up an even smaller group.
I'm all for making things accessible, but having things turned on by default just so that a tiny \% of the population don't have to omg click a button is political correctness gone insane.
Besides, I don't know why you're getting so hot and bothered.
As was clearly said already, this is only a limitation of the current beta.
These features will undoubtedly be back to annoy the majority of us and appease yourself by the time it's fit for a full release.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30853282</id>
	<title>Re:Works great in my side by side comparison</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264074600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did you try playing those full screen?  I couldn't figure out how to do that.  They're all letterboxed**2 and not full-screen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you try playing those full screen ?
I could n't figure out how to do that .
They 're all letterboxed * * 2 and not full-screen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you try playing those full screen?
I couldn't figure out how to do that.
They're all letterboxed**2 and not full-screen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847412</id>
	<title>crashes chrome on linux HARD...</title>
	<author>deander2</author>
	<datestamp>1264096080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>crashes chrome on linux HARD...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>crashes chrome on linux HARD.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>crashes chrome on linux HARD...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30848672</id>
	<title>Re:Exterminate all Mudslums</title>
	<author>thomasdz</author>
	<datestamp>1264101180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>All religions are nuts.</p></div><p>my God is currently using His noodly appendages to fire a meatball of death upon you for this blasphemy</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>All religions are nuts.my God is currently using His noodly appendages to fire a meatball of death upon you for this blasphemy</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All religions are nuts.my God is currently using His noodly appendages to fire a meatball of death upon you for this blasphemy
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846704</id>
	<title>Native Safari playback on iPhone/iTouch?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264093140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, does this mean we'd be able to ditch Apple's (cached) YouTube app &amp; surf/watch YouTube directly in Safari on the iPhone/iTouch?<br>Does Safari for iPhoneOS 3.0 support HTML5?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , does this mean we 'd be able to ditch Apple 's ( cached ) YouTube app &amp; surf/watch YouTube directly in Safari on the iPhone/iTouch ? Does Safari for iPhoneOS 3.0 support HTML5 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, does this mean we'd be able to ditch Apple's (cached) YouTube app &amp; surf/watch YouTube directly in Safari on the iPhone/iTouch?Does Safari for iPhoneOS 3.0 support HTML5?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846532</id>
	<title>What a shame</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264092240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a shame that I won't be shown wonderful ads in the bottom of the video or be able to view fantastic poorly worded Post-It notes plastered throughout the frames. They should reconsider doing this until these issues fundamental to my enjoyment are resolved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a shame that I wo n't be shown wonderful ads in the bottom of the video or be able to view fantastic poorly worded Post-It notes plastered throughout the frames .
They should reconsider doing this until these issues fundamental to my enjoyment are resolved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a shame that I won't be shown wonderful ads in the bottom of the video or be able to view fantastic poorly worded Post-It notes plastered throughout the frames.
They should reconsider doing this until these issues fundamental to my enjoyment are resolved.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846546</id>
	<title>It's about time.</title>
	<author>schmidt349</author>
	<datestamp>1264092300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Flash has always been a Band-Aid on a gangrenous ulcer. If you aren't [un-]lucky enough to be running Windows it sucks up gobs of CPU time to decode even the teensiest thumbnail of video, which is incredibly annoying when you visit websites that are plastered in Flash ads. HTML5 has its problems, but it's worlds better than what always seemed to me like the Next Coming of Java.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Flash has always been a Band-Aid on a gangrenous ulcer .
If you are n't [ un- ] lucky enough to be running Windows it sucks up gobs of CPU time to decode even the teensiest thumbnail of video , which is incredibly annoying when you visit websites that are plastered in Flash ads .
HTML5 has its problems , but it 's worlds better than what always seemed to me like the Next Coming of Java .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flash has always been a Band-Aid on a gangrenous ulcer.
If you aren't [un-]lucky enough to be running Windows it sucks up gobs of CPU time to decode even the teensiest thumbnail of video, which is incredibly annoying when you visit websites that are plastered in Flash ads.
HTML5 has its problems, but it's worlds better than what always seemed to me like the Next Coming of Java.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846876</id>
	<title>Still no good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264093920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I go on digg.com/videos and see a Top 10 XYZ videos of 2009, there will still be 10 embedded flash players on that page and will bring my system to its knees.  This is only good for viewing youtube.com and not for people who embed stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I go on digg.com/videos and see a Top 10 XYZ videos of 2009 , there will still be 10 embedded flash players on that page and will bring my system to its knees .
This is only good for viewing youtube.com and not for people who embed stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I go on digg.com/videos and see a Top 10 XYZ videos of 2009, there will still be 10 embedded flash players on that page and will bring my system to its knees.
This is only good for viewing youtube.com and not for people who embed stuff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846644</id>
	<title>Re:Should be a selling feature...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264092780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find adverts the most annoying "feature", and it's not just because they are adverts.</p><p>If you're watching a video in full screen mode in Youtube, the advert flashes up. Move your mouse to kill the ad and the video stalls, but the audio carries on playing. Eventually after a good 10 to 15 seconds the video starts playing again in time with the audio. This irritating "feature" is on my Linux (official 64bit Flash) AND Windows (official 32it Flash) setup. Adobe haven't written decent code in years (I say that as a user of other Adobe stuff).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find adverts the most annoying " feature " , and it 's not just because they are adverts.If you 're watching a video in full screen mode in Youtube , the advert flashes up .
Move your mouse to kill the ad and the video stalls , but the audio carries on playing .
Eventually after a good 10 to 15 seconds the video starts playing again in time with the audio .
This irritating " feature " is on my Linux ( official 64bit Flash ) AND Windows ( official 32it Flash ) setup .
Adobe have n't written decent code in years ( I say that as a user of other Adobe stuff ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find adverts the most annoying "feature", and it's not just because they are adverts.If you're watching a video in full screen mode in Youtube, the advert flashes up.
Move your mouse to kill the ad and the video stalls, but the audio carries on playing.
Eventually after a good 10 to 15 seconds the video starts playing again in time with the audio.
This irritating "feature" is on my Linux (official 64bit Flash) AND Windows (official 32it Flash) setup.
Adobe haven't written decent code in years (I say that as a user of other Adobe stuff).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30855196</id>
	<title>What was that last part?</title>
	<author>Dr. Hellno</author>
	<datestamp>1264084800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Captions, ads, and annotations aren't yet supported</p></div><p>Sounds like paradise.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Captions , ads , and annotations are n't yet supportedSounds like paradise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Captions, ads, and annotations aren't yet supportedSounds like paradise.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30849720</id>
	<title>Missing fullscreen</title>
	<author>AlpineR</author>
	<datestamp>1264105860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fullscreen is not supported.</p><p>I've yet to encounter a caption, ad, or annotation that I'd miss. But a lack of fullscreen is a big loss.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fullscreen is not supported.I 've yet to encounter a caption , ad , or annotation that I 'd miss .
But a lack of fullscreen is a big loss .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fullscreen is not supported.I've yet to encounter a caption, ad, or annotation that I'd miss.
But a lack of fullscreen is a big loss.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30883766</id>
	<title>Re:Should be a selling feature...</title>
	<author>kobiashi maru</author>
	<datestamp>1264337580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>someone should create a site that converts video into ascii pics so that lynx users can watch videos</htmltext>
<tokenext>someone should create a site that converts video into ascii pics so that lynx users can watch videos</tokentext>
<sentencetext>someone should create a site that converts video into ascii pics so that lynx users can watch videos</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846634</id>
	<title>Re:Should be a selling feature...</title>
	<author>rumith</author>
	<datestamp>1264092720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.youtube.com/html5" title="youtube.com">Here</a> [youtube.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30856244</id>
	<title>Re:It's about time.</title>
	<author>Tamran</author>
	<datestamp>1264094220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Flash has always been a Band-Aid on a gangrenous ulcer. If you aren't [un-]lucky enough to be running Windows it sucks up gobs of CPU time to decode even the teensiest thumbnail of video, which is incredibly annoying when you visit websites that are plastered in Flash ads. HTML5 has its problems, but it's worlds better than what always seemed to me like the Next Coming of Java.</p></div><p>I've got it set up and most videos are HTML5, but some still want to play in flash, not sure why.  It seems to work OK for beta.  Going full screen on KDE (and back) seems to work just fine, however it doesn't seem to lower the cpu load on the videos (tried with and without HTML5).</p><p>I agree it's about time indeed<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>I'm excited to see where this goes.</p><p>Tamran</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Flash has always been a Band-Aid on a gangrenous ulcer .
If you are n't [ un- ] lucky enough to be running Windows it sucks up gobs of CPU time to decode even the teensiest thumbnail of video , which is incredibly annoying when you visit websites that are plastered in Flash ads .
HTML5 has its problems , but it 's worlds better than what always seemed to me like the Next Coming of Java.I 've got it set up and most videos are HTML5 , but some still want to play in flash , not sure why .
It seems to work OK for beta .
Going full screen on KDE ( and back ) seems to work just fine , however it does n't seem to lower the cpu load on the videos ( tried with and without HTML5 ) .I agree it 's about time indeed ...I 'm excited to see where this goes.Tamran</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flash has always been a Band-Aid on a gangrenous ulcer.
If you aren't [un-]lucky enough to be running Windows it sucks up gobs of CPU time to decode even the teensiest thumbnail of video, which is incredibly annoying when you visit websites that are plastered in Flash ads.
HTML5 has its problems, but it's worlds better than what always seemed to me like the Next Coming of Java.I've got it set up and most videos are HTML5, but some still want to play in flash, not sure why.
It seems to work OK for beta.
Going full screen on KDE (and back) seems to work just fine, however it doesn't seem to lower the cpu load on the videos (tried with and without HTML5).I agree it's about time indeed ...I'm excited to see where this goes.Tamran
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30851162</id>
	<title>Re:Should be a selling feature...</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1264067940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>.Some of us are deaf, and would much rather Youtube caption their videos. You don't HAVE to watch it. That's why it's called CLOSED CAPTIONING. Don't like it? TURN IT OFF.</i></p><p>YouTube has closed captioning?  I thought all they had were stupid popup captions that are manually added by video uploaders.  Google Voice has quite a bit more training to do before closet captioning is anything like automatic or pervasive on YouTube.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.Some of us are deaf , and would much rather Youtube caption their videos .
You do n't HAVE to watch it .
That 's why it 's called CLOSED CAPTIONING .
Do n't like it ?
TURN IT OFF.YouTube has closed captioning ?
I thought all they had were stupid popup captions that are manually added by video uploaders .
Google Voice has quite a bit more training to do before closet captioning is anything like automatic or pervasive on YouTube .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.Some of us are deaf, and would much rather Youtube caption their videos.
You don't HAVE to watch it.
That's why it's called CLOSED CAPTIONING.
Don't like it?
TURN IT OFF.YouTube has closed captioning?
I thought all they had were stupid popup captions that are manually added by video uploaders.
Google Voice has quite a bit more training to do before closet captioning is anything like automatic or pervasive on YouTube.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30848174</id>
	<title>Re:Should be a selling feature...</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1264099020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Huh.  Why is it that VLC can get away with distributing an h264 decoder but Mozilla can't?  Sorry for my ignorance here, but I never thought about it before.  Is it because they're not operating in the US?  Does it matter if they have mirrors located in the US?  Can Mozilla exploit the same loopholes?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Huh .
Why is it that VLC can get away with distributing an h264 decoder but Mozilla ca n't ?
Sorry for my ignorance here , but I never thought about it before .
Is it because they 're not operating in the US ?
Does it matter if they have mirrors located in the US ?
Can Mozilla exploit the same loopholes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Huh.
Why is it that VLC can get away with distributing an h264 decoder but Mozilla can't?
Sorry for my ignorance here, but I never thought about it before.
Is it because they're not operating in the US?
Does it matter if they have mirrors located in the US?
Can Mozilla exploit the same loopholes?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847248</id>
	<title>Re:Should be a selling feature...</title>
	<author>kangsterizer</author>
	<datestamp>1264095480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the videos that are using them are also not displaying</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the videos that are using them are also not displaying</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the videos that are using them are also not displaying</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847130</id>
	<title>Re:I wouldn't want a HTML5 only Web now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264095000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>HTML5 != Theora.</b> HTML5 is simply (will not that simple!) the mechanism or conduit if you like to the codec.  That's why lots of the discussion above is about lack of Firefox support as there is no out of the box support for H.264 in Firefox.  I take your point but you have defeated it yourself by comparing theora to H.264.</htmltext>
<tokenext>HTML5 ! = Theora .
HTML5 is simply ( will not that simple !
) the mechanism or conduit if you like to the codec .
That 's why lots of the discussion above is about lack of Firefox support as there is no out of the box support for H.264 in Firefox .
I take your point but you have defeated it yourself by comparing theora to H.264 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HTML5 != Theora.
HTML5 is simply (will not that simple!
) the mechanism or conduit if you like to the codec.
That's why lots of the discussion above is about lack of Firefox support as there is no out of the box support for H.264 in Firefox.
I take your point but you have defeated it yourself by comparing theora to H.264.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846838</id>
	<title>I wouldn't want a HTML5 only Web now</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1264093800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Flash is already on my Symbian phone and various other platforms. Will HTML5 advocates spare time to non cool (!) platforms to code a codec/driver along with testing thousands of different setups to show their Theora video which is clearly missing 2-3 generations in video codec development compared to H264?</p><p>Google, a multi billion giant can roll out a good "quicktime interface" for youtube, can even add extra features to it but it doesn't really mean HTML5 with codecs which nobody can agree will crush Flash.</p><p>BTW; if you are concerned about Flash CPU usage, use 10.1 beta which has GPU decoding under Windows. I have seen it using almost nothing while playing 1080P video over youtube.</p><p>I keep testing Theora and sorry to say, I don't think it will take off unless Google does some amazing thing and make the VP7+ codecs open, free as in freedom. Now that would really change entire media universe. Hopefully they purchased that codec company for that reason.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Flash is already on my Symbian phone and various other platforms .
Will HTML5 advocates spare time to non cool ( !
) platforms to code a codec/driver along with testing thousands of different setups to show their Theora video which is clearly missing 2-3 generations in video codec development compared to H264 ? Google , a multi billion giant can roll out a good " quicktime interface " for youtube , can even add extra features to it but it does n't really mean HTML5 with codecs which nobody can agree will crush Flash.BTW ; if you are concerned about Flash CPU usage , use 10.1 beta which has GPU decoding under Windows .
I have seen it using almost nothing while playing 1080P video over youtube.I keep testing Theora and sorry to say , I do n't think it will take off unless Google does some amazing thing and make the VP7 + codecs open , free as in freedom .
Now that would really change entire media universe .
Hopefully they purchased that codec company for that reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flash is already on my Symbian phone and various other platforms.
Will HTML5 advocates spare time to non cool (!
) platforms to code a codec/driver along with testing thousands of different setups to show their Theora video which is clearly missing 2-3 generations in video codec development compared to H264?Google, a multi billion giant can roll out a good "quicktime interface" for youtube, can even add extra features to it but it doesn't really mean HTML5 with codecs which nobody can agree will crush Flash.BTW; if you are concerned about Flash CPU usage, use 10.1 beta which has GPU decoding under Windows.
I have seen it using almost nothing while playing 1080P video over youtube.I keep testing Theora and sorry to say, I don't think it will take off unless Google does some amazing thing and make the VP7+ codecs open, free as in freedom.
Now that would really change entire media universe.
Hopefully they purchased that codec company for that reason.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847752</id>
	<title>Re:Should be a selling feature...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264097280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Firefox doesn't care that Flash can play H.264 videos then they shouldn't care that VLC can play H.264 videos.</p><p>Actually, there's two differences. First of all, Firefox doesn't come with Flash; Flash is a plugin that's installed by the user. If VLC offered a plugin that was installed by the user, that'd be a comparable situation, but Firefox embedding VLC, actively and on their own, is not.</p><p>Also, did it never occur to you that Adobe might actually HAVE a license allowing them to implement H.264 video playback in Flash?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Firefox does n't care that Flash can play H.264 videos then they should n't care that VLC can play H.264 videos.Actually , there 's two differences .
First of all , Firefox does n't come with Flash ; Flash is a plugin that 's installed by the user .
If VLC offered a plugin that was installed by the user , that 'd be a comparable situation , but Firefox embedding VLC , actively and on their own , is not.Also , did it never occur to you that Adobe might actually HAVE a license allowing them to implement H.264 video playback in Flash ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Firefox doesn't care that Flash can play H.264 videos then they shouldn't care that VLC can play H.264 videos.Actually, there's two differences.
First of all, Firefox doesn't come with Flash; Flash is a plugin that's installed by the user.
If VLC offered a plugin that was installed by the user, that'd be a comparable situation, but Firefox embedding VLC, actively and on their own, is not.Also, did it never occur to you that Adobe might actually HAVE a license allowing them to implement H.264 video playback in Flash?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30848506</id>
	<title>Re:Chrome and Safari?</title>
	<author>pclminion</author>
	<datestamp>1264100460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're surprised that a Google-owned megasite adds support for a Google-made browser off the starting line? What else surprises you?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're surprised that a Google-owned megasite adds support for a Google-made browser off the starting line ?
What else surprises you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're surprised that a Google-owned megasite adds support for a Google-made browser off the starting line?
What else surprises you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846520</id>
	<title>What about firefox (ogg video)?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264092180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would like to see videos on a open format and with firefox</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would like to see videos on a open format and with firefox</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would like to see videos on a open format and with firefox</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30848440</id>
	<title>Re:I wouldn't want a HTML5 only Web now</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1264100220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> to show their Theora video which is clearly missing 2-3 generations in video codec development compared to H264?...Google, a multi billion giant can roll out a good "quicktime interface" for youtube...but it doesn't really mean HTML5 with codecs which nobody can agree will crush Flash... keep testing Theora and sorry to say...</p></div><p>Sorry for the whacky quoting, but I'm just trying to highlight that a few parts of your post seem to imply that Google should be weary about pushing strange formats, but that's not really what's going on anyway.  Youtube basically uses h264 encoding for their video right now, and then it plays those videos using Flash as its video player.  What the move to HTML does is that is gives you the same h264 encoding, but leaves it up to your browser how to play it.  If your browser has a decoder built into it, it can decode the video itself.  The browser can also pass the video through to your operating system's default decoder.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>to show their Theora video which is clearly missing 2-3 generations in video codec development compared to H264 ? ...Google , a multi billion giant can roll out a good " quicktime interface " for youtube...but it does n't really mean HTML5 with codecs which nobody can agree will crush Flash... keep testing Theora and sorry to say...Sorry for the whacky quoting , but I 'm just trying to highlight that a few parts of your post seem to imply that Google should be weary about pushing strange formats , but that 's not really what 's going on anyway .
Youtube basically uses h264 encoding for their video right now , and then it plays those videos using Flash as its video player .
What the move to HTML does is that is gives you the same h264 encoding , but leaves it up to your browser how to play it .
If your browser has a decoder built into it , it can decode the video itself .
The browser can also pass the video through to your operating system 's default decoder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> to show their Theora video which is clearly missing 2-3 generations in video codec development compared to H264?...Google, a multi billion giant can roll out a good "quicktime interface" for youtube...but it doesn't really mean HTML5 with codecs which nobody can agree will crush Flash... keep testing Theora and sorry to say...Sorry for the whacky quoting, but I'm just trying to highlight that a few parts of your post seem to imply that Google should be weary about pushing strange formats, but that's not really what's going on anyway.
Youtube basically uses h264 encoding for their video right now, and then it plays those videos using Flash as its video player.
What the move to HTML does is that is gives you the same h264 encoding, but leaves it up to your browser how to play it.
If your browser has a decoder built into it, it can decode the video itself.
The browser can also pass the video through to your operating system's default decoder.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846990</id>
	<title>No. Firefox is Ogg/Theora + Vorbis only</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264094460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No. Firefox video tag is free formats only.  Tools like mplayer are a cesspool of security holes&mdash; they aren't designed to be exposed to hostile content. The video tag requires pretty deep browser integration,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... only apple supports using the native infrastructure and even they disable 99\% of their features for security reasons (e.g. try a mov with hyperlinks in it).</p><p>Mozilla is committed to an open web, and you can't get their with a wink and a nod and asking users to install codec software which is illegal everywhere in the developed world. (Including europe. I'm so tired of seeing people characterized codec licensing as a US thing&mdash; there are more European patents on codecs than US patents)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
Firefox video tag is free formats only .
Tools like mplayer are a cesspool of security holes    they are n't designed to be exposed to hostile content .
The video tag requires pretty deep browser integration , ... only apple supports using the native infrastructure and even they disable 99 \ % of their features for security reasons ( e.g .
try a mov with hyperlinks in it ) .Mozilla is committed to an open web , and you ca n't get their with a wink and a nod and asking users to install codec software which is illegal everywhere in the developed world .
( Including europe .
I 'm so tired of seeing people characterized codec licensing as a US thing    there are more European patents on codecs than US patents )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
Firefox video tag is free formats only.
Tools like mplayer are a cesspool of security holes— they aren't designed to be exposed to hostile content.
The video tag requires pretty deep browser integration, ... only apple supports using the native infrastructure and even they disable 99\% of their features for security reasons (e.g.
try a mov with hyperlinks in it).Mozilla is committed to an open web, and you can't get their with a wink and a nod and asking users to install codec software which is illegal everywhere in the developed world.
(Including europe.
I'm so tired of seeing people characterized codec licensing as a US thing— there are more European patents on codecs than US patents)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847054</id>
	<title>Works great in my side by side comparison</title>
	<author>jschen</author>
	<datestamp>1264094700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Using Safari/OSX (latest version of each) on a first generation Core2 Duo laptop (2.33 GHz), I tried watching the same video (containing no ads, annotations, etc) at the same size using both the default Flash option and the beta HTML5 option. CPU use was a steady 33-34\% during playback in Flash. A steady 12-13\% in HTML5. Seems like a winner to me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Using Safari/OSX ( latest version of each ) on a first generation Core2 Duo laptop ( 2.33 GHz ) , I tried watching the same video ( containing no ads , annotations , etc ) at the same size using both the default Flash option and the beta HTML5 option .
CPU use was a steady 33-34 \ % during playback in Flash .
A steady 12-13 \ % in HTML5 .
Seems like a winner to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Using Safari/OSX (latest version of each) on a first generation Core2 Duo laptop (2.33 GHz), I tried watching the same video (containing no ads, annotations, etc) at the same size using both the default Flash option and the beta HTML5 option.
CPU use was a steady 33-34\% during playback in Flash.
A steady 12-13\% in HTML5.
Seems like a winner to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847090</id>
	<title>Re:Should be a selling feature...</title>
	<author>Yvan256</author>
	<datestamp>1264094820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And if they don't want to mess around with the licensing terms, just embed VLC player and be done with it. Firefox not supporting H.264 helps Flash Video to survive.</p><p>If Firefox doesn't care that Flash can play H.264 videos then they shouldn't care that VLC can play H.264 videos.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And if they do n't want to mess around with the licensing terms , just embed VLC player and be done with it .
Firefox not supporting H.264 helps Flash Video to survive.If Firefox does n't care that Flash can play H.264 videos then they should n't care that VLC can play H.264 videos .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And if they don't want to mess around with the licensing terms, just embed VLC player and be done with it.
Firefox not supporting H.264 helps Flash Video to survive.If Firefox doesn't care that Flash can play H.264 videos then they shouldn't care that VLC can play H.264 videos.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846604</id>
	<title>This is fantastic news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264092600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been using ClickToFlash with safari for a long time now, which suppresses the flash in youtube videos and plays them in H.264 (when possible) directly. This is a tremendous CPU boon on a netbook - I can't play flash, HD or otherwise, fullscreen, but quicktime plays H.264 just fine. Flash is a horrible monster, and with all the vulnerabilities and instability that it brings along with it, the faster youtube moves away from it, the better.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been using ClickToFlash with safari for a long time now , which suppresses the flash in youtube videos and plays them in H.264 ( when possible ) directly .
This is a tremendous CPU boon on a netbook - I ca n't play flash , HD or otherwise , fullscreen , but quicktime plays H.264 just fine .
Flash is a horrible monster , and with all the vulnerabilities and instability that it brings along with it , the faster youtube moves away from it , the better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been using ClickToFlash with safari for a long time now, which suppresses the flash in youtube videos and plays them in H.264 (when possible) directly.
This is a tremendous CPU boon on a netbook - I can't play flash, HD or otherwise, fullscreen, but quicktime plays H.264 just fine.
Flash is a horrible monster, and with all the vulnerabilities and instability that it brings along with it, the faster youtube moves away from it, the better.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846786</id>
	<title>Re:Hmm</title>
	<author>Mornedhel</author>
	<datestamp>1264093500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even with h264 support (through gecko-mediaplayer), Youtube tells me "Your browser does not currently recognize any of the video formats available.".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even with h264 support ( through gecko-mediaplayer ) , Youtube tells me " Your browser does not currently recognize any of the video formats available .
" .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even with h264 support (through gecko-mediaplayer), Youtube tells me "Your browser does not currently recognize any of the video formats available.
".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30848276</id>
	<title>Re:Should be a selling feature...</title>
	<author>iampiti</author>
	<datestamp>1264099440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They can't just embed VLC. VLC doesn't play any royalties for H264, hence Firefox would be open to lots of legal nightmares</htmltext>
<tokenext>They ca n't just embed VLC .
VLC does n't play any royalties for H264 , hence Firefox would be open to lots of legal nightmares</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They can't just embed VLC.
VLC doesn't play any royalties for H264, hence Firefox would be open to lots of legal nightmares</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847030</id>
	<title>Re:Well, that kind of sucks</title>
	<author>diegocg</author>
	<datestamp>1264094640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>H.264 is the codec used in youtube when you play videos with the flash player. This HTML5 video viewer just reuses theses videos, only the html client code changes. Using other codec means reencoding all their videos in a different video format, which must not be easy. Specially when the alternatives are worse (theora) or not ready (dirac).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>H.264 is the codec used in youtube when you play videos with the flash player .
This HTML5 video viewer just reuses theses videos , only the html client code changes .
Using other codec means reencoding all their videos in a different video format , which must not be easy .
Specially when the alternatives are worse ( theora ) or not ready ( dirac ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>H.264 is the codec used in youtube when you play videos with the flash player.
This HTML5 video viewer just reuses theses videos, only the html client code changes.
Using other codec means reencoding all their videos in a different video format, which must not be easy.
Specially when the alternatives are worse (theora) or not ready (dirac).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30848558</id>
	<title>Re:No. Firefox is Ogg/Theora + Vorbis only</title>
	<author>Randle\_Revar</author>
	<datestamp>1264100640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Epiphany, at least, uses GStreamer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Epiphany , at least , uses GStreamer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Epiphany, at least, uses GStreamer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846618</id>
	<title>Re:Should be a selling feature...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264092660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Some of us are deaf, and would much rather Youtube caption their videos. You don't HAVE to watch it. That's why it's called CLOSED CAPTIONING.

Don't like it? TURN IT OFF.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some of us are deaf , and would much rather Youtube caption their videos .
You do n't HAVE to watch it .
That 's why it 's called CLOSED CAPTIONING .
Do n't like it ?
TURN IT OFF .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some of us are deaf, and would much rather Youtube caption their videos.
You don't HAVE to watch it.
That's why it's called CLOSED CAPTIONING.
Don't like it?
TURN IT OFF.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847044</id>
	<title>Re:Should be a selling feature...</title>
	<author>bhawbaker</author>
	<datestamp>1264094640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>better hope you'll never become deaf someday</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>better hope you 'll never become deaf someday</tokentext>
<sentencetext>better hope you'll never become deaf someday</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846516</id>
	<title>Should be a selling feature...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264092180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Captions, ads, and annotations aren't yet supported but are coming soon.</i> <p>
The three most annoying features of YouTube won't display?  Where do I sign?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Captions , ads , and annotations are n't yet supported but are coming soon .
The three most annoying features of YouTube wo n't display ?
Where do I sign ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Captions, ads, and annotations aren't yet supported but are coming soon.
The three most annoying features of YouTube won't display?
Where do I sign?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30848482</id>
	<title>Re:I wouldn't want a HTML5 only Web now</title>
	<author>Hal\_Porter</author>
	<datestamp>1264100340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>BTW; if you are concerned about Flash CPU usage, use 10.1 beta which has GPU decoding under Windows. I have seen it using almost nothing while playing 1080P video over youtube.</p></div><p>Oh wow. I've got an Asus 1005HA netbook. I.e. an Intel 945 graphics chip which I'm pretty sure doesn't have much in the way of video acceleration for H264 - I think it supports iDCTs in hardware but it's not on the list of supported chipsets for hardware acceleration for flash 10.1. Now it uses ~90\% CPU but plays smoothly. If you right click on the video there's an Video Info window and you can see it drops a few frames. Still 720p video actually works pretty well - before it was choppy as heck and/or would lose audio synchronisation and now it's actually quite usable.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>BTW ; if you are concerned about Flash CPU usage , use 10.1 beta which has GPU decoding under Windows .
I have seen it using almost nothing while playing 1080P video over youtube.Oh wow .
I 've got an Asus 1005HA netbook .
I.e. an Intel 945 graphics chip which I 'm pretty sure does n't have much in the way of video acceleration for H264 - I think it supports iDCTs in hardware but it 's not on the list of supported chipsets for hardware acceleration for flash 10.1 .
Now it uses ~ 90 \ % CPU but plays smoothly .
If you right click on the video there 's an Video Info window and you can see it drops a few frames .
Still 720p video actually works pretty well - before it was choppy as heck and/or would lose audio synchronisation and now it 's actually quite usable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BTW; if you are concerned about Flash CPU usage, use 10.1 beta which has GPU decoding under Windows.
I have seen it using almost nothing while playing 1080P video over youtube.Oh wow.
I've got an Asus 1005HA netbook.
I.e. an Intel 945 graphics chip which I'm pretty sure doesn't have much in the way of video acceleration for H264 - I think it supports iDCTs in hardware but it's not on the list of supported chipsets for hardware acceleration for flash 10.1.
Now it uses ~90\% CPU but plays smoothly.
If you right click on the video there's an Video Info window and you can see it drops a few frames.
Still 720p video actually works pretty well - before it was choppy as heck and/or would lose audio synchronisation and now it's actually quite usable.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847106</id>
	<title>Re:Should be a selling feature...</title>
	<author>gad\_zuki!</author>
	<datestamp>1264094940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;The three most annoying features of YouTube won't display? Where do I sign?</p><p>Im sure the HTML video tag will be wrapped within a flash box to produce ads and stupid annotations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; The three most annoying features of YouTube wo n't display ?
Where do I sign ? Im sure the HTML video tag will be wrapped within a flash box to produce ads and stupid annotations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;The three most annoying features of YouTube won't display?
Where do I sign?Im sure the HTML video tag will be wrapped within a flash box to produce ads and stupid annotations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30856390</id>
	<title>Re:I wouldn't want a HTML5 only Web now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264095720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everyone else puts their sig in the sig field, not sure why you put your sig in the body? Fix that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone else puts their sig in the sig field , not sure why you put your sig in the body ?
Fix that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone else puts their sig in the sig field, not sure why you put your sig in the body?
Fix that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846700</id>
	<title>Re:Should be a selling feature...</title>
	<author>Qwerpafw</author>
	<datestamp>1264093080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To clarify, from the site<blockquote><div><p>Additional Restrictions (we are working on these!)
</p></div><div><p>*Videos with ads are not supported (they will play in the Flash player)</p></div> </blockquote><p>

Ads will still play, and<b> will in fact inflict flash on you</b>. There's really no good way right now to force people to watch advertisements if the whole video is H.264 (since you could just scrub past the ads), so I can understand this, even if I don't like it.<br> <br>
What they'll probably eventually do is break the video up into a bunch of shorter videos, with ads in between. Then they can load each part in sequence, and enforce a timer on the ad portion so even if you scrub through the ad you still have to wait for the timer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To clarify , from the siteAdditional Restrictions ( we are working on these !
) * Videos with ads are not supported ( they will play in the Flash player ) Ads will still play , and will in fact inflict flash on you .
There 's really no good way right now to force people to watch advertisements if the whole video is H.264 ( since you could just scrub past the ads ) , so I can understand this , even if I do n't like it .
What they 'll probably eventually do is break the video up into a bunch of shorter videos , with ads in between .
Then they can load each part in sequence , and enforce a timer on the ad portion so even if you scrub through the ad you still have to wait for the timer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To clarify, from the siteAdditional Restrictions (we are working on these!
)
*Videos with ads are not supported (they will play in the Flash player) 

Ads will still play, and will in fact inflict flash on you.
There's really no good way right now to force people to watch advertisements if the whole video is H.264 (since you could just scrub past the ads), so I can understand this, even if I don't like it.
What they'll probably eventually do is break the video up into a bunch of shorter videos, with ads in between.
Then they can load each part in sequence, and enforce a timer on the ad portion so even if you scrub through the ad you still have to wait for the timer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30849028</id>
	<title>So, how is this better than Flash?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264102920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I remember reading the request was for <a href="http://productideas.appspot.com/#11/e=3d60a&amp;t=agxwcm9kdWN0aWRlYXNyDwsSCERvcnlVc2VyGI4aDA" title="appspot.com" rel="nofollow">"Support HTML5 open web video with open formats"</a> [appspot.com] not just "Support HTML5"<br> <br>

So now we have HTML5 with a closed video format which Firefox and other free browsers are never likely to support.<br> <br>

We've already seen comments on how Adobe is beginning to use the GPU for video decoding. So, remind me, how this is any better than the existing situation with Flash?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember reading the request was for " Support HTML5 open web video with open formats " [ appspot.com ] not just " Support HTML5 " So now we have HTML5 with a closed video format which Firefox and other free browsers are never likely to support .
We 've already seen comments on how Adobe is beginning to use the GPU for video decoding .
So , remind me , how this is any better than the existing situation with Flash ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember reading the request was for "Support HTML5 open web video with open formats" [appspot.com] not just "Support HTML5" 

So now we have HTML5 with a closed video format which Firefox and other free browsers are never likely to support.
We've already seen comments on how Adobe is beginning to use the GPU for video decoding.
So, remind me, how this is any better than the existing situation with Flash?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30862904</id>
	<title>There's a huge elephant in the room....</title>
	<author>OMGcAPSLOCK</author>
	<datestamp>1264151340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>....and that is that HTML5 video has apparently done nothing to address the CPU usage issues I was having with flash video. On OS X 10.5.8 HTML5 video playback on Youtube is *at least* as much of a resource hog as Flash. I was seeing my quad core system routinely hitting 100\%+ CPU usage during playback of videos, where I'd usually expect around 85-90\% with Flash. I was really holding out for this being the answer to my perpetual Youtube headaches. Good job I didn't hold my breath.</htmltext>
<tokenext>....and that is that HTML5 video has apparently done nothing to address the CPU usage issues I was having with flash video .
On OS X 10.5.8 HTML5 video playback on Youtube is * at least * as much of a resource hog as Flash .
I was seeing my quad core system routinely hitting 100 \ % + CPU usage during playback of videos , where I 'd usually expect around 85-90 \ % with Flash .
I was really holding out for this being the answer to my perpetual Youtube headaches .
Good job I did n't hold my breath .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>....and that is that HTML5 video has apparently done nothing to address the CPU usage issues I was having with flash video.
On OS X 10.5.8 HTML5 video playback on Youtube is *at least* as much of a resource hog as Flash.
I was seeing my quad core system routinely hitting 100\%+ CPU usage during playback of videos, where I'd usually expect around 85-90\% with Flash.
I was really holding out for this being the answer to my perpetual Youtube headaches.
Good job I didn't hold my breath.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30850640</id>
	<title>Re:Exterminate all Mudslums</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264066320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>their profit</p></div><p>ooohhh kay!  not surprised that idiots don't know how to spell.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>their profitooohhh kay !
not surprised that idiots do n't know how to spell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>their profitooohhh kay!
not surprised that idiots don't know how to spell.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30848626</id>
	<title>Re:It's about time.</title>
	<author>Randle\_Revar</author>
	<datestamp>1264101060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you don't need flashblock, noscript blocks flash just fine. Just tell it to block flash and to apply restrictions to trusted sites as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you do n't need flashblock , noscript blocks flash just fine .
Just tell it to block flash and to apply restrictions to trusted sites as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you don't need flashblock, noscript blocks flash just fine.
Just tell it to block flash and to apply restrictions to trusted sites as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847470</id>
	<title>Re:Still no good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264096320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well aren't you detective obvious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well are n't you detective obvious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well aren't you detective obvious.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846812</id>
	<title>Chromium on Linux</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264093680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1386944" title="ubuntuforums.org" rel="nofollow">Unfortunately, I haven't been able to get this to work in Chromium for Linux.</a> [ubuntuforums.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , I have n't been able to get this to work in Chromium for Linux .
[ ubuntuforums.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, I haven't been able to get this to work in Chromium for Linux.
[ubuntuforums.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847020</id>
	<title>Re:Exterminate all Mudslums</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264094520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All religions are nuts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All religions are nuts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All religions are nuts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847066</id>
	<title>Re:Well, that kind of sucks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264094760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>they suck ass so they weren't used.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they suck ass so they were n't used .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they suck ass so they weren't used.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846896</id>
	<title>Hmm..</title>
	<author>user53</author>
	<datestamp>1264094040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Should be a <a href="http://trafficpullingtips.com/" title="trafficpullingtips.com" rel="nofollow">good</a> [trafficpullingtips.com] news I guess...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Should be a good [ trafficpullingtips.com ] news I guess.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Should be a good [trafficpullingtips.com] news I guess...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847268</id>
	<title>Re:Hmm</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1264095540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Works fine in the Opera 10.5 pre-release, the latest Safari, and of course the latest Chrome by definition.<br>
<br>
Mozilla is in the same boat as Internet Explorer and I for one predict that FireFox development is going to get slower and slower and slower.. still not sure that they will do a full rewrite like last time.. thats still up in the air.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Works fine in the Opera 10.5 pre-release , the latest Safari , and of course the latest Chrome by definition .
Mozilla is in the same boat as Internet Explorer and I for one predict that FireFox development is going to get slower and slower and slower.. still not sure that they will do a full rewrite like last time.. thats still up in the air .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Works fine in the Opera 10.5 pre-release, the latest Safari, and of course the latest Chrome by definition.
Mozilla is in the same boat as Internet Explorer and I for one predict that FireFox development is going to get slower and slower and slower.. still not sure that they will do a full rewrite like last time.. thats still up in the air.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847548</id>
	<title>Re:Should be a selling feature...</title>
	<author>BZ</author>
	<datestamp>1264096560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not just a matter of money.  It's a matter of Firefox not being able to be redistributed by downstream distributors unless they \_also\_ buy the license.  As in, it would effectively stop being free software in the "can modify and redistribute" sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not just a matter of money .
It 's a matter of Firefox not being able to be redistributed by downstream distributors unless they \ _also \ _ buy the license .
As in , it would effectively stop being free software in the " can modify and redistribute " sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not just a matter of money.
It's a matter of Firefox not being able to be redistributed by downstream distributors unless they \_also\_ buy the license.
As in, it would effectively stop being free software in the "can modify and redistribute" sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846504</id>
	<title>Exterminate all Mudslums</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264092120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just exterminate all the Mudslums from the world. Kinda hard to force your woman to wear a burka that covers everything but her eyes if your in a 20 foot deep crater.</p><p>Women in Saudia Arabia aren't allowed to drive. Is it really such a stretch to say that Saudi Arabia shouldn't be allowed to exist?</p><p>Let's be real here. The only reason we put up with Muslims' bullshit is that they happen to be sitting on a bunch of oil. What you may not realize is that we can wipe out the Muslims and still take their oil. We're about 25\% finished doing this in Iraq.</p><p>Seriously, if a religion is so nuts that they can't handle their profit being pictured wearing a suicide bomb, but are more than happy to slap a suicide bomb on to a fellow Muslim and march him in to a cafe full of civilians, it doesn't deserve to exist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just exterminate all the Mudslums from the world .
Kinda hard to force your woman to wear a burka that covers everything but her eyes if your in a 20 foot deep crater.Women in Saudia Arabia are n't allowed to drive .
Is it really such a stretch to say that Saudi Arabia should n't be allowed to exist ? Let 's be real here .
The only reason we put up with Muslims ' bullshit is that they happen to be sitting on a bunch of oil .
What you may not realize is that we can wipe out the Muslims and still take their oil .
We 're about 25 \ % finished doing this in Iraq.Seriously , if a religion is so nuts that they ca n't handle their profit being pictured wearing a suicide bomb , but are more than happy to slap a suicide bomb on to a fellow Muslim and march him in to a cafe full of civilians , it does n't deserve to exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just exterminate all the Mudslums from the world.
Kinda hard to force your woman to wear a burka that covers everything but her eyes if your in a 20 foot deep crater.Women in Saudia Arabia aren't allowed to drive.
Is it really such a stretch to say that Saudi Arabia shouldn't be allowed to exist?Let's be real here.
The only reason we put up with Muslims' bullshit is that they happen to be sitting on a bunch of oil.
What you may not realize is that we can wipe out the Muslims and still take their oil.
We're about 25\% finished doing this in Iraq.Seriously, if a religion is so nuts that they can't handle their profit being pictured wearing a suicide bomb, but are more than happy to slap a suicide bomb on to a fellow Muslim and march him in to a cafe full of civilians, it doesn't deserve to exist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30848470</id>
	<title>Re:Should be a selling feature...</title>
	<author>mblase</author>
	<datestamp>1264100280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Some of us are deaf, and would much rather Youtube caption their videos. You don't HAVE to watch it. That's why it's called CLOSED CAPTIONING. Don't like it? TURN IT OFF.</i></p><p>Just because you're hard-of-hearing doesn't mean you have to shout all the time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some of us are deaf , and would much rather Youtube caption their videos .
You do n't HAVE to watch it .
That 's why it 's called CLOSED CAPTIONING .
Do n't like it ?
TURN IT OFF.Just because you 're hard-of-hearing does n't mean you have to shout all the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some of us are deaf, and would much rather Youtube caption their videos.
You don't HAVE to watch it.
That's why it's called CLOSED CAPTIONING.
Don't like it?
TURN IT OFF.Just because you're hard-of-hearing doesn't mean you have to shout all the time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847712</id>
	<title>Re:I wouldn't want a HTML5 only Web now</title>
	<author>YouDoNotWantToKnow</author>
	<datestamp>1264097100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your Symbian phone has been around for 5+ years. Android and iPhone have been out for almost 2 and Flash still does not work there. This, aside from the obvious software freedom versus proprietary lock-in should be the main reason for switching. I want to play video on my G1 and it is Adobe's fault I can't.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your Symbian phone has been around for 5 + years .
Android and iPhone have been out for almost 2 and Flash still does not work there .
This , aside from the obvious software freedom versus proprietary lock-in should be the main reason for switching .
I want to play video on my G1 and it is Adobe 's fault I ca n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your Symbian phone has been around for 5+ years.
Android and iPhone have been out for almost 2 and Flash still does not work there.
This, aside from the obvious software freedom versus proprietary lock-in should be the main reason for switching.
I want to play video on my G1 and it is Adobe's fault I can't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846676</id>
	<title>Re:Hmm</title>
	<author>0100010001010011</author>
	<datestamp>1264092960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This could be good. If only you could use it on Porn. Damn it, RedTube and YouPorn need to get with the times.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This could be good .
If only you could use it on Porn .
Damn it , RedTube and YouPorn need to get with the times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This could be good.
If only you could use it on Porn.
Damn it, RedTube and YouPorn need to get with the times.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847338</id>
	<title>Re:I wouldn't want a HTML5 only Web now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264095780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>BTW; if you are concerned about Flash CPU usage, use 10.1 beta which has GPU decoding under Windows. I have seen it using almost nothing while playing 1080P video over youtube.</p></div><p>That doesn't help me on my home OS X machine or my Linux workstation at work.</p><p>Also, will Flash exploits also be GPU accelerated?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>BTW ; if you are concerned about Flash CPU usage , use 10.1 beta which has GPU decoding under Windows .
I have seen it using almost nothing while playing 1080P video over youtube.That does n't help me on my home OS X machine or my Linux workstation at work.Also , will Flash exploits also be GPU accelerated ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BTW; if you are concerned about Flash CPU usage, use 10.1 beta which has GPU decoding under Windows.
I have seen it using almost nothing while playing 1080P video over youtube.That doesn't help me on my home OS X machine or my Linux workstation at work.Also, will Flash exploits also be GPU accelerated?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846792</id>
	<title>Re:It's about time.</title>
	<author>bradbury</author>
	<datestamp>1264093500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed.  I've got NoScript running in most of my Firefox sessions so don't run into Flash problems that often (as Javascript is often used to start Flash) but in working a little with chrome and the FlashBlock extension that seems to be an even better approach.</p><p>Now the question will be whether there will be a way to disable the nasty HTML5 video options when advertisers start to abuse those as well.  Video should always be "at the user's discretion", precisely because there are probably hundreds of millions of PC's scattered around the world which simply don't have the hardware to be able to show video without it "killing the system" (even running a Pentium IV, I have problems with video on any VT / hardware combination that didn't happen to get the Xorg -&gt; Kernel DRI interface (and that is only one of my VTs)).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
I 've got NoScript running in most of my Firefox sessions so do n't run into Flash problems that often ( as Javascript is often used to start Flash ) but in working a little with chrome and the FlashBlock extension that seems to be an even better approach.Now the question will be whether there will be a way to disable the nasty HTML5 video options when advertisers start to abuse those as well .
Video should always be " at the user 's discretion " , precisely because there are probably hundreds of millions of PC 's scattered around the world which simply do n't have the hardware to be able to show video without it " killing the system " ( even running a Pentium IV , I have problems with video on any VT / hardware combination that did n't happen to get the Xorg - &gt; Kernel DRI interface ( and that is only one of my VTs ) ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
I've got NoScript running in most of my Firefox sessions so don't run into Flash problems that often (as Javascript is often used to start Flash) but in working a little with chrome and the FlashBlock extension that seems to be an even better approach.Now the question will be whether there will be a way to disable the nasty HTML5 video options when advertisers start to abuse those as well.
Video should always be "at the user's discretion", precisely because there are probably hundreds of millions of PC's scattered around the world which simply don't have the hardware to be able to show video without it "killing the system" (even running a Pentium IV, I have problems with video on any VT / hardware combination that didn't happen to get the Xorg -&gt; Kernel DRI interface (and that is only one of my VTs)).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847328</id>
	<title>Re:I wouldn't want a HTML5 only Web now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264095780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>BTW; if you are concerned about Flash CPU usage, use 10.1 beta which has GPU decoding under Windows.</p></div></blockquote><p>Yeah I tried that. I had to move back down to 10.0 because while the performance was better, videos looked like crap because hey, guess what, 10.1 doesn't have nice-looking video scaling! I'm sorry, but I'd rather have Flash eat my CPU alive than feel like gouging my eyes out due to uneven pixelation.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; --- Mr. DOS</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>BTW ; if you are concerned about Flash CPU usage , use 10.1 beta which has GPU decoding under Windows.Yeah I tried that .
I had to move back down to 10.0 because while the performance was better , videos looked like crap because hey , guess what , 10.1 does n't have nice-looking video scaling !
I 'm sorry , but I 'd rather have Flash eat my CPU alive than feel like gouging my eyes out due to uneven pixelation .
      --- Mr. DOS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BTW; if you are concerned about Flash CPU usage, use 10.1 beta which has GPU decoding under Windows.Yeah I tried that.
I had to move back down to 10.0 because while the performance was better, videos looked like crap because hey, guess what, 10.1 doesn't have nice-looking video scaling!
I'm sorry, but I'd rather have Flash eat my CPU alive than feel like gouging my eyes out due to uneven pixelation.
      --- Mr. DOS
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846652</id>
	<title>Re:Should be a selling feature...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264092840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The three most annoying features of YouTube won't display?  Where do I sign?</p></div><p>Captions? They are opt-in, and they can be very useful for hard of hearing people (if the video creators do add them, that is...)</p><p>Agreed on the others, though.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The three most annoying features of YouTube wo n't display ?
Where do I sign ? Captions ?
They are opt-in , and they can be very useful for hard of hearing people ( if the video creators do add them , that is... ) Agreed on the others , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The three most annoying features of YouTube won't display?
Where do I sign?Captions?
They are opt-in, and they can be very useful for hard of hearing people (if the video creators do add them, that is...)Agreed on the others, though.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847304</id>
	<title>Re:Should be a selling feature...</title>
	<author>poetmatt</author>
	<datestamp>1264095660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>deafies aren't the only ones who want captioning, but I do support it. There are lots of times where I'd like youtube muted and/or if they had captions in another language it would ease translation, and also enable youtube to be a useful teaching tool for other languages. Meanwhile I'd rather see ogg as an option over H264. H264 is an improvement over flash, but <a href="http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/07/decoding-the-html-5-video-codec-debate.ars" title="arstechnica.com">that issue will rage on for a while.</a> [arstechnica.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>deafies are n't the only ones who want captioning , but I do support it .
There are lots of times where I 'd like youtube muted and/or if they had captions in another language it would ease translation , and also enable youtube to be a useful teaching tool for other languages .
Meanwhile I 'd rather see ogg as an option over H264 .
H264 is an improvement over flash , but that issue will rage on for a while .
[ arstechnica.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>deafies aren't the only ones who want captioning, but I do support it.
There are lots of times where I'd like youtube muted and/or if they had captions in another language it would ease translation, and also enable youtube to be a useful teaching tool for other languages.
Meanwhile I'd rather see ogg as an option over H264.
H264 is an improvement over flash, but that issue will rage on for a while.
[arstechnica.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846880</id>
	<title>Chrome and Safari?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264093920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This has to be the first truly-large-scale website that came out with a new feature for Chrome and Safari first. I guess the new "Apple vs. Google for control of the world" thing hasn't kicked in yet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This has to be the first truly-large-scale website that came out with a new feature for Chrome and Safari first .
I guess the new " Apple vs. Google for control of the world " thing has n't kicked in yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has to be the first truly-large-scale website that came out with a new feature for Chrome and Safari first.
I guess the new "Apple vs. Google for control of the world" thing hasn't kicked in yet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846536</id>
	<title>Hmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264092300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This could be good. If only you could use it in Firefox, maybe it's time to try out Chrome.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This could be good .
If only you could use it in Firefox , maybe it 's time to try out Chrome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This could be good.
If only you could use it in Firefox, maybe it's time to try out Chrome.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846684</id>
	<title>Re:Hmm</title>
	<author>BhaKi</author>
	<datestamp>1264093020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Firefox supports the video tag. The h.264 support can be added by installing mplayer browser plugin or xine browser plugin.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox supports the video tag .
The h.264 support can be added by installing mplayer browser plugin or xine browser plugin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox supports the video tag.
The h.264 support can be added by installing mplayer browser plugin or xine browser plugin.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846778</id>
	<title>Re:Should be a selling feature...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264093440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good to see Firefox unsupported. Maybe that will show Mozilla that they really should buy a license for the best of the most superior codecs currently known -- H.264.</p><p>If a patent license is required, hell, by all means buy it and stop talking crap about Free codecs (as in Speech)! That's also why Google pays the Mozilla Corporation hundreds of millions of USD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good to see Firefox unsupported .
Maybe that will show Mozilla that they really should buy a license for the best of the most superior codecs currently known -- H.264.If a patent license is required , hell , by all means buy it and stop talking crap about Free codecs ( as in Speech ) !
That 's also why Google pays the Mozilla Corporation hundreds of millions of USD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good to see Firefox unsupported.
Maybe that will show Mozilla that they really should buy a license for the best of the most superior codecs currently known -- H.264.If a patent license is required, hell, by all means buy it and stop talking crap about Free codecs (as in Speech)!
That's also why Google pays the Mozilla Corporation hundreds of millions of USD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846754</id>
	<title>Re:Should be a selling feature...</title>
	<author>Nick Novitski</author>
	<datestamp>1264093380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If only.  That sentence means that any videos with ads will display with the usual flash player, even if you opt in to the beta.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If only .
That sentence means that any videos with ads will display with the usual flash player , even if you opt in to the beta .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If only.
That sentence means that any videos with ads will display with the usual flash player, even if you opt in to the beta.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847072</id>
	<title>Now all we need...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1264094760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...is the Firefox team to get over themselves, and integrate ffmpeg, for instant support of every format out there!</p><p>But I bet they will bitch and scream again, mentioning some &ldquo;non-freeness&rdquo; of H.264, despite nobody having cared about GIF support or anything, and ffmpeg being free and with H.264 support.</p><p>I hope Google tells them: Either you support it, or the money deal ends right now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...is the Firefox team to get over themselves , and integrate ffmpeg , for instant support of every format out there ! But I bet they will bitch and scream again , mentioning some    non-freeness    of H.264 , despite nobody having cared about GIF support or anything , and ffmpeg being free and with H.264 support.I hope Google tells them : Either you support it , or the money deal ends right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...is the Firefox team to get over themselves, and integrate ffmpeg, for instant support of every format out there!But I bet they will bitch and scream again, mentioning some “non-freeness” of H.264, despite nobody having cared about GIF support or anything, and ffmpeg being free and with H.264 support.I hope Google tells them: Either you support it, or the money deal ends right now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30848612</id>
	<title>Crap</title>
	<author>MyFirstNameIsPaul</author>
	<datestamp>1264100940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just opted in with IE and on my P4-M 2.6 GHz XP laptop HTML5 on a non-HD, non-HQ video was significantly worse than in FF with flash.  The playback was 'stuttery' and the sound was not in sync.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just opted in with IE and on my P4-M 2.6 GHz XP laptop HTML5 on a non-HD , non-HQ video was significantly worse than in FF with flash .
The playback was 'stuttery ' and the sound was not in sync .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just opted in with IE and on my P4-M 2.6 GHz XP laptop HTML5 on a non-HD, non-HQ video was significantly worse than in FF with flash.
The playback was 'stuttery' and the sound was not in sync.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847166</id>
	<title>WHy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264095120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know anything about html5 and whether it will be good or not, but why is it that all the videos I watch in "high quality" still look like shit. Is there an option I forgot to check?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know anything about html5 and whether it will be good or not , but why is it that all the videos I watch in " high quality " still look like shit .
Is there an option I forgot to check ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know anything about html5 and whether it will be good or not, but why is it that all the videos I watch in "high quality" still look like shit.
Is there an option I forgot to check?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847260</id>
	<title>Sure makes downloading easy...</title>
	<author>joetomato</author>
	<datestamp>1264095480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know there are programs / firefox extensions to download + convert videos off youtube, but this just makes it too damn easy.

Especially since you're already using Chrome - right click on the video, choose Inspect Element. It opens the page source, and finds the URL of the video for you. Copy to clipboard, paste to address bar, and it downloads a suprisingly high quality<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.mp4 - no conversion or crappy flash video players neccesary.

Keep up the good work YouTube.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know there are programs / firefox extensions to download + convert videos off youtube , but this just makes it too damn easy .
Especially since you 're already using Chrome - right click on the video , choose Inspect Element .
It opens the page source , and finds the URL of the video for you .
Copy to clipboard , paste to address bar , and it downloads a suprisingly high quality .mp4 - no conversion or crappy flash video players neccesary .
Keep up the good work YouTube .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know there are programs / firefox extensions to download + convert videos off youtube, but this just makes it too damn easy.
Especially since you're already using Chrome - right click on the video, choose Inspect Element.
It opens the page source, and finds the URL of the video for you.
Copy to clipboard, paste to address bar, and it downloads a suprisingly high quality .mp4 - no conversion or crappy flash video players neccesary.
Keep up the good work YouTube.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846534</id>
	<title>Well, that kind of sucks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264092240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where are the open codecs that everyone was begging for?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where are the open codecs that everyone was begging for ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where are the open codecs that everyone was begging for?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30853872</id>
	<title>Re:I wouldn't want a HTML5 only Web now</title>
	<author>HigH5</author>
	<datestamp>1264076820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>BTW; if you are concerned about Flash CPU usage, use 10.1 beta which has GPU decoding under Windows. I have seen it using almost nothing while playing 1080P video over youtube.</p></div><p>Wow, that's really sensible, throwing hardware solutions against software that acts like cancer in the web ecosystem since its inception.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>BTW ; if you are concerned about Flash CPU usage , use 10.1 beta which has GPU decoding under Windows .
I have seen it using almost nothing while playing 1080P video over youtube.Wow , that 's really sensible , throwing hardware solutions against software that acts like cancer in the web ecosystem since its inception .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BTW; if you are concerned about Flash CPU usage, use 10.1 beta which has GPU decoding under Windows.
I have seen it using almost nothing while playing 1080P video over youtube.Wow, that's really sensible, throwing hardware solutions against software that acts like cancer in the web ecosystem since its inception.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847706</id>
	<title>Re:Hmm</title>
	<author>Clarious</author>
	<datestamp>1264097100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Trying out with chromium (binary package) at the moment, does not work, neither do firefox 3.5.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p><p>"Your browser does not currently recognize any of the video formats available.<br>Click here to visit our frequently asked questions about HTML5 video."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Trying out with chromium ( binary package ) at the moment , does not work , neither do firefox 3.5. : ( " Your browser does not currently recognize any of the video formats available.Click here to visit our frequently asked questions about HTML5 video .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trying out with chromium (binary package) at the moment, does not work, neither do firefox 3.5. :("Your browser does not currently recognize any of the video formats available.Click here to visit our frequently asked questions about HTML5 video.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30848388</id>
	<title>Re:Should be a selling feature...</title>
	<author>Bert64</author>
	<datestamp>1264099980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or they could insert the ads into the video file itself on the fly..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or they could insert the ads into the video file itself on the fly. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or they could insert the ads into the video file itself on the fly..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30849078</id>
	<title>Re:I wouldn't want a HTML5 only Web now</title>
	<author>defaria</author>
	<datestamp>1264103160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would use Flash 10.1 if they had a 64 bit version that worked worth a damn!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would use Flash 10.1 if they had a 64 bit version that worked worth a damn !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would use Flash 10.1 if they had a 64 bit version that worked worth a damn!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30851118</id>
	<title>Re:Now all we need...</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1264067820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>But I bet they will bitch and scream again, mentioning some "non-freeness" of H.264, despite nobody having cared about GIF support or anything, and ffmpeg being free and with H.264 support.</i></p><p>In many jurisdictions, ffmpeg is only Free as in Beer, not Free as in Speech.  Firefox doesn't want to give up broad international distribution or its corporate status.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But I bet they will bitch and scream again , mentioning some " non-freeness " of H.264 , despite nobody having cared about GIF support or anything , and ffmpeg being free and with H.264 support.In many jurisdictions , ffmpeg is only Free as in Beer , not Free as in Speech .
Firefox does n't want to give up broad international distribution or its corporate status .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But I bet they will bitch and scream again, mentioning some "non-freeness" of H.264, despite nobody having cared about GIF support or anything, and ffmpeg being free and with H.264 support.In many jurisdictions, ffmpeg is only Free as in Beer, not Free as in Speech.
Firefox doesn't want to give up broad international distribution or its corporate status.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30848468</id>
	<title>Re:Should be a selling feature...</title>
	<author>Randle\_Revar</author>
	<datestamp>1264100280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Adobe pays for h.264, VLC does not.</p><p>Anyway, Mozilla, misguided as they may be in the matter of trademarks, are not so confused that they would use a non-Free codec even if they could afford to pay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Adobe pays for h.264 , VLC does not.Anyway , Mozilla , misguided as they may be in the matter of trademarks , are not so confused that they would use a non-Free codec even if they could afford to pay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Adobe pays for h.264, VLC does not.Anyway, Mozilla, misguided as they may be in the matter of trademarks, are not so confused that they would use a non-Free codec even if they could afford to pay.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847634</id>
	<title>Re:Should be a selling feature...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264096800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If Firefox doesn't care that Flash can play H.264 videos then they shouldn't care that VLC can play H.264 videos.</p></div></blockquote><p>Adobe is the company behind Flash Player, not Mozilla.  Adobe has also almost certainly payed or will be willing to pay their h.264 dues.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Firefox does n't care that Flash can play H.264 videos then they should n't care that VLC can play H.264 videos.Adobe is the company behind Flash Player , not Mozilla .
Adobe has also almost certainly payed or will be willing to pay their h.264 dues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Firefox doesn't care that Flash can play H.264 videos then they shouldn't care that VLC can play H.264 videos.Adobe is the company behind Flash Player, not Mozilla.
Adobe has also almost certainly payed or will be willing to pay their h.264 dues.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30852210</id>
	<title>This isn't HTML5</title>
	<author>Baloo Uriza</author>
	<datestamp>1264071060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If it was HTML5, it would be supporting Ogg Theora, not the crap Apple's offering.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it was HTML5 , it would be supporting Ogg Theora , not the crap Apple 's offering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it was HTML5, it would be supporting Ogg Theora, not the crap Apple's offering.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30872542</id>
	<title>Re:Now all we need...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264241400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I hope Google tells them: Either you support it, or the money deal ends right now.</p></div><p>Google can't and won't do that.  They can't because they have a contract with Mozilla to pay the money in return for being the default search engine in Firefox, however they might be able to force it when the contract comes up for renewal. They won't because they have their own browser to push this with, and their motto is "don't be evil", forcing Mozilla to do what they say could be perceived as being evil.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope Google tells them : Either you support it , or the money deal ends right now.Google ca n't and wo n't do that .
They ca n't because they have a contract with Mozilla to pay the money in return for being the default search engine in Firefox , however they might be able to force it when the contract comes up for renewal .
They wo n't because they have their own browser to push this with , and their motto is " do n't be evil " , forcing Mozilla to do what they say could be perceived as being evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope Google tells them: Either you support it, or the money deal ends right now.Google can't and won't do that.
They can't because they have a contract with Mozilla to pay the money in return for being the default search engine in Firefox, however they might be able to force it when the contract comes up for renewal.
They won't because they have their own browser to push this with, and their motto is "don't be evil", forcing Mozilla to do what they say could be perceived as being evil.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847998</id>
	<title>Re:No. Firefox is Ogg/Theora + Vorbis only</title>
	<author>funkatron</author>
	<datestamp>1264098360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mozilla will be made to support actual video content. Just give me time to learn the extensions API.</p><p>Also, stop acting like anyone actully cares about the legal status of codecs. If anyone did then ffmpeg, vlc, etc would not exist. The only important issue here is if the video works when I go to youtube.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mozilla will be made to support actual video content .
Just give me time to learn the extensions API.Also , stop acting like anyone actully cares about the legal status of codecs .
If anyone did then ffmpeg , vlc , etc would not exist .
The only important issue here is if the video works when I go to youtube .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mozilla will be made to support actual video content.
Just give me time to learn the extensions API.Also, stop acting like anyone actully cares about the legal status of codecs.
If anyone did then ffmpeg, vlc, etc would not exist.
The only important issue here is if the video works when I go to youtube.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30848246</id>
	<title>Re:It's about time.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264099320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While Flash is a resource hog, I tried the HTML5 video and it uses even more cpu on my poor Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro. Perhaps it is just Safari being crap, considering it can't even play animated GIFs without grinding to a halt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While Flash is a resource hog , I tried the HTML5 video and it uses even more cpu on my poor Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro .
Perhaps it is just Safari being crap , considering it ca n't even play animated GIFs without grinding to a halt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While Flash is a resource hog, I tried the HTML5 video and it uses even more cpu on my poor Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro.
Perhaps it is just Safari being crap, considering it can't even play animated GIFs without grinding to a halt.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847960</id>
	<title>Re:No. Firefox is Ogg/Theora + Vorbis only</title>
	<author>omnichad</author>
	<datestamp>1264098180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the OS includes the codec it doesn't matter.  They handled the embed and object tags just fine.  Uses Windows Media Player on Windows, and Quicktime Player on the Mac.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the OS includes the codec it does n't matter .
They handled the embed and object tags just fine .
Uses Windows Media Player on Windows , and Quicktime Player on the Mac .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the OS includes the codec it doesn't matter.
They handled the embed and object tags just fine.
Uses Windows Media Player on Windows, and Quicktime Player on the Mac.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846990</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1441210_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30853282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1441210_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30849720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1441210_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1441210_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1441210_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30851118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1441210_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30872542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1441210_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1441210_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1441210_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1441210_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1441210_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1441210_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30848470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1441210_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1441210_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1441210_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30848672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1441210_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1441210_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30848246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1441210_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30849078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1441210_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30848626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1441210_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30848506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1441210_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30856390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1441210_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30848174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1441210_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1441210_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30851162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1441210_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1441210_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30850460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1441210_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30856244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1441210_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1441210_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30848440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1441210_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1441210_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30883766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1441210_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1441210_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1441210_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30848388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1441210_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1441210_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1441210_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30848276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1441210_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1441210_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30850640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1441210_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1441210_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30853872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1441210_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1441210_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1441210_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30848558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1441210_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1441210_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30848482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1441210_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30848468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1441210.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846546
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30856244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30848246
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846792
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30848626
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846838
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847712
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30853872
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847338
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30848482
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30848440
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847328
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30856390
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847130
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30849078
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1441210.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847260
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1441210.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30853282
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1441210.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30849720
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846778
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847090
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30848468
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847634
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30848276
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30848174
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847752
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847548
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846700
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30848388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846634
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846652
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846644
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30883766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846618
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847304
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30850460
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30848470
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30851162
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1441210.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846704
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1441210.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847470
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1441210.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846684
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846786
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846990
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847998
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30848558
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847268
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1441210.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846604
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1441210.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30848506
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1441210.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847166
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1441210.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30852210
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1441210.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30872542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30851118
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1441210.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846520
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1441210.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847020
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30848672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30850640
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1441210.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847412
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1441210.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847066
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30847030
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1441210.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846812
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1441210.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1441210.30846532
</commentlist>
</conversation>
