<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_30_1315226</id>
	<title>Google To End Support For IE6</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1264860300000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>itwbennett writes <i>"Google announced Friday that it will be <a href="http://www.itworld.com/internet/94809/google-end-support-ie6">phasing out support for Internet Explorer 6</a>, more than two weeks after the attacks on Google's servers that targeted a vulnerability in IE6. In a blog post, Rajen Sheth, Google Apps senior product manager, said that <a href="http://googleenterprise.blogspot.com/2010/01/modern-browsers-for-modern-applications.html">support for IE6 in Google Docs and Google Sites will end March 1</a>. At that point, IE6 users who try to access Docs or Sites may find that 'key functionality' won't work properly. Sheth suggested that customers upgrade their browsers to pretty much anything else."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>itwbennett writes " Google announced Friday that it will be phasing out support for Internet Explorer 6 , more than two weeks after the attacks on Google 's servers that targeted a vulnerability in IE6 .
In a blog post , Rajen Sheth , Google Apps senior product manager , said that support for IE6 in Google Docs and Google Sites will end March 1 .
At that point , IE6 users who try to access Docs or Sites may find that 'key functionality ' wo n't work properly .
Sheth suggested that customers upgrade their browsers to pretty much anything else .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>itwbennett writes "Google announced Friday that it will be phasing out support for Internet Explorer 6, more than two weeks after the attacks on Google's servers that targeted a vulnerability in IE6.
In a blog post, Rajen Sheth, Google Apps senior product manager, said that support for IE6 in Google Docs and Google Sites will end March 1.
At that point, IE6 users who try to access Docs or Sites may find that 'key functionality' won't work properly.
Sheth suggested that customers upgrade their browsers to pretty much anything else.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30963652</id>
	<title>I myself</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264876860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>have never used IE6 to access Google.<br>(only Firefox, Seamonkey, or , in the distant past, Opera.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>have never used IE6 to access Google .
( only Firefox , Seamonkey , or , in the distant past , Opera .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>have never used IE6 to access Google.
(only Firefox, Seamonkey, or , in the distant past, Opera.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962138</id>
	<title>Re:I think Google is being reactionary here</title>
	<author>olsmeister</author>
	<datestamp>1264866480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>IE6 has long been known to be non-standards compliant and insecure, and quite frankly these companies should have had the foresight to be moving away from it years ago.
<br> <br>
Microsoft themselves <a href="http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/01/microsoft-wants-you-to-ditch-windows-xp-and-ie6-for-security.ars" title="arstechnica.com">wants companies to abandon IE6</a> [arstechnica.com].
<br> <br>
Consider it a little tough love from Google.  If they announced they'd end support for IE6 in 18 months, nobody would do anything for the next 15 months.</htmltext>
<tokenext>IE6 has long been known to be non-standards compliant and insecure , and quite frankly these companies should have had the foresight to be moving away from it years ago .
Microsoft themselves wants companies to abandon IE6 [ arstechnica.com ] .
Consider it a little tough love from Google .
If they announced they 'd end support for IE6 in 18 months , nobody would do anything for the next 15 months .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IE6 has long been known to be non-standards compliant and insecure, and quite frankly these companies should have had the foresight to be moving away from it years ago.
Microsoft themselves wants companies to abandon IE6 [arstechnica.com].
Consider it a little tough love from Google.
If they announced they'd end support for IE6 in 18 months, nobody would do anything for the next 15 months.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962098</id>
	<title>Everyone should do this</title>
	<author>bhunachchicken</author>
	<datestamp>1264866180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, it might sound really "anti-Microsoft" or being pathetic, but everyone should really either be blacklisting or reducing the available functionality of websites to users still browsing with MSIE 6.0</p><p>Reducing functionality and putting up a message to let users know that they need to upgrade, would be the best decision.</p><p>After all, it's not as if there aren't <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/Windows/internet-explorer/" title="microsoft.com">any</a> [microsoft.com] <a href="http://www.mozilla.com/firefox/" title="mozilla.com">alternatives</a> [mozilla.com] <a href="http://www.google.com/chrome/" title="google.com">available</a> [google.com]...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , it might sound really " anti-Microsoft " or being pathetic , but everyone should really either be blacklisting or reducing the available functionality of websites to users still browsing with MSIE 6.0Reducing functionality and putting up a message to let users know that they need to upgrade , would be the best decision.After all , it 's not as if there are n't any [ microsoft.com ] alternatives [ mozilla.com ] available [ google.com ] .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, it might sound really "anti-Microsoft" or being pathetic, but everyone should really either be blacklisting or reducing the available functionality of websites to users still browsing with MSIE 6.0Reducing functionality and putting up a message to let users know that they need to upgrade, would be the best decision.After all, it's not as if there aren't any [microsoft.com] alternatives [mozilla.com] available [google.com]...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962718</id>
	<title>Why there is no virtual IE6 in sandboxes?</title>
	<author>140Mandak262Jamuna</author>
	<datestamp>1264871100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am probably asking a dumb question. Why is not there a product that will run IE6 inside a virtual machine? So all those companies that had written software specifically targetting IE6 will run this application, that will watch all the net connections and disk access and permit only very specific whitelisted activity to go on. A real modern browser will be available and slowly they can transition out of IE6. There is money to be made doing this. Why no body is doing this? Or are they doing it already without much publicity?<p>

IBM has always shipped emulators for its previous versions. These emulators are so comprehensive they would run the entire emulator of the previous version in it. Thus there used to be codes written long ago, without source code, without original coders around, that will run inside an emulator for 360 running inside an emulator for 360/155 which runs inside an emulator for 3090 which runs inside an emulator for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... </p><p>

Why such a solution is impossible for ActiveX application using IE6 as its GUI?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am probably asking a dumb question .
Why is not there a product that will run IE6 inside a virtual machine ?
So all those companies that had written software specifically targetting IE6 will run this application , that will watch all the net connections and disk access and permit only very specific whitelisted activity to go on .
A real modern browser will be available and slowly they can transition out of IE6 .
There is money to be made doing this .
Why no body is doing this ?
Or are they doing it already without much publicity ?
IBM has always shipped emulators for its previous versions .
These emulators are so comprehensive they would run the entire emulator of the previous version in it .
Thus there used to be codes written long ago , without source code , without original coders around , that will run inside an emulator for 360 running inside an emulator for 360/155 which runs inside an emulator for 3090 which runs inside an emulator for ... . Why such a solution is impossible for ActiveX application using IE6 as its GUI ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am probably asking a dumb question.
Why is not there a product that will run IE6 inside a virtual machine?
So all those companies that had written software specifically targetting IE6 will run this application, that will watch all the net connections and disk access and permit only very specific whitelisted activity to go on.
A real modern browser will be available and slowly they can transition out of IE6.
There is money to be made doing this.
Why no body is doing this?
Or are they doing it already without much publicity?
IBM has always shipped emulators for its previous versions.
These emulators are so comprehensive they would run the entire emulator of the previous version in it.
Thus there used to be codes written long ago, without source code, without original coders around, that will run inside an emulator for 360 running inside an emulator for 360/155 which runs inside an emulator for 3090 which runs inside an emulator for .... 

Why such a solution is impossible for ActiveX application using IE6 as its GUI?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962350</id>
	<title>Re:Everyone should do this</title>
	<author>Tim C</author>
	<datestamp>1264868100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>everyone should really either be blacklisting or reducing the available functionality of websites to users still browsing with MSIE 6.0</i></p><p><i>Reducing functionality and putting up a message to let users know that they need to upgrade, would be the best decision.</i></p><p>I disagree. I think everyone should just stop considering IE 6 when implementing new features or creating new websites. Just stop worrying about whether it'll work in IE 6.</p><p>That requires less effort on our part, but achieves the same end - IE 6 eventually dies. Though the article isn't clear, I strongly suspect that that's what Google is doing; it looks to me as though March 1st is the planned release date for a new version of their web apps, and they aren't going to care if it breaks in IE 6. I'd be surprised if they're actively breaking it for IE 6; it's not worth the effort.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>everyone should really either be blacklisting or reducing the available functionality of websites to users still browsing with MSIE 6.0Reducing functionality and putting up a message to let users know that they need to upgrade , would be the best decision.I disagree .
I think everyone should just stop considering IE 6 when implementing new features or creating new websites .
Just stop worrying about whether it 'll work in IE 6.That requires less effort on our part , but achieves the same end - IE 6 eventually dies .
Though the article is n't clear , I strongly suspect that that 's what Google is doing ; it looks to me as though March 1st is the planned release date for a new version of their web apps , and they are n't going to care if it breaks in IE 6 .
I 'd be surprised if they 're actively breaking it for IE 6 ; it 's not worth the effort .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>everyone should really either be blacklisting or reducing the available functionality of websites to users still browsing with MSIE 6.0Reducing functionality and putting up a message to let users know that they need to upgrade, would be the best decision.I disagree.
I think everyone should just stop considering IE 6 when implementing new features or creating new websites.
Just stop worrying about whether it'll work in IE 6.That requires less effort on our part, but achieves the same end - IE 6 eventually dies.
Though the article isn't clear, I strongly suspect that that's what Google is doing; it looks to me as though March 1st is the planned release date for a new version of their web apps, and they aren't going to care if it breaks in IE 6.
I'd be surprised if they're actively breaking it for IE 6; it's not worth the effort.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30964824</id>
	<title>Re:I think Google is being reactionary here</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1264884600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, we've held the hands of these losers long enough and they're still on IE6. Everyone should tell these companies to either get left behind and die or  move forward with the times.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , we 've held the hands of these losers long enough and they 're still on IE6 .
Everyone should tell these companies to either get left behind and die or move forward with the times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, we've held the hands of these losers long enough and they're still on IE6.
Everyone should tell these companies to either get left behind and die or  move forward with the times.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30964766</id>
	<title>Re:Good riddance!</title>
	<author>mstahl</author>
	<datestamp>1264884180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We don't let horse and buggy on the interstate anymore, no matter HOW rich the idiot is. There's no reason to put up with IE6's shit anymore either.</p></div><p>I'm amish, you insensitive clod!!!</p><p>Seriously though, that's just about the most eloquent way I've heard it being put. I didn't have mod points so I decided to go with the above comment instead. Enjoy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We do n't let horse and buggy on the interstate anymore , no matter HOW rich the idiot is .
There 's no reason to put up with IE6 's shit anymore either.I 'm amish , you insensitive clod ! !
! Seriously though , that 's just about the most eloquent way I 've heard it being put .
I did n't have mod points so I decided to go with the above comment instead .
Enjoy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We don't let horse and buggy on the interstate anymore, no matter HOW rich the idiot is.
There's no reason to put up with IE6's shit anymore either.I'm amish, you insensitive clod!!
!Seriously though, that's just about the most eloquent way I've heard it being put.
I didn't have mod points so I decided to go with the above comment instead.
Enjoy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30967742</id>
	<title>Re:Everyone should do this</title>
	<author>WeatherGod</author>
	<datestamp>1264867860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would agree with this, but with a caveat.  I was recently in a reversed situation where a website could not recognize my developer's version of Firefox 3.5 and forced me into a reduced features mode.  For a fellow worker who was using a up-to-date version of Firefox 2.x (I forget which version), it absolutely refused to let him onto the website because the browser was "not compatible".  I then noticed that it refused other "browsers" like elinks (as opposed to offering a compatibility mode).</p><p>They told me that they don't support official versions and that Firefox 2.x was "horribly outdated" (note that they still supported IE6 in reduced mode).  And also that they wouldn't support "obscure" browsers.</p><p>The lesson is to not outright *prevent* users from entering the website in whichever mode they liked.  It is impossible to maintain a complete list of supported browsers and false identification of custom browsers is a bitch.  If anything, if yo have a list of browsers that you know works fine, then for any browser that doesn't match that list, make a notice that the browser is not officially supported and that the user may experience issues (or *recommend* that the user go into reduced mode).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would agree with this , but with a caveat .
I was recently in a reversed situation where a website could not recognize my developer 's version of Firefox 3.5 and forced me into a reduced features mode .
For a fellow worker who was using a up-to-date version of Firefox 2.x ( I forget which version ) , it absolutely refused to let him onto the website because the browser was " not compatible " .
I then noticed that it refused other " browsers " like elinks ( as opposed to offering a compatibility mode ) .They told me that they do n't support official versions and that Firefox 2.x was " horribly outdated " ( note that they still supported IE6 in reduced mode ) .
And also that they would n't support " obscure " browsers.The lesson is to not outright * prevent * users from entering the website in whichever mode they liked .
It is impossible to maintain a complete list of supported browsers and false identification of custom browsers is a bitch .
If anything , if yo have a list of browsers that you know works fine , then for any browser that does n't match that list , make a notice that the browser is not officially supported and that the user may experience issues ( or * recommend * that the user go into reduced mode ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would agree with this, but with a caveat.
I was recently in a reversed situation where a website could not recognize my developer's version of Firefox 3.5 and forced me into a reduced features mode.
For a fellow worker who was using a up-to-date version of Firefox 2.x (I forget which version), it absolutely refused to let him onto the website because the browser was "not compatible".
I then noticed that it refused other "browsers" like elinks (as opposed to offering a compatibility mode).They told me that they don't support official versions and that Firefox 2.x was "horribly outdated" (note that they still supported IE6 in reduced mode).
And also that they wouldn't support "obscure" browsers.The lesson is to not outright *prevent* users from entering the website in whichever mode they liked.
It is impossible to maintain a complete list of supported browsers and false identification of custom browsers is a bitch.
If anything, if yo have a list of browsers that you know works fine, then for any browser that doesn't match that list, make a notice that the browser is not officially supported and that the user may experience issues (or *recommend* that the user go into reduced mode).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30964742</id>
	<title>Idiots</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264884060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Not only that, but we talked them into dropping support for IE completely, including IE7 and IE8. We got them to standardize on Chrome, and we're currently in the process of deploying it company-wide. Our lives will be much more enjoyable from this point onwards, I think."</p><p>Yes your lives, who gives a fuck about people trying to see it - ok, so its just for internal use - but it is incompetent webdesign from the start if it only works in some browsers..  works in all browsers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Not only that , but we talked them into dropping support for IE completely , including IE7 and IE8 .
We got them to standardize on Chrome , and we 're currently in the process of deploying it company-wide .
Our lives will be much more enjoyable from this point onwards , I think .
" Yes your lives , who gives a fuck about people trying to see it - ok , so its just for internal use - but it is incompetent webdesign from the start if it only works in some browsers.. works in all browsers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Not only that, but we talked them into dropping support for IE completely, including IE7 and IE8.
We got them to standardize on Chrome, and we're currently in the process of deploying it company-wide.
Our lives will be much more enjoyable from this point onwards, I think.
"Yes your lives, who gives a fuck about people trying to see it - ok, so its just for internal use - but it is incompetent webdesign from the start if it only works in some browsers..  works in all browsers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30964424</id>
	<title>Re:Huge developer time savings.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264881720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Unfortunately, not all developers can drop IE6 support.  If you have an e-commerce site, especially one that might target older or less tech savvy customers, any unsupported browser is a lost sale, and IE6 use is still high enough that this is significant.
</p><p>
I also question the wisdom of targeting a single browser.  What if there is a huge security vulnerability in Chrome, a showstopper bug (like, it stops working on the next Windows service pack or OS X update), or Google drops development for some reason?  This is almost as bad as back in the old days when devs targeted IE6 exclusively.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , not all developers can drop IE6 support .
If you have an e-commerce site , especially one that might target older or less tech savvy customers , any unsupported browser is a lost sale , and IE6 use is still high enough that this is significant .
I also question the wisdom of targeting a single browser .
What if there is a huge security vulnerability in Chrome , a showstopper bug ( like , it stops working on the next Windows service pack or OS X update ) , or Google drops development for some reason ?
This is almost as bad as back in the old days when devs targeted IE6 exclusively .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Unfortunately, not all developers can drop IE6 support.
If you have an e-commerce site, especially one that might target older or less tech savvy customers, any unsupported browser is a lost sale, and IE6 use is still high enough that this is significant.
I also question the wisdom of targeting a single browser.
What if there is a huge security vulnerability in Chrome, a showstopper bug (like, it stops working on the next Windows service pack or OS X update), or Google drops development for some reason?
This is almost as bad as back in the old days when devs targeted IE6 exclusively.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30964298</id>
	<title>Re:Finally</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264880640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Die IE6 die.</p></div><p>Well, no one who speaks German could be evil!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Die IE6 die.Well , no one who speaks German could be evil !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Die IE6 die.Well, no one who speaks German could be evil!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30961856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30965622</id>
	<title>Re:Everyone should do this</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1264847220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Seriously, it might sound really "anti-Microsoft" or being pathetic, but everyone should really either be blacklisting or reducing the available functionality of websites to users still browsing with MSIE 6.0</p></div><p>It's not anti-Microsoft in the slightest. Practically everyone I know working on web applications in here would be ecstatic to be able to finally drop IE6 support.</p><p>The fact that IE7 and IE8 were "recommended" updates on Windows Update might also give a hint.</p><p>So, bring it on!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , it might sound really " anti-Microsoft " or being pathetic , but everyone should really either be blacklisting or reducing the available functionality of websites to users still browsing with MSIE 6.0It 's not anti-Microsoft in the slightest .
Practically everyone I know working on web applications in here would be ecstatic to be able to finally drop IE6 support.The fact that IE7 and IE8 were " recommended " updates on Windows Update might also give a hint.So , bring it on !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, it might sound really "anti-Microsoft" or being pathetic, but everyone should really either be blacklisting or reducing the available functionality of websites to users still browsing with MSIE 6.0It's not anti-Microsoft in the slightest.
Practically everyone I know working on web applications in here would be ecstatic to be able to finally drop IE6 support.The fact that IE7 and IE8 were "recommended" updates on Windows Update might also give a hint.So, bring it on!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30968012</id>
	<title>Re:Some companies will consider this change a bonu</title>
	<author>gunpowder</author>
	<datestamp>1264871700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your company just sounds like <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1530934&amp;cid=30967964" title="slashdot.org">the company I'm working at</a> [slashdot.org]!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your company just sounds like the company I 'm working at [ slashdot.org ] !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your company just sounds like the company I'm working at [slashdot.org]!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30963538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30963782</id>
	<title>Maybe The New Google Home Page Will Look Like This</title>
	<author>DorkRawk</author>
	<datestamp>1264877520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.dinosaurseateverybody.com/crap/google\_html5.html" title="dinosaurse...rybody.com" rel="nofollow">(Unforgiving) Google</a> [dinosaurse...rybody.com] <br>
<br>
I built this a little while ago, just for fun.  Check it out in IE and in other browsers (FF, Safari, Chrome, etc)</htmltext>
<tokenext>( Unforgiving ) Google [ dinosaurse...rybody.com ] I built this a little while ago , just for fun .
Check it out in IE and in other browsers ( FF , Safari , Chrome , etc )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(Unforgiving) Google [dinosaurse...rybody.com] 

I built this a little while ago, just for fun.
Check it out in IE and in other browsers (FF, Safari, Chrome, etc)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30965612</id>
	<title>Worsed use of the word already</title>
	<author>SmallFurryCreature</author>
	<datestamp>1264847100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Already in the certification process for IE8?
</p><p>Skip it. Honestly, this process is so trustworthy, it had you use IE6 all these years.
</p><p>Always cracks me up, people claiming they are stuck with IE6, for security reasons... no, it because you outsourced your IT to a crap company, that doesn't want to spend a penny on keeping up to date because they know you will pay them anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Already in the certification process for IE8 ?
Skip it .
Honestly , this process is so trustworthy , it had you use IE6 all these years .
Always cracks me up , people claiming they are stuck with IE6 , for security reasons... no , it because you outsourced your IT to a crap company , that does n't want to spend a penny on keeping up to date because they know you will pay them anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Already in the certification process for IE8?
Skip it.
Honestly, this process is so trustworthy, it had you use IE6 all these years.
Always cracks me up, people claiming they are stuck with IE6, for security reasons... no, it because you outsourced your IT to a crap company, that doesn't want to spend a penny on keeping up to date because they know you will pay them anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30961962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962470</id>
	<title>Re:Good riddance!</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1264869120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There's a lot you can blame Microsoft for, but it's the companies that don't want to upgrade which is the problem here.</p></div><p>The companies stuck on IE6 are the very ones that want to upgrade to the next versions - they're "Microsoft shops" and have been for a decade.  They're into Software Assurance bigtime.  Unfortunately for them they got committed, and built their core mission critical apps on a platform with no compatible migration strategy.  They were entitled to expect a compatible migration strategy, and they didn't get one.  It's fair to blame Microsoft for that lack.
</p><p>Unfortunately, they can and will eventually migrate to a newer version of the Microsoft browser and services which also lack a compatible migration strategy, thus getting stuck in the same trap more than once.  You would think they would learn and embrace this novel concept of "standards", but no.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a lot you can blame Microsoft for , but it 's the companies that do n't want to upgrade which is the problem here.The companies stuck on IE6 are the very ones that want to upgrade to the next versions - they 're " Microsoft shops " and have been for a decade .
They 're into Software Assurance bigtime .
Unfortunately for them they got committed , and built their core mission critical apps on a platform with no compatible migration strategy .
They were entitled to expect a compatible migration strategy , and they did n't get one .
It 's fair to blame Microsoft for that lack .
Unfortunately , they can and will eventually migrate to a newer version of the Microsoft browser and services which also lack a compatible migration strategy , thus getting stuck in the same trap more than once .
You would think they would learn and embrace this novel concept of " standards " , but no .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a lot you can blame Microsoft for, but it's the companies that don't want to upgrade which is the problem here.The companies stuck on IE6 are the very ones that want to upgrade to the next versions - they're "Microsoft shops" and have been for a decade.
They're into Software Assurance bigtime.
Unfortunately for them they got committed, and built their core mission critical apps on a platform with no compatible migration strategy.
They were entitled to expect a compatible migration strategy, and they didn't get one.
It's fair to blame Microsoft for that lack.
Unfortunately, they can and will eventually migrate to a newer version of the Microsoft browser and services which also lack a compatible migration strategy, thus getting stuck in the same trap more than once.
You would think they would learn and embrace this novel concept of "standards", but no.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30976492</id>
	<title>Re:Finally</title>
	<author>dancingmad</author>
	<datestamp>1264950060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think he was saying The, IE6, The.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think he was saying The , IE6 , The .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think he was saying The, IE6, The.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30961856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30961850</id>
	<title>GNAA to support IE6 exclusively</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264863960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Join the GNAA Today!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Join the GNAA Today !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Join the GNAA Today!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30964142</id>
	<title>Re:Huge developer time savings.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264879440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like the developer mentioned in the parent post, I tend to get the horrible stuff. I'm the "UI guy" on the project, and most experienced in HTML/CSS/JavaScript.</p><p>I knew IE6 was bad news and was sucking up far too much of my time, and kept saying this to those above me. But we "had to" support it. So I started keeping track of just how much time it was costing me. It did vary but, for a given issue or work package, I would spend anywhere between 30 and 70 percent of my time on IE6 work-arounds, kludges, hacks. Then you factor in that someone has usually struggled with the problem before bringing it to me...</p><p>Those numbers, writ large in PowerPoint and projected in front of the people who pay my wages, finally convinced them to drop IE6 support. I'd said it was a problem for two years, but it took actual numbers to convince them of the cost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like the developer mentioned in the parent post , I tend to get the horrible stuff .
I 'm the " UI guy " on the project , and most experienced in HTML/CSS/JavaScript.I knew IE6 was bad news and was sucking up far too much of my time , and kept saying this to those above me .
But we " had to " support it .
So I started keeping track of just how much time it was costing me .
It did vary but , for a given issue or work package , I would spend anywhere between 30 and 70 percent of my time on IE6 work-arounds , kludges , hacks .
Then you factor in that someone has usually struggled with the problem before bringing it to me...Those numbers , writ large in PowerPoint and projected in front of the people who pay my wages , finally convinced them to drop IE6 support .
I 'd said it was a problem for two years , but it took actual numbers to convince them of the cost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like the developer mentioned in the parent post, I tend to get the horrible stuff.
I'm the "UI guy" on the project, and most experienced in HTML/CSS/JavaScript.I knew IE6 was bad news and was sucking up far too much of my time, and kept saying this to those above me.
But we "had to" support it.
So I started keeping track of just how much time it was costing me.
It did vary but, for a given issue or work package, I would spend anywhere between 30 and 70 percent of my time on IE6 work-arounds, kludges, hacks.
Then you factor in that someone has usually struggled with the problem before bringing it to me...Those numbers, writ large in PowerPoint and projected in front of the people who pay my wages, finally convinced them to drop IE6 support.
I'd said it was a problem for two years, but it took actual numbers to convince them of the cost.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30963810</id>
	<title>Re:Everyone should do this</title>
	<author>MattBD</author>
	<datestamp>1264877640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm in the process of building a personal website as I'm planning a new career in web development and I can point to that as evidence I know what I'm doing. I'm thinking that the best thing to do is include the code from <a href="http://www.ie6nomore.com/" title="ie6nomore.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.ie6nomore.com/</a> [ie6nomore.com] to notify IE6 users that they need to upgrade to be able to use the site properly, but I'm interested to know what others would do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm in the process of building a personal website as I 'm planning a new career in web development and I can point to that as evidence I know what I 'm doing .
I 'm thinking that the best thing to do is include the code from http : //www.ie6nomore.com/ [ ie6nomore.com ] to notify IE6 users that they need to upgrade to be able to use the site properly , but I 'm interested to know what others would do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm in the process of building a personal website as I'm planning a new career in web development and I can point to that as evidence I know what I'm doing.
I'm thinking that the best thing to do is include the code from http://www.ie6nomore.com/ [ie6nomore.com] to notify IE6 users that they need to upgrade to be able to use the site properly, but I'm interested to know what others would do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30963378</id>
	<title>Re:Good riddance!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264875420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many medical practices are stuck with IE6 for the time being because when IE6 was still a viable browser they signed up to use AllScripts.  Core functionality (dictation especially) doesn't work properly.</p><p>I take every opportunity to mention this so that if they do AllScripts vanity searches they'll eventually find people bitching about the fact that they're worthless because they only support IE6.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many medical practices are stuck with IE6 for the time being because when IE6 was still a viable browser they signed up to use AllScripts .
Core functionality ( dictation especially ) does n't work properly.I take every opportunity to mention this so that if they do AllScripts vanity searches they 'll eventually find people bitching about the fact that they 're worthless because they only support IE6 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many medical practices are stuck with IE6 for the time being because when IE6 was still a viable browser they signed up to use AllScripts.
Core functionality (dictation especially) doesn't work properly.I take every opportunity to mention this so that if they do AllScripts vanity searches they'll eventually find people bitching about the fact that they're worthless because they only support IE6.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30961882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962150</id>
	<title>Re:I think Google is being reactionary here</title>
	<author>el\_tedward</author>
	<datestamp>1264866540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If a company has to move a bit faster because they haven't had the brains to move away from IE6, then that's their problem, not Google's.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If a company has to move a bit faster because they have n't had the brains to move away from IE6 , then that 's their problem , not Google 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a company has to move a bit faster because they haven't had the brains to move away from IE6, then that's their problem, not Google's.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962414</id>
	<title>Microsoft phases out support for Netscape 4</title>
	<author>David Gerard</author>
	<datestamp>1264868640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft is phasing out support for Netscape 4, in retaliation for Google declaring Internet Explorer 6 a "<a href="http://newstechnica.com/?p=1399" title="newstechnica.com">pustulent syphilitic drunken crack whore</a> [newstechnica.com] with no mates. And bad breath. Who smells funny."</p><p>Google has given up bothering to support IE6 on its sites, directing the doubtless hideously virus-infected users of the browser to download another browser. Any other browser. "Lynx will give you a vastly superior YouTube experience. Now it will, anyway."</p><p>"The Mozilla Foundation has completely failed to fix problems in Netscape 4 that have been around for <i>years</i>," said Microsoft marketing marketer Jonathan Ness. "Furthermore, Firefox gets just as many hacks as Internet Explorer, and pay no attention to my lengthening nose."</p><p>In December, Chinese hackers exploited a weak spot in IE6 that Microsoft had only known about since September. Following this, governments worldwide told people to get the hell off IE6, except Britain, which relies on IE6 to leak data when there are insufficient funds for USB sticks or train journeys for civil servants.</p><p>Web designers around the world welcomed Google's move, but have not given up their Bill Gates dartboards <i>just</i> yet. "'That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die.' Steve Ballmer said that, you know."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft is phasing out support for Netscape 4 , in retaliation for Google declaring Internet Explorer 6 a " pustulent syphilitic drunken crack whore [ newstechnica.com ] with no mates .
And bad breath .
Who smells funny .
" Google has given up bothering to support IE6 on its sites , directing the doubtless hideously virus-infected users of the browser to download another browser .
Any other browser .
" Lynx will give you a vastly superior YouTube experience .
Now it will , anyway .
" " The Mozilla Foundation has completely failed to fix problems in Netscape 4 that have been around for years , " said Microsoft marketing marketer Jonathan Ness .
" Furthermore , Firefox gets just as many hacks as Internet Explorer , and pay no attention to my lengthening nose .
" In December , Chinese hackers exploited a weak spot in IE6 that Microsoft had only known about since September .
Following this , governments worldwide told people to get the hell off IE6 , except Britain , which relies on IE6 to leak data when there are insufficient funds for USB sticks or train journeys for civil servants.Web designers around the world welcomed Google 's move , but have not given up their Bill Gates dartboards just yet .
" 'That is not dead which can eternal lie , And with strange aeons even death may die .
' Steve Ballmer said that , you know .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft is phasing out support for Netscape 4, in retaliation for Google declaring Internet Explorer 6 a "pustulent syphilitic drunken crack whore [newstechnica.com] with no mates.
And bad breath.
Who smells funny.
"Google has given up bothering to support IE6 on its sites, directing the doubtless hideously virus-infected users of the browser to download another browser.
Any other browser.
"Lynx will give you a vastly superior YouTube experience.
Now it will, anyway.
""The Mozilla Foundation has completely failed to fix problems in Netscape 4 that have been around for years," said Microsoft marketing marketer Jonathan Ness.
"Furthermore, Firefox gets just as many hacks as Internet Explorer, and pay no attention to my lengthening nose.
"In December, Chinese hackers exploited a weak spot in IE6 that Microsoft had only known about since September.
Following this, governments worldwide told people to get the hell off IE6, except Britain, which relies on IE6 to leak data when there are insufficient funds for USB sticks or train journeys for civil servants.Web designers around the world welcomed Google's move, but have not given up their Bill Gates dartboards just yet.
"'That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die.
' Steve Ballmer said that, you know.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30963502</id>
	<title>Re:Everyone should do this</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1264875900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It depends if you think pissing off some of your customers is better than supporting IE6. I suspect that developers say "yes" and management says "no". Guess who gets the final word?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It depends if you think pissing off some of your customers is better than supporting IE6 .
I suspect that developers say " yes " and management says " no " .
Guess who gets the final word ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It depends if you think pissing off some of your customers is better than supporting IE6.
I suspect that developers say "yes" and management says "no".
Guess who gets the final word?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30963180</id>
	<title>First</title>
	<author>goldaryn</author>
	<datestamp>1264874220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>First Google came for IE, and I said nothing, cos Fuck IE.
Then Google came for Firefox, and I said nothing, cos Fuck Firefox.
Then Google came for Opera, and I said nothing, cos Fuck Opera.
Then Google came for Chrome, no wait

Then Google came for me, and when I came to my butt hurt a lot but I found a Droid in my shirt pocket. Result</htmltext>
<tokenext>First Google came for IE , and I said nothing , cos Fuck IE .
Then Google came for Firefox , and I said nothing , cos Fuck Firefox .
Then Google came for Opera , and I said nothing , cos Fuck Opera .
Then Google came for Chrome , no wait Then Google came for me , and when I came to my butt hurt a lot but I found a Droid in my shirt pocket .
Result</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First Google came for IE, and I said nothing, cos Fuck IE.
Then Google came for Firefox, and I said nothing, cos Fuck Firefox.
Then Google came for Opera, and I said nothing, cos Fuck Opera.
Then Google came for Chrome, no wait

Then Google came for me, and when I came to my butt hurt a lot but I found a Droid in my shirt pocket.
Result</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30961962</id>
	<title>Re:Ding Dong</title>
	<author>DJRumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1264865040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did anyone else just fall out of their chair when they read this? I was a little disappointed that in TFA, they mention they would suggest users upgrade to IE7.</p><p><i>"Support for IE6 in Google Docs and Google Sites will end March 1, Sheth said in the post. At that point, IE6 users who try to access Docs or Sites may find that "key functionality" won't work properly, he said.</i></p><p><i>Sheth suggested that customers upgrade to Internet Explorer 7, Mozilla Firefox 3.0, Google Chrome 4.0 or Safari 3.0, or more recent versions of those browsers. "</i></p><p>Why would they even suggest IE7?</p><p>I'm also wondering how this will affect corporate infrastructures who rely on Docs or Sites. My company is one of those stuck in IE6 ZombieLand, but we are already in the certification process for Windows 7 and IE8. Unfortunately, for an organization our size, it takes 1-2 years to move to a new version of windows. I can't imagine we're all that unique. This time line seems very aggressive (don't get me wrong, I understand Google's perspective completely).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did anyone else just fall out of their chair when they read this ?
I was a little disappointed that in TFA , they mention they would suggest users upgrade to IE7 .
" Support for IE6 in Google Docs and Google Sites will end March 1 , Sheth said in the post .
At that point , IE6 users who try to access Docs or Sites may find that " key functionality " wo n't work properly , he said.Sheth suggested that customers upgrade to Internet Explorer 7 , Mozilla Firefox 3.0 , Google Chrome 4.0 or Safari 3.0 , or more recent versions of those browsers .
" Why would they even suggest IE7 ? I 'm also wondering how this will affect corporate infrastructures who rely on Docs or Sites .
My company is one of those stuck in IE6 ZombieLand , but we are already in the certification process for Windows 7 and IE8 .
Unfortunately , for an organization our size , it takes 1-2 years to move to a new version of windows .
I ca n't imagine we 're all that unique .
This time line seems very aggressive ( do n't get me wrong , I understand Google 's perspective completely ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did anyone else just fall out of their chair when they read this?
I was a little disappointed that in TFA, they mention they would suggest users upgrade to IE7.
"Support for IE6 in Google Docs and Google Sites will end March 1, Sheth said in the post.
At that point, IE6 users who try to access Docs or Sites may find that "key functionality" won't work properly, he said.Sheth suggested that customers upgrade to Internet Explorer 7, Mozilla Firefox 3.0, Google Chrome 4.0 or Safari 3.0, or more recent versions of those browsers.
"Why would they even suggest IE7?I'm also wondering how this will affect corporate infrastructures who rely on Docs or Sites.
My company is one of those stuck in IE6 ZombieLand, but we are already in the certification process for Windows 7 and IE8.
Unfortunately, for an organization our size, it takes 1-2 years to move to a new version of windows.
I can't imagine we're all that unique.
This time line seems very aggressive (don't get me wrong, I understand Google's perspective completely).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30961860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962270</id>
	<title>Re:Ding Dong</title>
	<author>JohnBailey</author>
	<datestamp>1264867560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sheth suggested that customers upgrade to Internet Explorer 7, Mozilla Firefox 3.0, Google Chrome 4.0 or Safari 3.0, or more recent versions of those browsers. "

Why would they even suggest IE7?</p></div><p>Because otherwise it would look like they were stopping support for IE6 for commercial reasons rather than technical reasons. Which would be unethical to say the least.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm also wondering how this will affect corporate infrastructures who rely on Docs or Sites. My company is one of those stuck in IE6 ZombieLand, but we are already in the certification process for Windows 7 and IE8. Unfortunately, for an organization our size, it takes 1-2 years to move to a new version of windows. I can't imagine we're all that unique. This time line seems very aggressive (don't get me wrong, I understand Google's perspective completely).</p></div><p>They will have to change or stop using the services.

How many years have people been saying that IE6 should be got rid of? Do you need a disembodied hand to write it on the board room wall in blood?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sheth suggested that customers upgrade to Internet Explorer 7 , Mozilla Firefox 3.0 , Google Chrome 4.0 or Safari 3.0 , or more recent versions of those browsers .
" Why would they even suggest IE7 ? Because otherwise it would look like they were stopping support for IE6 for commercial reasons rather than technical reasons .
Which would be unethical to say the least.I 'm also wondering how this will affect corporate infrastructures who rely on Docs or Sites .
My company is one of those stuck in IE6 ZombieLand , but we are already in the certification process for Windows 7 and IE8 .
Unfortunately , for an organization our size , it takes 1-2 years to move to a new version of windows .
I ca n't imagine we 're all that unique .
This time line seems very aggressive ( do n't get me wrong , I understand Google 's perspective completely ) .They will have to change or stop using the services .
How many years have people been saying that IE6 should be got rid of ?
Do you need a disembodied hand to write it on the board room wall in blood ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sheth suggested that customers upgrade to Internet Explorer 7, Mozilla Firefox 3.0, Google Chrome 4.0 or Safari 3.0, or more recent versions of those browsers.
"

Why would they even suggest IE7?Because otherwise it would look like they were stopping support for IE6 for commercial reasons rather than technical reasons.
Which would be unethical to say the least.I'm also wondering how this will affect corporate infrastructures who rely on Docs or Sites.
My company is one of those stuck in IE6 ZombieLand, but we are already in the certification process for Windows 7 and IE8.
Unfortunately, for an organization our size, it takes 1-2 years to move to a new version of windows.
I can't imagine we're all that unique.
This time line seems very aggressive (don't get me wrong, I understand Google's perspective completely).They will have to change or stop using the services.
How many years have people been saying that IE6 should be got rid of?
Do you need a disembodied hand to write it on the board room wall in blood?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30961962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962742</id>
	<title>Re:Good riddance!</title>
	<author>Zaiff Urgulbunger</author>
	<datestamp>1264871280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a web-dev, I see the biggest problem with IE6 being that it's rendering is massively buggy [the security issues don't directly affect me!]. Issues such as peek-a-boo bugs are difficult to test for; I can build a site, test it and have it all work perfectly, and then make a few tweaks later, and than discover that this triggers a weird IE6 bug. Worse, even if I have "tested"** in IE6, these things don't always reveal themselves... so in practise, I tend to find out about issues when the client complains!<br>
<br>
IE7 introduced a bunch of changes including the obvious addition of tabs and UI changes, and the fixes and updates to the rendering engine.<br>
<br>
IMHO, Microsoft should have fixed the rendering bugs in IE6. They should've called that IE6.1 or something. But instead, they did their usual trick where they roll bug fixes and features into one, so some people cannot easily update from IE6 to IE7. But IE6 rendering was broken and should've been fixed waaaaay before IE7 was released.<br>
<br>
On the other-hand, if MS had done this, we would have a less flaky, but still seriously lacking, IE6 and there may be even less incentive for people to upgrade!<br>
<br>
**"Tested" for me typically means I viewed a page once in said browser. Obviously if the budget is there then more testing may be done, but typically there isn't time for extensive testing for minor page changes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a web-dev , I see the biggest problem with IE6 being that it 's rendering is massively buggy [ the security issues do n't directly affect me ! ] .
Issues such as peek-a-boo bugs are difficult to test for ; I can build a site , test it and have it all work perfectly , and then make a few tweaks later , and than discover that this triggers a weird IE6 bug .
Worse , even if I have " tested " * * in IE6 , these things do n't always reveal themselves... so in practise , I tend to find out about issues when the client complains !
IE7 introduced a bunch of changes including the obvious addition of tabs and UI changes , and the fixes and updates to the rendering engine .
IMHO , Microsoft should have fixed the rendering bugs in IE6 .
They should 've called that IE6.1 or something .
But instead , they did their usual trick where they roll bug fixes and features into one , so some people can not easily update from IE6 to IE7 .
But IE6 rendering was broken and should 've been fixed waaaaay before IE7 was released .
On the other-hand , if MS had done this , we would have a less flaky , but still seriously lacking , IE6 and there may be even less incentive for people to upgrade !
* * " Tested " for me typically means I viewed a page once in said browser .
Obviously if the budget is there then more testing may be done , but typically there is n't time for extensive testing for minor page changes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a web-dev, I see the biggest problem with IE6 being that it's rendering is massively buggy [the security issues don't directly affect me!].
Issues such as peek-a-boo bugs are difficult to test for; I can build a site, test it and have it all work perfectly, and then make a few tweaks later, and than discover that this triggers a weird IE6 bug.
Worse, even if I have "tested"** in IE6, these things don't always reveal themselves... so in practise, I tend to find out about issues when the client complains!
IE7 introduced a bunch of changes including the obvious addition of tabs and UI changes, and the fixes and updates to the rendering engine.
IMHO, Microsoft should have fixed the rendering bugs in IE6.
They should've called that IE6.1 or something.
But instead, they did their usual trick where they roll bug fixes and features into one, so some people cannot easily update from IE6 to IE7.
But IE6 rendering was broken and should've been fixed waaaaay before IE7 was released.
On the other-hand, if MS had done this, we would have a less flaky, but still seriously lacking, IE6 and there may be even less incentive for people to upgrade!
**"Tested" for me typically means I viewed a page once in said browser.
Obviously if the budget is there then more testing may be done, but typically there isn't time for extensive testing for minor page changes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30961882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962384</id>
	<title>Re:Good riddance!</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1264868340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft only made it difficult if you want IE7 or 8 as your browser for external apps.  If you want FireFox, Chrome, or Safari for the Internet and IE 6 for the Intranet, it's pretty simple...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft only made it difficult if you want IE7 or 8 as your browser for external apps .
If you want FireFox , Chrome , or Safari for the Internet and IE 6 for the Intranet , it 's pretty simple.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft only made it difficult if you want IE7 or 8 as your browser for external apps.
If you want FireFox, Chrome, or Safari for the Internet and IE 6 for the Intranet, it's pretty simple...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962106</id>
	<title>Re:I think Google is being reactionary here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264866240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nothing can stop you installing Firefox besides IE. They can have IE for their legacy ActiveX intranet stuff, Firefox for anything else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing can stop you installing Firefox besides IE .
They can have IE for their legacy ActiveX intranet stuff , Firefox for anything else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing can stop you installing Firefox besides IE.
They can have IE for their legacy ActiveX intranet stuff, Firefox for anything else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962882</id>
	<title>Re:Why there is no virtual IE6 in sandboxes?</title>
	<author>VortexCortex</author>
	<datestamp>1264872300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does it have to be virtual?  If you just want to sandbox IE why not just use <a href="http://www.sandboxie.com/" title="sandboxie.com" rel="nofollow">Sandboxie</a> [sandboxie.com]?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does it have to be virtual ?
If you just want to sandbox IE why not just use Sandboxie [ sandboxie.com ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does it have to be virtual?
If you just want to sandbox IE why not just use Sandboxie [sandboxie.com]?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962074</id>
	<title>Re:Good riddance!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264866000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's time to see IE6 go. Unfortunately, Microsoft will support IE6 until support for XP runs out - this model needs to change, badly.</p><p>SP3 for XP should've made IE7 mandatory. Unfortunately, the right decisions are not always good for business.</p></div><p>Yeah, because forced upgrades also go over so well with this crowd. Should a RHEL/SLES/Ubuntu LTS release of Linux force upgrades to Firefox? Is it okay to do that just because the next major version is free? There's a lot you can blame Microsoft for, but it's the companies that don't want to upgrade which is the problem here. Or would you rather Microsoft moves more in the direction of Apple too, making decisions for you than to leave it to the users?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's time to see IE6 go .
Unfortunately , Microsoft will support IE6 until support for XP runs out - this model needs to change , badly.SP3 for XP should 've made IE7 mandatory .
Unfortunately , the right decisions are not always good for business.Yeah , because forced upgrades also go over so well with this crowd .
Should a RHEL/SLES/Ubuntu LTS release of Linux force upgrades to Firefox ?
Is it okay to do that just because the next major version is free ?
There 's a lot you can blame Microsoft for , but it 's the companies that do n't want to upgrade which is the problem here .
Or would you rather Microsoft moves more in the direction of Apple too , making decisions for you than to leave it to the users ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's time to see IE6 go.
Unfortunately, Microsoft will support IE6 until support for XP runs out - this model needs to change, badly.SP3 for XP should've made IE7 mandatory.
Unfortunately, the right decisions are not always good for business.Yeah, because forced upgrades also go over so well with this crowd.
Should a RHEL/SLES/Ubuntu LTS release of Linux force upgrades to Firefox?
Is it okay to do that just because the next major version is free?
There's a lot you can blame Microsoft for, but it's the companies that don't want to upgrade which is the problem here.
Or would you rather Microsoft moves more in the direction of Apple too, making decisions for you than to leave it to the users?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30961882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30965708</id>
	<title>Pointless to wait</title>
	<author>SmallFurryCreature</author>
	<datestamp>1264848000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you are still waiting on a strategy to move away from IE6, you will NEVER develop a strategy.
</p><p>Why would google spend costly resources to support an inferior product from a company that is using said product to fight them and everyone else who wants to do business on the web?
</p><p>IE6 is not a market for Google, if you use IE6, you are NOT a google user.
</p><p>This has been very long in coming and nobody remotely competent enough to tie his or her own shoe laces still uses IE6 for the web. And companies that got some horrid activex, they can use IE6 as much as they want, just install another browser next to it to access the web.
</p><p>Really, just how much time do you need to upgrade software anyway. I could have audited Firefox's sourcecode in this time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are still waiting on a strategy to move away from IE6 , you will NEVER develop a strategy .
Why would google spend costly resources to support an inferior product from a company that is using said product to fight them and everyone else who wants to do business on the web ?
IE6 is not a market for Google , if you use IE6 , you are NOT a google user .
This has been very long in coming and nobody remotely competent enough to tie his or her own shoe laces still uses IE6 for the web .
And companies that got some horrid activex , they can use IE6 as much as they want , just install another browser next to it to access the web .
Really , just how much time do you need to upgrade software anyway .
I could have audited Firefox 's sourcecode in this time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are still waiting on a strategy to move away from IE6, you will NEVER develop a strategy.
Why would google spend costly resources to support an inferior product from a company that is using said product to fight them and everyone else who wants to do business on the web?
IE6 is not a market for Google, if you use IE6, you are NOT a google user.
This has been very long in coming and nobody remotely competent enough to tie his or her own shoe laces still uses IE6 for the web.
And companies that got some horrid activex, they can use IE6 as much as they want, just install another browser next to it to access the web.
Really, just how much time do you need to upgrade software anyway.
I could have audited Firefox's sourcecode in this time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962438</id>
	<title>Re:Everyone should do this</title>
	<author>tokul</author>
	<datestamp>1264868820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>After all, it's not as if there aren't any [microsoft.com] alternatives [mozilla.com] available [google.com]...</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Your "any" link is broken. It does not list alternative. Only other version of same piece of sh*t that calls itself a browser.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>After all , it 's not as if there are n't any [ microsoft.com ] alternatives [ mozilla.com ] available [ google.com ] .. . Your " any " link is broken .
It does not list alternative .
Only other version of same piece of sh * t that calls itself a browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After all, it's not as if there aren't any [microsoft.com] alternatives [mozilla.com] available [google.com]...

Your "any" link is broken.
It does not list alternative.
Only other version of same piece of sh*t that calls itself a browser.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962704</id>
	<title>Support for legacy technology, a necessary evil.</title>
	<author>mmell</author>
	<datestamp>1264870980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's a common enough trap.  I won't fault Microsoft for evolving their own standards with Internet Explorer, it makes perfect sense when considering the proprietary software model.  Here's the trap - when software is obliged to evolve (due to exploits, demands for new functionality, etc.) there's an inevitable question of "pay now or pay later".  Every organization I've ever worked for, large and small alike, invariably answer with "Pay later!".  You can point out the "interest" associated with that choice and the answer is still "PAY LATER!!".  In the opensource world there's certainly a mindset oriented towards staying compatible with the latest stable release of anything, but the proprietary model involves money.  Nothing's free, not even an upgrade - if you get it free, it just means they built the cost into something else.  Hence the lockin on a legacy technology which is now quite obsolete - hell, even Microsoft themselves have been screaming at everyone to <i>please</i> update to the latest-and-most-mediocre version of Internet Explorer for years now.<p>
Microsoft is like McDonald's - it's not their fault we're stuck with the pain of getting rid of a legacy application - all they did was make us the offer "Pay now or pay later".  It's not their fault Corporate America couldn't put down the cheeseburger and back their fat(-cat) butts away from the table.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a common enough trap .
I wo n't fault Microsoft for evolving their own standards with Internet Explorer , it makes perfect sense when considering the proprietary software model .
Here 's the trap - when software is obliged to evolve ( due to exploits , demands for new functionality , etc .
) there 's an inevitable question of " pay now or pay later " .
Every organization I 've ever worked for , large and small alike , invariably answer with " Pay later ! " .
You can point out the " interest " associated with that choice and the answer is still " PAY LATER ! ! " .
In the opensource world there 's certainly a mindset oriented towards staying compatible with the latest stable release of anything , but the proprietary model involves money .
Nothing 's free , not even an upgrade - if you get it free , it just means they built the cost into something else .
Hence the lockin on a legacy technology which is now quite obsolete - hell , even Microsoft themselves have been screaming at everyone to please update to the latest-and-most-mediocre version of Internet Explorer for years now .
Microsoft is like McDonald 's - it 's not their fault we 're stuck with the pain of getting rid of a legacy application - all they did was make us the offer " Pay now or pay later " .
It 's not their fault Corporate America could n't put down the cheeseburger and back their fat ( -cat ) butts away from the table .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a common enough trap.
I won't fault Microsoft for evolving their own standards with Internet Explorer, it makes perfect sense when considering the proprietary software model.
Here's the trap - when software is obliged to evolve (due to exploits, demands for new functionality, etc.
) there's an inevitable question of "pay now or pay later".
Every organization I've ever worked for, large and small alike, invariably answer with "Pay later!".
You can point out the "interest" associated with that choice and the answer is still "PAY LATER!!".
In the opensource world there's certainly a mindset oriented towards staying compatible with the latest stable release of anything, but the proprietary model involves money.
Nothing's free, not even an upgrade - if you get it free, it just means they built the cost into something else.
Hence the lockin on a legacy technology which is now quite obsolete - hell, even Microsoft themselves have been screaming at everyone to please update to the latest-and-most-mediocre version of Internet Explorer for years now.
Microsoft is like McDonald's - it's not their fault we're stuck with the pain of getting rid of a legacy application - all they did was make us the offer "Pay now or pay later".
It's not their fault Corporate America couldn't put down the cheeseburger and back their fat(-cat) butts away from the table.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30967382</id>
	<title>Re:Good riddance!</title>
	<author>antdude</author>
	<datestamp>1264862820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, SP2 ends MS' support this July 13th, 2010. IE6 should be the same and require IE7+ for SP3. Or maybe add IE7+ for SP4 (if ever gets made).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , SP2 ends MS ' support this July 13th , 2010 .
IE6 should be the same and require IE7 + for SP3 .
Or maybe add IE7 + for SP4 ( if ever gets made ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, SP2 ends MS' support this July 13th, 2010.
IE6 should be the same and require IE7+ for SP3.
Or maybe add IE7+ for SP4 (if ever gets made).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30961882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962220</id>
	<title>Re:Good riddance!</title>
	<author>dissy</author>
	<datestamp>1264867200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There's a lot you can blame Microsoft for, but it's the companies that don't want to upgrade which is the problem here.</p></div><p>Exactly!</p><p>These companies are faced with a choice.</p><p>A)  They keep IE6 so their internal "webapps" (IE6 apps really) and such don't need upgraded, but since only IE6 is installed they have no web browser.<br>or B)  They install a web browser app, and need to spend money to fix/update those IE6-apps to work with a web browser instead.</p><p>If the company chooses 'A', they willingly and knowingly have chosen not to have web browsing capabilities on those computers.</p><p>Sure, Microsoft has made some choices that make life harder for people needing to make that choice.  But lack of forced upgrades is not one of those poor decisions.<br>Designing IE in such a way that multiple versions can't be installed along side would be a valid complaint, but it should be clear by now it is a complaint they will never address.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a lot you can blame Microsoft for , but it 's the companies that do n't want to upgrade which is the problem here.Exactly ! These companies are faced with a choice.A ) They keep IE6 so their internal " webapps " ( IE6 apps really ) and such do n't need upgraded , but since only IE6 is installed they have no web browser.or B ) They install a web browser app , and need to spend money to fix/update those IE6-apps to work with a web browser instead.If the company chooses 'A ' , they willingly and knowingly have chosen not to have web browsing capabilities on those computers.Sure , Microsoft has made some choices that make life harder for people needing to make that choice .
But lack of forced upgrades is not one of those poor decisions.Designing IE in such a way that multiple versions ca n't be installed along side would be a valid complaint , but it should be clear by now it is a complaint they will never address .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a lot you can blame Microsoft for, but it's the companies that don't want to upgrade which is the problem here.Exactly!These companies are faced with a choice.A)  They keep IE6 so their internal "webapps" (IE6 apps really) and such don't need upgraded, but since only IE6 is installed they have no web browser.or B)  They install a web browser app, and need to spend money to fix/update those IE6-apps to work with a web browser instead.If the company chooses 'A', they willingly and knowingly have chosen not to have web browsing capabilities on those computers.Sure, Microsoft has made some choices that make life harder for people needing to make that choice.
But lack of forced upgrades is not one of those poor decisions.Designing IE in such a way that multiple versions can't be installed along side would be a valid complaint, but it should be clear by now it is a complaint they will never address.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30963538</id>
	<title>Some companies will consider this change a bonus</title>
	<author>Goldenhawk</author>
	<datestamp>1264876080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some large corporation sysadmins will be thrilled that certain Google apps won't work correctly anymore.</p><p>My computing environment is heavily managed with group policy and very few user rights, and my company has many many thousands of users worldwide. We cannot even use thumb drives or install any software or hardware. For web connection, we are firmly stuck with IE6 and other outdated web software, mainly because of poorly-programmed corporate web apps with ultra-high security requirements (ironically) that the admins cannot afford to update for fear of the unknowns in new browsers. (For crying out loud, we still have a mandatory installation of Netscape!)</p><p>So the admins are always blocking off as many non-work-related sites as possible, and having such sites NOT work correctly will only further discourage users from trying them. For example, we can't use GMail or any other popular webmail sites. And I'm honestly surprised they haven't blocked Google Docs or Google Calendar yet, as they could "leak" data to the outside world.</p><p>I'd be that most large corporations are also in a similar fight against their users' desires for newer browsers and freer internet access. So I doubt that this move will really encourage many companies to ditch IE6 faster, and may in fact have the opposite effect in some cases.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some large corporation sysadmins will be thrilled that certain Google apps wo n't work correctly anymore.My computing environment is heavily managed with group policy and very few user rights , and my company has many many thousands of users worldwide .
We can not even use thumb drives or install any software or hardware .
For web connection , we are firmly stuck with IE6 and other outdated web software , mainly because of poorly-programmed corporate web apps with ultra-high security requirements ( ironically ) that the admins can not afford to update for fear of the unknowns in new browsers .
( For crying out loud , we still have a mandatory installation of Netscape !
) So the admins are always blocking off as many non-work-related sites as possible , and having such sites NOT work correctly will only further discourage users from trying them .
For example , we ca n't use GMail or any other popular webmail sites .
And I 'm honestly surprised they have n't blocked Google Docs or Google Calendar yet , as they could " leak " data to the outside world.I 'd be that most large corporations are also in a similar fight against their users ' desires for newer browsers and freer internet access .
So I doubt that this move will really encourage many companies to ditch IE6 faster , and may in fact have the opposite effect in some cases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some large corporation sysadmins will be thrilled that certain Google apps won't work correctly anymore.My computing environment is heavily managed with group policy and very few user rights, and my company has many many thousands of users worldwide.
We cannot even use thumb drives or install any software or hardware.
For web connection, we are firmly stuck with IE6 and other outdated web software, mainly because of poorly-programmed corporate web apps with ultra-high security requirements (ironically) that the admins cannot afford to update for fear of the unknowns in new browsers.
(For crying out loud, we still have a mandatory installation of Netscape!
)So the admins are always blocking off as many non-work-related sites as possible, and having such sites NOT work correctly will only further discourage users from trying them.
For example, we can't use GMail or any other popular webmail sites.
And I'm honestly surprised they haven't blocked Google Docs or Google Calendar yet, as they could "leak" data to the outside world.I'd be that most large corporations are also in a similar fight against their users' desires for newer browsers and freer internet access.
So I doubt that this move will really encourage many companies to ditch IE6 faster, and may in fact have the opposite effect in some cases.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962234</id>
	<title>Re:I think Google is being reactionary here</title>
	<author>bobdinkel</author>
	<datestamp>1264867260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It may <em>seem</em> reactionary, but I suspect the debate about whether to end support for IE6 has been going on for quite some time.</p><p>I would be very interested to know what percentage of Google Docs users are still using IE6. I would also be very interested in knowing how much it costs Google to support IE6 (the recent attacks notwithstanding). The development costs of supporting IE6 in any sort of web application are not insignificant. I suspect the percentage of the development budget that Google uses to support IE6 is disproportionate to the percentage of IE6 users.</p><p>Dropping IE6 is inevitable. Sure it leaves some people behind, but I'll bet the benefits of doing so significantly outweigh the drawbacks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It may seem reactionary , but I suspect the debate about whether to end support for IE6 has been going on for quite some time.I would be very interested to know what percentage of Google Docs users are still using IE6 .
I would also be very interested in knowing how much it costs Google to support IE6 ( the recent attacks notwithstanding ) .
The development costs of supporting IE6 in any sort of web application are not insignificant .
I suspect the percentage of the development budget that Google uses to support IE6 is disproportionate to the percentage of IE6 users.Dropping IE6 is inevitable .
Sure it leaves some people behind , but I 'll bet the benefits of doing so significantly outweigh the drawbacks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It may seem reactionary, but I suspect the debate about whether to end support for IE6 has been going on for quite some time.I would be very interested to know what percentage of Google Docs users are still using IE6.
I would also be very interested in knowing how much it costs Google to support IE6 (the recent attacks notwithstanding).
The development costs of supporting IE6 in any sort of web application are not insignificant.
I suspect the percentage of the development budget that Google uses to support IE6 is disproportionate to the percentage of IE6 users.Dropping IE6 is inevitable.
Sure it leaves some people behind, but I'll bet the benefits of doing so significantly outweigh the drawbacks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962676</id>
	<title>Huge developer time savings.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264870800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>During 2009, I asked my web dev team to track, in our bug tracker, how long they spend fixing issues for each browser. Most of our web development is for internal users, and we have to support some old systems running IE6.</p><p>The total amount of time varied between the different developers, as expected. The average for the web developers was just under 60 hours.</p><p>One developer put in 325 hours fixing bugs relating to IE6 alone. I don't think that number is due to a lack of skill on his part. He's actually one of the better developers, and so he often took the more difficult bugs.</p><p>That doesn't look like a lot of time at a quick glance, but do the math. For our typical 40 hour workweek, that one developer spent over two full months last year alone fixing problems due to IE6. That's many thousands of dollars that were basically wasted, and that doesn't include the time and money the other devs also wasted supporting IE6.</p><p>So now that we had some real data that we could use to show the financial cost of IE6, management was willing to listen. We took our data nearly to the top, and successfully got our company to drop IE6. Not only that, but we talked them into dropping support for IE completely, including IE7 and IE8. We got them to standardize on Chrome, and we're currently in the process of deploying it company-wide. Our lives will be much more enjoyable from this point onwards, I think.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>During 2009 , I asked my web dev team to track , in our bug tracker , how long they spend fixing issues for each browser .
Most of our web development is for internal users , and we have to support some old systems running IE6.The total amount of time varied between the different developers , as expected .
The average for the web developers was just under 60 hours.One developer put in 325 hours fixing bugs relating to IE6 alone .
I do n't think that number is due to a lack of skill on his part .
He 's actually one of the better developers , and so he often took the more difficult bugs.That does n't look like a lot of time at a quick glance , but do the math .
For our typical 40 hour workweek , that one developer spent over two full months last year alone fixing problems due to IE6 .
That 's many thousands of dollars that were basically wasted , and that does n't include the time and money the other devs also wasted supporting IE6.So now that we had some real data that we could use to show the financial cost of IE6 , management was willing to listen .
We took our data nearly to the top , and successfully got our company to drop IE6 .
Not only that , but we talked them into dropping support for IE completely , including IE7 and IE8 .
We got them to standardize on Chrome , and we 're currently in the process of deploying it company-wide .
Our lives will be much more enjoyable from this point onwards , I think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>During 2009, I asked my web dev team to track, in our bug tracker, how long they spend fixing issues for each browser.
Most of our web development is for internal users, and we have to support some old systems running IE6.The total amount of time varied between the different developers, as expected.
The average for the web developers was just under 60 hours.One developer put in 325 hours fixing bugs relating to IE6 alone.
I don't think that number is due to a lack of skill on his part.
He's actually one of the better developers, and so he often took the more difficult bugs.That doesn't look like a lot of time at a quick glance, but do the math.
For our typical 40 hour workweek, that one developer spent over two full months last year alone fixing problems due to IE6.
That's many thousands of dollars that were basically wasted, and that doesn't include the time and money the other devs also wasted supporting IE6.So now that we had some real data that we could use to show the financial cost of IE6, management was willing to listen.
We took our data nearly to the top, and successfully got our company to drop IE6.
Not only that, but we talked them into dropping support for IE completely, including IE7 and IE8.
We got them to standardize on Chrome, and we're currently in the process of deploying it company-wide.
Our lives will be much more enjoyable from this point onwards, I think.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30961856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30963318</id>
	<title>I suspect</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1264875000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that IE6 users have a low participation percentage in Google services such as Docs.</p><p>For that reason it won't put much pressure on them to switch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that IE6 users have a low participation percentage in Google services such as Docs.For that reason it wo n't put much pressure on them to switch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that IE6 users have a low participation percentage in Google services such as Docs.For that reason it won't put much pressure on them to switch.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962506</id>
	<title>Why not run two browsers?</title>
	<author>irid77</author>
	<datestamp>1264869360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's so confusing to me that this is a problem at all. Why can't these companies that have some legacy requirement for IE6 for some internal company database just keep IE6 for that purpose, and have any other browser installed for browsing the actual internet? You could even restrict IE6's access to the local network if needed to direct users.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's so confusing to me that this is a problem at all .
Why ca n't these companies that have some legacy requirement for IE6 for some internal company database just keep IE6 for that purpose , and have any other browser installed for browsing the actual internet ?
You could even restrict IE6 's access to the local network if needed to direct users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's so confusing to me that this is a problem at all.
Why can't these companies that have some legacy requirement for IE6 for some internal company database just keep IE6 for that purpose, and have any other browser installed for browsing the actual internet?
You could even restrict IE6's access to the local network if needed to direct users.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30961860</id>
	<title>Ding Dong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264864080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The witch is dead!</p><p>About time too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The witch is dead ! About time too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The witch is dead!About time too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962678</id>
	<title>ie6nomore ftw!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264870800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.ie6nomore.com/" title="ie6nomore.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.ie6nomore.com/</a> [ie6nomore.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.ie6nomore.com/ [ ie6nomore.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.ie6nomore.com/ [ie6nomore.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.31000544</id>
	<title>Congratulations to the University of Ulster</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265102340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They require IE7 for some features.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They require IE7 for some features .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They require IE7 for some features.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30966742</id>
	<title>why have the net connection?</title>
	<author>r00t</author>
	<datestamp>1264857120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you have "ultra-high security requirements" then you need to get those computers off the net.</p><p>Physically unplug them. Uninstall any wireless drivers and remove any wireless antennas.</p><p>Somebody needs the internet? Get them an iPhone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have " ultra-high security requirements " then you need to get those computers off the net.Physically unplug them .
Uninstall any wireless drivers and remove any wireless antennas.Somebody needs the internet ?
Get them an iPhone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you have "ultra-high security requirements" then you need to get those computers off the net.Physically unplug them.
Uninstall any wireless drivers and remove any wireless antennas.Somebody needs the internet?
Get them an iPhone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30963538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30964634</id>
	<title>Google to end support for Chrome 3.0</title>
	<author>azuretongue</author>
	<datestamp>1264883280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems like the the real story is that Google is no longer supporting their own browser that came out less than six months ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems like the the real story is that Google is no longer supporting their own browser that came out less than six months ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems like the the real story is that Google is no longer supporting their own browser that came out less than six months ago.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30969886</id>
	<title>Re:Some companies will consider this change a bonu</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264948320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do we work at the same company?  I really thought we did until you mentioned the mandatory netscape thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do we work at the same company ?
I really thought we did until you mentioned the mandatory netscape thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do we work at the same company?
I really thought we did until you mentioned the mandatory netscape thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30963538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962256</id>
	<title>I think this is just great.</title>
	<author>Rexdude</author>
	<datestamp>1264867440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We keep hearing how IE6 has remained in corporate use because of legacy applications that won't run on anything else. Now considering Google's popularity, all the holdovers will be forced to upgrade if they want to keep using it.<br>Alternately, we may see an increase in use of other search engines like Bing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We keep hearing how IE6 has remained in corporate use because of legacy applications that wo n't run on anything else .
Now considering Google 's popularity , all the holdovers will be forced to upgrade if they want to keep using it.Alternately , we may see an increase in use of other search engines like Bing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We keep hearing how IE6 has remained in corporate use because of legacy applications that won't run on anything else.
Now considering Google's popularity, all the holdovers will be forced to upgrade if they want to keep using it.Alternately, we may see an increase in use of other search engines like Bing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30984196</id>
	<title>Re:Ding Dong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265051940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Our system has detected that your computer is running a browser that may be incompatible with the exchange. In order to get the most from the exchange we recommend you use Internet Explorer 6.0 or above on Windows</p><p>Not at betdaq co uk</p><p>(PS To get this error message I used Opera 10.1)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Our system has detected that your computer is running a browser that may be incompatible with the exchange .
In order to get the most from the exchange we recommend you use Internet Explorer 6.0 or above on WindowsNot at betdaq co uk ( PS To get this error message I used Opera 10.1 )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our system has detected that your computer is running a browser that may be incompatible with the exchange.
In order to get the most from the exchange we recommend you use Internet Explorer 6.0 or above on WindowsNot at betdaq co uk(PS To get this error message I used Opera 10.1)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30961860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962786</id>
	<title>Re:Ding Dong</title>
	<author>madprof</author>
	<datestamp>1264871640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They suggested IE7 as it is a better browser.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They suggested IE7 as it is a better browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They suggested IE7 as it is a better browser.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30961962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962248</id>
	<title>Re:Good riddance!</title>
	<author>jafiwam</author>
	<datestamp>1264867380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem comes from two not-so-problematical things working together;

</p><p>1. That IE can only exist as one version on the machine.

</p><p>2. That corporate users are so fucking afraid of using a real browser. (I am looking at you, you pathetic corporate dick sucking IT guys that can't seem to handle an easy to install free Browser.)

</p><p>Put these two together, and you get a large crowd of self-righteous "I am working so I must get to use my shitty equipment on any web site I want" people that subject IE6 on the rest of the Internet that has have moved on.  They use IE6 because someone made a bad decision and won't own up to it. And really, what exactly ARE these mysterious and absolutely critical ActiveX apps?  Are you fucking serious? If they are that critical, maybe write some VB to do the same thing. Wouldn't that be fancy? Or is this just another lame job protection thing that you are afraid your rickety shitty ass app being replaced by a 16 line batch file will put you out on the street.

</p><p>It is this attitude that truly makes these corporate idiots deserve a baseball bat to the back of the head.

</p><p>IE6 doesn't even render DIV tags properly.  Which pretty much means two versions of every web site. (It renders them like tables, with all of their limitations.  Why even support it at all if you can't layer your DIVs?)

</p><p>We don't let horse and buggy on the interstate anymore, no matter HOW rich the idiot is. There's no reason to put up with IE6's shit anymore either. The fucking thing is <b>NINE GODDAMN YEARS OLD</b>, and is <b>FOUR FULL OPERATING SYSTEMS BEHIND</b>.

</p><p>Kill it.  Kill IE6.  Kill anybody that still uses it, their fault or not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem comes from two not-so-problematical things working together ; 1 .
That IE can only exist as one version on the machine .
2. That corporate users are so fucking afraid of using a real browser .
( I am looking at you , you pathetic corporate dick sucking IT guys that ca n't seem to handle an easy to install free Browser .
) Put these two together , and you get a large crowd of self-righteous " I am working so I must get to use my shitty equipment on any web site I want " people that subject IE6 on the rest of the Internet that has have moved on .
They use IE6 because someone made a bad decision and wo n't own up to it .
And really , what exactly ARE these mysterious and absolutely critical ActiveX apps ?
Are you fucking serious ?
If they are that critical , maybe write some VB to do the same thing .
Would n't that be fancy ?
Or is this just another lame job protection thing that you are afraid your rickety shitty ass app being replaced by a 16 line batch file will put you out on the street .
It is this attitude that truly makes these corporate idiots deserve a baseball bat to the back of the head .
IE6 does n't even render DIV tags properly .
Which pretty much means two versions of every web site .
( It renders them like tables , with all of their limitations .
Why even support it at all if you ca n't layer your DIVs ?
) We do n't let horse and buggy on the interstate anymore , no matter HOW rich the idiot is .
There 's no reason to put up with IE6 's shit anymore either .
The fucking thing is NINE GODDAMN YEARS OLD , and is FOUR FULL OPERATING SYSTEMS BEHIND .
Kill it .
Kill IE6 .
Kill anybody that still uses it , their fault or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem comes from two not-so-problematical things working together;

1.
That IE can only exist as one version on the machine.
2. That corporate users are so fucking afraid of using a real browser.
(I am looking at you, you pathetic corporate dick sucking IT guys that can't seem to handle an easy to install free Browser.
)

Put these two together, and you get a large crowd of self-righteous "I am working so I must get to use my shitty equipment on any web site I want" people that subject IE6 on the rest of the Internet that has have moved on.
They use IE6 because someone made a bad decision and won't own up to it.
And really, what exactly ARE these mysterious and absolutely critical ActiveX apps?
Are you fucking serious?
If they are that critical, maybe write some VB to do the same thing.
Wouldn't that be fancy?
Or is this just another lame job protection thing that you are afraid your rickety shitty ass app being replaced by a 16 line batch file will put you out on the street.
It is this attitude that truly makes these corporate idiots deserve a baseball bat to the back of the head.
IE6 doesn't even render DIV tags properly.
Which pretty much means two versions of every web site.
(It renders them like tables, with all of their limitations.
Why even support it at all if you can't layer your DIVs?
)

We don't let horse and buggy on the interstate anymore, no matter HOW rich the idiot is.
There's no reason to put up with IE6's shit anymore either.
The fucking thing is NINE GODDAMN YEARS OLD, and is FOUR FULL OPERATING SYSTEMS BEHIND.
Kill it.
Kill IE6.
Kill anybody that still uses it, their fault or not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30961882</id>
	<title>Good riddance!</title>
	<author>lukas84</author>
	<datestamp>1264864320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's time to see IE6 go. Unfortunately, Microsoft will support IE6 until support for XP runs out - this model needs to change, badly.</p><p>SP3 for XP should've made IE7 mandatory. Unfortunately, the right decisions are not always good for business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's time to see IE6 go .
Unfortunately , Microsoft will support IE6 until support for XP runs out - this model needs to change , badly.SP3 for XP should 've made IE7 mandatory .
Unfortunately , the right decisions are not always good for business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's time to see IE6 go.
Unfortunately, Microsoft will support IE6 until support for XP runs out - this model needs to change, badly.SP3 for XP should've made IE7 mandatory.
Unfortunately, the right decisions are not always good for business.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962058</id>
	<title>Re:I think Google is being reactionary here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264865880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They say they had this planned before the hack.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They say they had this planned before the hack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They say they had this planned before the hack.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30965060</id>
	<title>Am I the only one..</title>
	<author>niktesla</author>
	<datestamp>1264842960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Am I the only one who read the title as Google To End Support for IP6? That would have been quite a shock!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I the only one who read the title as Google To End Support for IP6 ?
That would have been quite a shock !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I the only one who read the title as Google To End Support for IP6?
That would have been quite a shock!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962034</id>
	<title>I think Google is being reactionary here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264865640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just deciding to end support for a product in a month's time after a major hack is being reactionary. This move will definitely wreck havoc in [large] organizations that typically take more than a month to implement change. Google should know this because they are seeking to support these same organizations with their various products.</p><p>I am a little disappointed that Google would do this. If I were Google, my alternative would be to offer "a final" one year of support so that companies which rely on IE6 can plot strategies.</p><p>Google dropped the ball here. I expected better from them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just deciding to end support for a product in a month 's time after a major hack is being reactionary .
This move will definitely wreck havoc in [ large ] organizations that typically take more than a month to implement change .
Google should know this because they are seeking to support these same organizations with their various products.I am a little disappointed that Google would do this .
If I were Google , my alternative would be to offer " a final " one year of support so that companies which rely on IE6 can plot strategies.Google dropped the ball here .
I expected better from them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just deciding to end support for a product in a month's time after a major hack is being reactionary.
This move will definitely wreck havoc in [large] organizations that typically take more than a month to implement change.
Google should know this because they are seeking to support these same organizations with their various products.I am a little disappointed that Google would do this.
If I were Google, my alternative would be to offer "a final" one year of support so that companies which rely on IE6 can plot strategies.Google dropped the ball here.
I expected better from them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962124</id>
	<title>Upgrade to pretty much anything else.</title>
	<author>psYchotic87</author>
	<datestamp>1264866420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does "pretty much anything else" include IE5?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does " pretty much anything else " include IE5 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does "pretty much anything else" include IE5?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30965426</id>
	<title>Better Yet!</title>
	<author>esmrg</author>
	<datestamp>1264845600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A drive by remote code execution for IE that replaces mshtml.dll with a compatible wrapper for the gecko engine. Problem solved! Now all those IE6 users are using firefox without even knowing it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A drive by remote code execution for IE that replaces mshtml.dll with a compatible wrapper for the gecko engine .
Problem solved !
Now all those IE6 users are using firefox without even knowing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A drive by remote code execution for IE that replaces mshtml.dll with a compatible wrapper for the gecko engine.
Problem solved!
Now all those IE6 users are using firefox without even knowing it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30961960</id>
	<title>IE6:  key functionality won't work properly</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264864980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How will anyone tell the difference?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How will anyone tell the difference ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How will anyone tell the difference?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30968750</id>
	<title>Re:Good riddance!</title>
	<author>yuhong</author>
	<datestamp>1264971060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>FOUR FULL OPERATING SYSTEMS BEHIND</p></div><p>Actually two full versions of Windows behind.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>FOUR FULL OPERATING SYSTEMS BEHINDActually two full versions of Windows behind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FOUR FULL OPERATING SYSTEMS BEHINDActually two full versions of Windows behind.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962254</id>
	<title>Re:Good riddance!</title>
	<author>dsavi</author>
	<datestamp>1264867440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Yeah, because forced upgrades also go over so well with this crowd. Should a RHEL/SLES/Ubuntu LTS release of Linux force upgrades to Firefox? Is it okay to do that just because the next major version is free?</p></div></blockquote><p>
Maybe if old versions of Firefox running on RHEL/SLES/Ubuntu LTS represented over 25\% of the global browser market share.</p><blockquote><div><p>Or would you rather Microsoft moves more in the direction of Apple too, making decisions for you than to leave it to the users?</p></div></blockquote><p>

That's an interesting point. In some cases such as this one, that would actually be a good move.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , because forced upgrades also go over so well with this crowd .
Should a RHEL/SLES/Ubuntu LTS release of Linux force upgrades to Firefox ?
Is it okay to do that just because the next major version is free ?
Maybe if old versions of Firefox running on RHEL/SLES/Ubuntu LTS represented over 25 \ % of the global browser market share.Or would you rather Microsoft moves more in the direction of Apple too , making decisions for you than to leave it to the users ?
That 's an interesting point .
In some cases such as this one , that would actually be a good move .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, because forced upgrades also go over so well with this crowd.
Should a RHEL/SLES/Ubuntu LTS release of Linux force upgrades to Firefox?
Is it okay to do that just because the next major version is free?
Maybe if old versions of Firefox running on RHEL/SLES/Ubuntu LTS represented over 25\% of the global browser market share.Or would you rather Microsoft moves more in the direction of Apple too, making decisions for you than to leave it to the users?
That's an interesting point.
In some cases such as this one, that would actually be a good move.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30964092</id>
	<title>Re:Huge developer time savings.</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1264879140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; We got them to standardize on Chrome...</p><p>But did you get them to standardize on standards?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; We got them to standardize on Chrome...But did you get them to standardize on standards ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; We got them to standardize on Chrome...But did you get them to standardize on standards?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30961856</id>
	<title>Finally</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264864080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's about time high traffic sites stop supporting that abomination of a browser.</p><p>Die IE6 die.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's about time high traffic sites stop supporting that abomination of a browser.Die IE6 die .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's about time high traffic sites stop supporting that abomination of a browser.Die IE6 die.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962154</id>
	<title>Re:I think Google is being reactionary here</title>
	<author>AdmiralXyz</author>
	<datestamp>1264866600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>No way. The writing has been on the wall for IE6 for years, both from Google (many of their more advanced products, like Wave, state very explicitly that something more modern than IE6 is needed if you want to partake), and across the internet (Digg, YouTube, etc.). Any IT shop that hasn't already begun plans to migrate away from IE6 by now is just being stubborn, and needs a kick in the pants.<br>
<br>
I know <i>why</i> there are so many businesses that won't upgrade from IE6, with their legacy web apps that they refuse to upgrade, but for God's sake, IE8 has compatibility mode. For the good of humanity, upgrade!</htmltext>
<tokenext>No way .
The writing has been on the wall for IE6 for years , both from Google ( many of their more advanced products , like Wave , state very explicitly that something more modern than IE6 is needed if you want to partake ) , and across the internet ( Digg , YouTube , etc. ) .
Any IT shop that has n't already begun plans to migrate away from IE6 by now is just being stubborn , and needs a kick in the pants .
I know why there are so many businesses that wo n't upgrade from IE6 , with their legacy web apps that they refuse to upgrade , but for God 's sake , IE8 has compatibility mode .
For the good of humanity , upgrade !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No way.
The writing has been on the wall for IE6 for years, both from Google (many of their more advanced products, like Wave, state very explicitly that something more modern than IE6 is needed if you want to partake), and across the internet (Digg, YouTube, etc.).
Any IT shop that hasn't already begun plans to migrate away from IE6 by now is just being stubborn, and needs a kick in the pants.
I know why there are so many businesses that won't upgrade from IE6, with their legacy web apps that they refuse to upgrade, but for God's sake, IE8 has compatibility mode.
For the good of humanity, upgrade!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962190</id>
	<title>Be evil</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264866840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do a genocide of IE6 users. If we can kill 6 million jews, 800,000 tutsis, 50 million communists, 1 million armenians, over 9000 Serbians and others then we can kill the millions of IE6 users. Heil Google, der Internetfuerer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do a genocide of IE6 users .
If we can kill 6 million jews , 800,000 tutsis , 50 million communists , 1 million armenians , over 9000 Serbians and others then we can kill the millions of IE6 users .
Heil Google , der Internetfuerer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do a genocide of IE6 users.
If we can kill 6 million jews, 800,000 tutsis, 50 million communists, 1 million armenians, over 9000 Serbians and others then we can kill the millions of IE6 users.
Heil Google, der Internetfuerer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30965008</id>
	<title>Hurrah!</title>
	<author>legio\_noctis</author>
	<datestamp>1264842600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Title's basically all there is to it.</p><p>However, I was rather amused to find this on <a href="http://thegatesnotes.com/" title="thegatesnotes.com" rel="nofollow">Bill Gates' new site</a> [thegatesnotes.com]:</p><p>

&lt;!--[if lt IE 7]&gt;
	&lt;script type="text/javascript" src="/js/unitpngfix.js"&gt; &lt;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/script&gt;
	&lt;link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/css/ie6.css"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/&gt;
&lt;![endif]--&gt;

</p><p>It seems rather fitting that he must now suffer the problem he created.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Title 's basically all there is to it.However , I was rather amused to find this on Bill Gates ' new site [ thegatesnotes.com ] : /script &gt; / &gt; It seems rather fitting that he must now suffer the problem he created .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Title's basically all there is to it.However, I was rather amused to find this on Bill Gates' new site [thegatesnotes.com]:


	  /script&gt;
	 /&gt;


It seems rather fitting that he must now suffer the problem he created.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1315226_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30964298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30961856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1315226_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30964092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30961856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1315226_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30965708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1315226_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30976492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30961856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1315226_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30964424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30961856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1315226_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1315226_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30968012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30963538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1315226_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30961882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1315226_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30963378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30961882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1315226_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30969886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30963538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1315226_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30964824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1315226_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1315226_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30961962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30961860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1315226_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30963502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1315226_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1315226_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30964766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30961882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1315226_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1315226_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1315226_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30963810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1315226_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1315226_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30966742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30963538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1315226_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1315226_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30961882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1315226_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30984196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30961860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1315226_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1315226_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30965622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1315226_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30967382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30961882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1315226_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1315226_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30964142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30961856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1315226_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30961882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1315226_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30968750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30961882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1315226_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30961962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30961860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1315226_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30965612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30961962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30961860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1315226_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30964742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30961856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1315226_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30967742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_1315226_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30961882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_1315226.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962256
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_1315226.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30964824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30965708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962150
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_1315226.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30967742
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30963810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30965622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30963502
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_1315226.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30963538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30969886
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30968012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30966742
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_1315226.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962506
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_1315226.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30961860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30984196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30961962
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30965612
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962270
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962786
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_1315226.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30961882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962742
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30963378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30967382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962074
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962248
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30964766
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30968750
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962470
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962220
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962384
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962254
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_1315226.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30961856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30976492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962676
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30964424
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30964742
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30964142
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30964092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30964298
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_1315226.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962882
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_1315226.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_1315226.30962124
</commentlist>
</conversation>
