<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_10_1328245</id>
	<title>Opera For iPhone To Test Apple's Resolve</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1265810220000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Barence writes <i>"Opera is launching a version of its <a href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/355444/opera-to-test-apples-resolve-with-iphone-browser">Mini browser for the iPhone in what could prove a landmark decision for Apple's app gatekeepers</a>. Apple has been traditionally hostile to rival browsers, with <a href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/215805/mozilla-rules-out-iphone-firefox-with-swipe-at-apple">Mozilla claiming that Apple made it 'too hard' for its rivals to develop a browser for the iPhone</a>. However, Opera remains bullishly confident that its app will be approved. 'We have not submitted Opera Mini to the Apple App store,' an Opera spokesperson told PC Pro. 'However, we hope that Apple will not deny their users a choice in web browsing experience.'"</i> I can't imagine what would motivate them to do that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Barence writes " Opera is launching a version of its Mini browser for the iPhone in what could prove a landmark decision for Apple 's app gatekeepers .
Apple has been traditionally hostile to rival browsers , with Mozilla claiming that Apple made it 'too hard ' for its rivals to develop a browser for the iPhone .
However , Opera remains bullishly confident that its app will be approved .
'We have not submitted Opera Mini to the Apple App store, ' an Opera spokesperson told PC Pro .
'However , we hope that Apple will not deny their users a choice in web browsing experience .
' " I ca n't imagine what would motivate them to do that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Barence writes "Opera is launching a version of its Mini browser for the iPhone in what could prove a landmark decision for Apple's app gatekeepers.
Apple has been traditionally hostile to rival browsers, with Mozilla claiming that Apple made it 'too hard' for its rivals to develop a browser for the iPhone.
However, Opera remains bullishly confident that its app will be approved.
'We have not submitted Opera Mini to the Apple App store,' an Opera spokesperson told PC Pro.
'However, we hope that Apple will not deny their users a choice in web browsing experience.
'" I can't imagine what would motivate them to do that.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31085054</id>
	<title>bitch</title>
	<author>node808</author>
	<datestamp>1265036940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah Right....when hell phreezes over</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah Right....when hell phreezes over</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah Right....when hell phreezes over</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31085096</id>
	<title>It does not violate SDK terms</title>
	<author>porneL</author>
	<datestamp>1265037180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It could be accepted.</p><p>Apple forbids code interpreters other than Apple's own, BUT this is Opera Mini, not full Opera Mobile. Mini executes JavaScript server-side and only sends rendered result to the phone. There's likely no (turing-complete) interpreter on iPhone side, so it should be fine within terms of SDK.</p><p>Apple has already accepted number of WebKit-based browsers, so browsers in general aren't forbidden.</p><p>And for iPhone users, especially on EDGE, there is very good reason to use Opera Mini: it's going to be faster. iPhones before 3GS are also very low on RAM, and Safari only uses RAM for caching. Presumably Opera Mini would be able to keep many more tabs open and fully cached.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It could be accepted.Apple forbids code interpreters other than Apple 's own , BUT this is Opera Mini , not full Opera Mobile .
Mini executes JavaScript server-side and only sends rendered result to the phone .
There 's likely no ( turing-complete ) interpreter on iPhone side , so it should be fine within terms of SDK.Apple has already accepted number of WebKit-based browsers , so browsers in general are n't forbidden.And for iPhone users , especially on EDGE , there is very good reason to use Opera Mini : it 's going to be faster .
iPhones before 3GS are also very low on RAM , and Safari only uses RAM for caching .
Presumably Opera Mini would be able to keep many more tabs open and fully cached .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It could be accepted.Apple forbids code interpreters other than Apple's own, BUT this is Opera Mini, not full Opera Mobile.
Mini executes JavaScript server-side and only sends rendered result to the phone.
There's likely no (turing-complete) interpreter on iPhone side, so it should be fine within terms of SDK.Apple has already accepted number of WebKit-based browsers, so browsers in general aren't forbidden.And for iPhone users, especially on EDGE, there is very good reason to use Opera Mini: it's going to be faster.
iPhones before 3GS are also very low on RAM, and Safari only uses RAM for caching.
Presumably Opera Mini would be able to keep many more tabs open and fully cached.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31085412</id>
	<title>Re:Opera Mini?</title>
	<author>Infiniti2000</author>
	<datestamp>1265038680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Web pages are processed by Opera's proxy servers and stripped down for mobile viewing on underpowered devices. </p></div><p> If Opera reduces the bandwidth to the iPhone, then <a href="http://mobile.slashdot.org/story/10/01/29/1551257/ATampT-Admits-New-York-City-iPhone-Service-Sucks?from=rss" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">AT&amp;T</a> [slashdot.org] should be on the front line encouraging Apple to accept the app!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Web pages are processed by Opera 's proxy servers and stripped down for mobile viewing on underpowered devices .
If Opera reduces the bandwidth to the iPhone , then AT&amp;T [ slashdot.org ] should be on the front line encouraging Apple to accept the app !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Web pages are processed by Opera's proxy servers and stripped down for mobile viewing on underpowered devices.
If Opera reduces the bandwidth to the iPhone, then AT&amp;T [slashdot.org] should be on the front line encouraging Apple to accept the app!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31085108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31085426</id>
	<title>Re:What about opera mobile?</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1265038740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uhm, Opera Mini is primarily an app for more then a billion or so "feature phones" out there, the ones with j2me; it gives them rather nice browsing experience (especially since many have slow data access and/or data costs are very high)</p><p>So of course it will be less featured, that's the point - having a sensible browser on devices which were thought uncapable of running one at all.</p><p>That said, latest Opera Mini 5 beta releases show great progress.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uhm , Opera Mini is primarily an app for more then a billion or so " feature phones " out there , the ones with j2me ; it gives them rather nice browsing experience ( especially since many have slow data access and/or data costs are very high ) So of course it will be less featured , that 's the point - having a sensible browser on devices which were thought uncapable of running one at all.That said , latest Opera Mini 5 beta releases show great progress .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uhm, Opera Mini is primarily an app for more then a billion or so "feature phones" out there, the ones with j2me; it gives them rather nice browsing experience (especially since many have slow data access and/or data costs are very high)So of course it will be less featured, that's the point - having a sensible browser on devices which were thought uncapable of running one at all.That said, latest Opera Mini 5 beta releases show great progress.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31085150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31085912</id>
	<title>Re:It does not violate SDK terms</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1265040780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's rather amazing to think that this situation might even be considered by a court of law.  The founding fathers would have to have been the equivalent of Mentor of Arisia to have known something like this was coming when they put the Interstate Commerce Clause and copyright clause into the Constitution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's rather amazing to think that this situation might even be considered by a court of law .
The founding fathers would have to have been the equivalent of Mentor of Arisia to have known something like this was coming when they put the Interstate Commerce Clause and copyright clause into the Constitution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's rather amazing to think that this situation might even be considered by a court of law.
The founding fathers would have to have been the equivalent of Mentor of Arisia to have known something like this was coming when they put the Interstate Commerce Clause and copyright clause into the Constitution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31085096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31086294</id>
	<title>But if Apple does it, then it's okay</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265042580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It always amazes me how many MS-bashers still bring up the case of MS supposedly unfairly using its monopoly to push IE back in the 90's, yet ignore the fact that Apple and others engage in MUCH more egregious anti-competitive behavior today than MS ever dreamed of doing. MS's big sin was to include IE in their default Windows installation (the same as notepad, media player, and dozens of other standard apps). Never once did they block competing software from being installed on Windows. The whole case is a relic from a time when browsers were still a new toy (today pretty much every operating system comes standard with a browser, and no one considers that unfair).</p><p>But here we have Apple, actively BANNING any competing software from even being installed on their devices, and the EU and all the others who raised holy hell about MS just turn the other way and say nothing. MS gets huge fines for just including their browser in their software, yet Apple gets nothing for not only including their browser, but banning any competing browsers too. And it's not just browsers, Apple does the same thing with iTunes and other apps too. "We don't allow competition" should become Apple's new motto, especially as they move more and more away from their traditionally more open products (PC's) and focus more and more on their locked down products (iPad, iPhone, iTouch, etc.). They should name their next product the iMonopoly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It always amazes me how many MS-bashers still bring up the case of MS supposedly unfairly using its monopoly to push IE back in the 90 's , yet ignore the fact that Apple and others engage in MUCH more egregious anti-competitive behavior today than MS ever dreamed of doing .
MS 's big sin was to include IE in their default Windows installation ( the same as notepad , media player , and dozens of other standard apps ) .
Never once did they block competing software from being installed on Windows .
The whole case is a relic from a time when browsers were still a new toy ( today pretty much every operating system comes standard with a browser , and no one considers that unfair ) .But here we have Apple , actively BANNING any competing software from even being installed on their devices , and the EU and all the others who raised holy hell about MS just turn the other way and say nothing .
MS gets huge fines for just including their browser in their software , yet Apple gets nothing for not only including their browser , but banning any competing browsers too .
And it 's not just browsers , Apple does the same thing with iTunes and other apps too .
" We do n't allow competition " should become Apple 's new motto , especially as they move more and more away from their traditionally more open products ( PC 's ) and focus more and more on their locked down products ( iPad , iPhone , iTouch , etc. ) .
They should name their next product the iMonopoly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It always amazes me how many MS-bashers still bring up the case of MS supposedly unfairly using its monopoly to push IE back in the 90's, yet ignore the fact that Apple and others engage in MUCH more egregious anti-competitive behavior today than MS ever dreamed of doing.
MS's big sin was to include IE in their default Windows installation (the same as notepad, media player, and dozens of other standard apps).
Never once did they block competing software from being installed on Windows.
The whole case is a relic from a time when browsers were still a new toy (today pretty much every operating system comes standard with a browser, and no one considers that unfair).But here we have Apple, actively BANNING any competing software from even being installed on their devices, and the EU and all the others who raised holy hell about MS just turn the other way and say nothing.
MS gets huge fines for just including their browser in their software, yet Apple gets nothing for not only including their browser, but banning any competing browsers too.
And it's not just browsers, Apple does the same thing with iTunes and other apps too.
"We don't allow competition" should become Apple's new motto, especially as they move more and more away from their traditionally more open products (PC's) and focus more and more on their locked down products (iPad, iPhone, iTouch, etc.).
They should name their next product the iMonopoly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31085052</id>
	<title>Well, Opera Mini isn't strictly a browser...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265036940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least not in the strictest technical sense. It doesn't understand html, etc.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."just" it's own, highly compressed format; sent to it from Opera servers.</p><p>Not that it'll make a difference to Apple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least not in the strictest technical sense .
It does n't understand html , etc .
... " just " it 's own , highly compressed format ; sent to it from Opera servers.Not that it 'll make a difference to Apple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least not in the strictest technical sense.
It doesn't understand html, etc.
..."just" it's own, highly compressed format; sent to it from Opera servers.Not that it'll make a difference to Apple.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31089384</id>
	<title>Re:It does not violate SDK terms</title>
	<author>Just Some Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1265055180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Apple has already accepted number of WebKit-based browsers, so browsers in general aren't forbidden.</p></div><p>Such as? I don't recall seeing any non-Safari browsers in the app store. That's not counting apps that call the WebKit component to open pages without leaving the app.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple has already accepted number of WebKit-based browsers , so browsers in general are n't forbidden.Such as ?
I do n't recall seeing any non-Safari browsers in the app store .
That 's not counting apps that call the WebKit component to open pages without leaving the app .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple has already accepted number of WebKit-based browsers, so browsers in general aren't forbidden.Such as?
I don't recall seeing any non-Safari browsers in the app store.
That's not counting apps that call the WebKit component to open pages without leaving the app.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31085096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31086826</id>
	<title>Mozilla comments: grain of salt</title>
	<author>bkaul01</author>
	<datestamp>1265044860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Apple has been traditionally hostile to rival browsers, with Mozilla claiming that Apple made it "too hard" for its rivals to develop a browser for the iPhone.</p></div><p>While I like and use Firefox on PCs, Mozilla hasn't been able to develop a decent mobile browser for Windows Mobile or any of the mobile other platforms that don't suffer from Apple's barriers to entry.  I don't think their complaint really means much.  If it were Opera - a company with good existing mobile products - saying this, it might actually mean something.</p><p>It will be interesting to see if Opera's able to get around the asinine restrictions Apple imposes on iPhone applications, though.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple has been traditionally hostile to rival browsers , with Mozilla claiming that Apple made it " too hard " for its rivals to develop a browser for the iPhone.While I like and use Firefox on PCs , Mozilla has n't been able to develop a decent mobile browser for Windows Mobile or any of the mobile other platforms that do n't suffer from Apple 's barriers to entry .
I do n't think their complaint really means much .
If it were Opera - a company with good existing mobile products - saying this , it might actually mean something.It will be interesting to see if Opera 's able to get around the asinine restrictions Apple imposes on iPhone applications , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple has been traditionally hostile to rival browsers, with Mozilla claiming that Apple made it "too hard" for its rivals to develop a browser for the iPhone.While I like and use Firefox on PCs, Mozilla hasn't been able to develop a decent mobile browser for Windows Mobile or any of the mobile other platforms that don't suffer from Apple's barriers to entry.
I don't think their complaint really means much.
If it were Opera - a company with good existing mobile products - saying this, it might actually mean something.It will be interesting to see if Opera's able to get around the asinine restrictions Apple imposes on iPhone applications, though.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31085384</id>
	<title>There are already a ton of alternative browsers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265038500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do a search for browser on the app store and you'll find 2 pages of results. I counted ten that were web browser before I got bored.</p><p>This is a complete non-story and is just Opera trying to drum up some publicity for the release.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do a search for browser on the app store and you 'll find 2 pages of results .
I counted ten that were web browser before I got bored.This is a complete non-story and is just Opera trying to drum up some publicity for the release .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do a search for browser on the app store and you'll find 2 pages of results.
I counted ten that were web browser before I got bored.This is a complete non-story and is just Opera trying to drum up some publicity for the release.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31085154</id>
	<title>You can't imagine  because...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265037420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> I can't imagine what would motivate them to do that.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Because they are a monopoly. Sorry that you idealistic iSlupers don't see this.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't imagine what would motivate them to do that .
Because they are a monopoly .
Sorry that you idealistic iSlupers do n't see this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I can't imagine what would motivate them to do that.
Because they are a monopoly.
Sorry that you idealistic iSlupers don't see this.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31087034</id>
	<title>Re:But if Apple does it, then it's okay</title>
	<author>that this is not und</author>
	<datestamp>1265045640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rather than bemoan the direction Apple is taking, some of us are just happy to watch them head there.</p><p>Apple is turning into a 'shiney thing' consumer electronics manufacturer.</p><p>What was that <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;source=hp&amp;q=five+years+from+now+all+you'll+have+accomplished+is+selling+a+lot+more+sugar+water+to+kids.&amp;btnG=Google+Search&amp;aq=f&amp;aqi=&amp;oq=" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">Jobs said to Scully</a> [google.com] about selling sugar water to kids?  I thought of it immediately when I saw the first iTunes promotional bottle cap on my Mountain Dew.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rather than bemoan the direction Apple is taking , some of us are just happy to watch them head there.Apple is turning into a 'shiney thing ' consumer electronics manufacturer.What was that Jobs said to Scully [ google.com ] about selling sugar water to kids ?
I thought of it immediately when I saw the first iTunes promotional bottle cap on my Mountain Dew .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rather than bemoan the direction Apple is taking, some of us are just happy to watch them head there.Apple is turning into a 'shiney thing' consumer electronics manufacturer.What was that Jobs said to Scully [google.com] about selling sugar water to kids?
I thought of it immediately when I saw the first iTunes promotional bottle cap on my Mountain Dew.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31086294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31085756</id>
	<title>Re:Opera is lousy from my experience, please go aw</title>
	<author>Rhaban</author>
	<datestamp>1265040060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I really wish Opera would just go away already. I'm quite happy with IE8/Safari4/Firefox3 lineage no more players needed thank you.</p></div><p>Opera has the source of most big innovations in browsers for quite some years now. If it disappeared, where would firefox addons developpers find ideas of new features to implement?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really wish Opera would just go away already .
I 'm quite happy with IE8/Safari4/Firefox3 lineage no more players needed thank you.Opera has the source of most big innovations in browsers for quite some years now .
If it disappeared , where would firefox addons developpers find ideas of new features to implement ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really wish Opera would just go away already.
I'm quite happy with IE8/Safari4/Firefox3 lineage no more players needed thank you.Opera has the source of most big innovations in browsers for quite some years now.
If it disappeared, where would firefox addons developpers find ideas of new features to implement?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31085228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31085378</id>
	<title>Re:Opera is lousy from my experience, please go aw</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265038440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's odd, Opera runs better than Firefox and Safari for me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's odd , Opera runs better than Firefox and Safari for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's odd, Opera runs better than Firefox and Safari for me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31085228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31085814</id>
	<title>Re:What about opera mobile?</title>
	<author>Sockatume</author>
	<datestamp>1265040420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're not wasting valuable Opera Mobile time on porting Mini, because Mini doesn't need to be ported. It's a Java app, it goes where the virtual machines are.</p><p>The current Mini beta is in many respects as good as Mobile (the interfaces are indistinguishable for starters), you should give it a shot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're not wasting valuable Opera Mobile time on porting Mini , because Mini does n't need to be ported .
It 's a Java app , it goes where the virtual machines are.The current Mini beta is in many respects as good as Mobile ( the interfaces are indistinguishable for starters ) , you should give it a shot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're not wasting valuable Opera Mobile time on porting Mini, because Mini doesn't need to be ported.
It's a Java app, it goes where the virtual machines are.The current Mini beta is in many respects as good as Mobile (the interfaces are indistinguishable for starters), you should give it a shot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31085150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31087598</id>
	<title>You are collosally ignorant of Monopolies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265048220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft had and still has 90\%+ marketshare in operating systems<br>Apple has about 21\% in the cell phone market right now.</p><p>In choice of operating systems, you have Windows, OS X, or Linux.  OS X and Linux have Windows emulators available for those windows programs you can't just live without. You tell me if they are relevant enough to not consider Windows a monopoly?</p><p>If you need a computer that runs windows software, and you can't spend hours upon hours of configuration or you can't spend $1000 on the cheapest iMac or Macbook along with a license to windows, you have to buy a windows machine.</p><p>If you don't like the iPhone, buy a Symbian or an Andriod.</p><p>The difference is how the market works.  In the Windows world, you have no choice, so they should be regulated.  In the phone market, Apple does not have a monopoly so you can go somewhere else.</p><p>I'm not saying Apple is holy, or out of the wrong, the difference is that if you don't like Apple's product <i>you can leave!</i>  That's how the market is supposed to work.</p><p>Come back and replay that tired ignorant argument when you take monopolies 101.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft had and still has 90 \ % + marketshare in operating systemsApple has about 21 \ % in the cell phone market right now.In choice of operating systems , you have Windows , OS X , or Linux .
OS X and Linux have Windows emulators available for those windows programs you ca n't just live without .
You tell me if they are relevant enough to not consider Windows a monopoly ? If you need a computer that runs windows software , and you ca n't spend hours upon hours of configuration or you ca n't spend $ 1000 on the cheapest iMac or Macbook along with a license to windows , you have to buy a windows machine.If you do n't like the iPhone , buy a Symbian or an Andriod.The difference is how the market works .
In the Windows world , you have no choice , so they should be regulated .
In the phone market , Apple does not have a monopoly so you can go somewhere else.I 'm not saying Apple is holy , or out of the wrong , the difference is that if you do n't like Apple 's product you can leave !
That 's how the market is supposed to work.Come back and replay that tired ignorant argument when you take monopolies 101 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft had and still has 90\%+ marketshare in operating systemsApple has about 21\% in the cell phone market right now.In choice of operating systems, you have Windows, OS X, or Linux.
OS X and Linux have Windows emulators available for those windows programs you can't just live without.
You tell me if they are relevant enough to not consider Windows a monopoly?If you need a computer that runs windows software, and you can't spend hours upon hours of configuration or you can't spend $1000 on the cheapest iMac or Macbook along with a license to windows, you have to buy a windows machine.If you don't like the iPhone, buy a Symbian or an Andriod.The difference is how the market works.
In the Windows world, you have no choice, so they should be regulated.
In the phone market, Apple does not have a monopoly so you can go somewhere else.I'm not saying Apple is holy, or out of the wrong, the difference is that if you don't like Apple's product you can leave!
That's how the market is supposed to work.Come back and replay that tired ignorant argument when you take monopolies 101.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31086294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31085108</id>
	<title>Opera Mini?</title>
	<author>Dan East</author>
	<datestamp>1265037240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really? Why not Opera Mobile? That doesn't make sense to me. Opera Mini is java based and is for smartphones. Web pages are processed by Opera's proxy servers and stripped down for mobile viewing on underpowered devices. Opera Mobile 10 is an actual web browser, on par with Safari on the iPhone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
Why not Opera Mobile ?
That does n't make sense to me .
Opera Mini is java based and is for smartphones .
Web pages are processed by Opera 's proxy servers and stripped down for mobile viewing on underpowered devices .
Opera Mobile 10 is an actual web browser , on par with Safari on the iPhone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
Why not Opera Mobile?
That doesn't make sense to me.
Opera Mini is java based and is for smartphones.
Web pages are processed by Opera's proxy servers and stripped down for mobile viewing on underpowered devices.
Opera Mobile 10 is an actual web browser, on par with Safari on the iPhone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31088106</id>
	<title>Re:But if Apple does it, then it's okay</title>
	<author>Myopic</author>
	<datestamp>1265050320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is reasonable, but let me explain what you apparently never considered.</p><p>The size of our geeky outrage is proportional not only to the outrageousness of the act, but also to the magnitude of the act's impact.</p><p>So, if we were to somehow quantify it, let's say Apple's outrageous acts are, uh, twice as outrageous than Microsoft's, but Microsoft's outrageous acts impact fifty times the number of people, then Microsoft deserves 25 times the outrage. (All numbers from my toukus.)</p><p>The law's outrage works in a similar fashion: the law doesn't even bother to recognize sufficiently small-magnitude outrageous acts.</p><p>Actually, that's so obvious that I'm surprised you never thought of it -- but there it is, plain as day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is reasonable , but let me explain what you apparently never considered.The size of our geeky outrage is proportional not only to the outrageousness of the act , but also to the magnitude of the act 's impact.So , if we were to somehow quantify it , let 's say Apple 's outrageous acts are , uh , twice as outrageous than Microsoft 's , but Microsoft 's outrageous acts impact fifty times the number of people , then Microsoft deserves 25 times the outrage .
( All numbers from my toukus .
) The law 's outrage works in a similar fashion : the law does n't even bother to recognize sufficiently small-magnitude outrageous acts.Actually , that 's so obvious that I 'm surprised you never thought of it -- but there it is , plain as day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is reasonable, but let me explain what you apparently never considered.The size of our geeky outrage is proportional not only to the outrageousness of the act, but also to the magnitude of the act's impact.So, if we were to somehow quantify it, let's say Apple's outrageous acts are, uh, twice as outrageous than Microsoft's, but Microsoft's outrageous acts impact fifty times the number of people, then Microsoft deserves 25 times the outrage.
(All numbers from my toukus.
)The law's outrage works in a similar fashion: the law doesn't even bother to recognize sufficiently small-magnitude outrageous acts.Actually, that's so obvious that I'm surprised you never thought of it -- but there it is, plain as day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31086294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31084992</id>
	<title>Re:Forced to include in EU?</title>
	<author>s1lverl0rd</author>
	<datestamp>1265036700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You forgot Yoda Grease.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot Yoda Grease .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot Yoda Grease.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31084924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31088704</id>
	<title>Re:But if Apple does it, then it's okay</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265052720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Shhh! Stop pointing out the obvious!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Shhh !
Stop pointing out the obvious !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shhh!
Stop pointing out the obvious!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31086294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31085228</id>
	<title>Opera is lousy from my experience, please go away</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265037780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I really wish Opera would just go away already. I'm quite happy with IE8/Safari4/Firefox3 lineage no more players needed thank you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really wish Opera would just go away already .
I 'm quite happy with IE8/Safari4/Firefox3 lineage no more players needed thank you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really wish Opera would just go away already.
I'm quite happy with IE8/Safari4/Firefox3 lineage no more players needed thank you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31088412</id>
	<title>Re:Opera is lousy from my experience, please go aw</title>
	<author>amicusNYCL</author>
	<datestamp>1265051580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, Opera, you hear that?  It's time to shut the doors, close the shop down.  Some anonymous guy on Slashdot doesn't like your product, so it looks like it's time to give it a rest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , Opera , you hear that ?
It 's time to shut the doors , close the shop down .
Some anonymous guy on Slashdot does n't like your product , so it looks like it 's time to give it a rest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, Opera, you hear that?
It's time to shut the doors, close the shop down.
Some anonymous guy on Slashdot doesn't like your product, so it looks like it's time to give it a rest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31085228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31085150</id>
	<title>What about opera mobile?</title>
	<author>Rhaban</author>
	<datestamp>1265037420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Instead of porting opera mini on every existing platform, why not assign more resources to do the same for opera mobile, or at least make opera mini as good as opera mobile?</p><p>I paid to use opera mobile on my windows mobile phone (htc tytn II), and would gladly pay again to be able to use it on my android phone. I have opera mini on it, it is not usable at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead of porting opera mini on every existing platform , why not assign more resources to do the same for opera mobile , or at least make opera mini as good as opera mobile ? I paid to use opera mobile on my windows mobile phone ( htc tytn II ) , and would gladly pay again to be able to use it on my android phone .
I have opera mini on it , it is not usable at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead of porting opera mini on every existing platform, why not assign more resources to do the same for opera mobile, or at least make opera mini as good as opera mobile?I paid to use opera mobile on my windows mobile phone (htc tytn II), and would gladly pay again to be able to use it on my android phone.
I have opera mini on it, it is not usable at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31085664</id>
	<title>I don't really care, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265039520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just hope Opera Mini has Flash and Java!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just hope Opera Mini has Flash and Java !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just hope Opera Mini has Flash and Java!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31088430</id>
	<title>Re:There are already a ton of alternative browsers</title>
	<author>amicusNYCL</author>
	<datestamp>1265051640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is a complete non-story and is just Opera trying to drum up some publicity for the release.</p></div><p>What do you mean, is that like when Apple leaks product details to the media before a product launch?  I agree, it's a non-story, but people sure like to talk about it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a complete non-story and is just Opera trying to drum up some publicity for the release.What do you mean , is that like when Apple leaks product details to the media before a product launch ?
I agree , it 's a non-story , but people sure like to talk about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a complete non-story and is just Opera trying to drum up some publicity for the release.What do you mean, is that like when Apple leaks product details to the media before a product launch?
I agree, it's a non-story, but people sure like to talk about it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31085384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31084984</id>
	<title>Re:Forced to include in EU?</title>
	<author>Trev311</author>
	<datestamp>1265036640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not only that, but I wonder if the SEC/FCC would start breathing down their backs if Opera got denied. Especially after that whole Google Voice thing...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only that , but I wonder if the SEC/FCC would start breathing down their backs if Opera got denied .
Especially after that whole Google Voice thing.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only that, but I wonder if the SEC/FCC would start breathing down their backs if Opera got denied.
Especially after that whole Google Voice thing...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31084924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31084924</id>
	<title>Forced to include in EU?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265036340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>First! (Presumably)
I wonder how this will play out in EU where MS was forced to include multiple browsers...</htmltext>
<tokenext>First !
( Presumably ) I wonder how this will play out in EU where MS was forced to include multiple browsers.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First!
(Presumably)
I wonder how this will play out in EU where MS was forced to include multiple browsers...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31087436</id>
	<title>Re:But if Apple does it, then it's okay</title>
	<author>hkmwbz</author>
	<datestamp>1265047560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apple does not have a <b>market</b> monopoly. MS did and does.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple does not have a market monopoly .
MS did and does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple does not have a market monopoly.
MS did and does.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31086294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31085060</id>
	<title>Go jailbreak!</title>
	<author>Charybdis3</author>
	<datestamp>1265037060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even if (or, when) Apple rejects it, they can put it on a Cydia repository.

When Google Voice came to the iPhone many people jailbroke for it. I'm sure Apple is weighing in these consequences, but I'd almost like to see them reject it just so more people jailbreak.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if ( or , when ) Apple rejects it , they can put it on a Cydia repository .
When Google Voice came to the iPhone many people jailbroke for it .
I 'm sure Apple is weighing in these consequences , but I 'd almost like to see them reject it just so more people jailbreak .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if (or, when) Apple rejects it, they can put it on a Cydia repository.
When Google Voice came to the iPhone many people jailbroke for it.
I'm sure Apple is weighing in these consequences, but I'd almost like to see them reject it just so more people jailbreak.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31086788</id>
	<title>Re:But if Apple does it, then it's okay</title>
	<author>Moldiver</author>
	<datestamp>1265044620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The knowledge of what is a monopoly and what's not appears to be not clear for many people...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The knowledge of what is a monopoly and what 's not appears to be not clear for many people.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The knowledge of what is a monopoly and what's not appears to be not clear for many people...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31086294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31085466</id>
	<title>Re:Well, Opera Mini isn't strictly a browser...</title>
	<author>duguk</author>
	<datestamp>1265038860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>At least not in the strictest technical sense. It doesn't understand html, etc.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."just" it's own, highly compressed format; sent to it from Opera servers.</p><p>Not that it'll make a difference to Apple.</p></div><p>At least it should support <a href="http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1867.html" title="faqs.org">File Uploading</a> [faqs.org], unlike the cut-down browser from Apple.<br> <br>I honestly can't see any logic behind disabling this really simple feature - other than it forces developers to write stupid applications which could be better written in a web-browser.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>At least not in the strictest technical sense .
It does n't understand html , etc .
... " just " it 's own , highly compressed format ; sent to it from Opera servers.Not that it 'll make a difference to Apple.At least it should support File Uploading [ faqs.org ] , unlike the cut-down browser from Apple .
I honestly ca n't see any logic behind disabling this really simple feature - other than it forces developers to write stupid applications which could be better written in a web-browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least not in the strictest technical sense.
It doesn't understand html, etc.
..."just" it's own, highly compressed format; sent to it from Opera servers.Not that it'll make a difference to Apple.At least it should support File Uploading [faqs.org], unlike the cut-down browser from Apple.
I honestly can't see any logic behind disabling this really simple feature - other than it forces developers to write stupid applications which could be better written in a web-browser.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31085052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31085880</id>
	<title>Can't imagine what would motivate them to do that?</title>
	<author>Chas</author>
	<datestamp>1265040720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gomez Addams said it best.
</p><p> <b>GREED!</b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gomez Addams said it best .
GREED !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gomez Addams said it best.
GREED!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_1328245_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31088412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31085228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_1328245_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31084984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31084924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_1328245_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31087598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31086294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_1328245_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31085814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31085150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_1328245_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31084992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31084924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_1328245_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31088106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31086294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_1328245_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31085912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31085096
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_1328245_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31088430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31085384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_1328245_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31086788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31086294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_1328245_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31085426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31085150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_1328245_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31087436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31086294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_1328245_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31089384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31085096
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_1328245_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31087034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31086294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_1328245_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31085378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31085228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_1328245_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31085412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31085108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_1328245_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31088704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31086294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_1328245_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31085756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31085228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_1328245_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31085466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31085052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_1328245.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31086294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31088106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31086788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31087598
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31087034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31087436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31088704
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_1328245.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31085096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31085912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31089384
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_1328245.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31085154
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_1328245.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31085384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31088430
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_1328245.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31085150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31085814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31085426
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_1328245.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31085052
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31085466
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_1328245.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31084924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31084984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31084992
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_1328245.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31085228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31085756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31088412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31085378
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_1328245.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31085108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_1328245.31085412
</commentlist>
</conversation>
