<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_21_2329249</id>
	<title>Windows 7 Memory Usage Critic Outed As Fraud</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1266752880000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>A few days ago, we ran word of a <a href="https://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/02/18/0429258/86-of-Windows-7-PCs-Maxing-Out-Memory">report alleging that Windows 7 consumed more memory than it should</a>, based on a report from Devil Mountain Software; a followup post linked to <a href="https://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/02/20/1910232/Ars-Analysis-Calls-Windows-7-Memory-Usage-Claims-Scaremongering">Ars Technica's robust deconstruction</a> of that claim. Now the story gets weird: Fred Flowers writes <i> <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9158258/Most\_Windows\_7\_PCs\_max\_out\_memory">The original story</a> quoted the company's CTO, Craig Barth on the issue. Now, InfoWorld editor in chief Eric Knorr has still  more to add. From Knorr's blog at InfoWorld.com: 'On Friday, Feb. 19, we discovered that one of our contributors, Randall C. Kennedy, had been misrepresenting himself to other media organizations as Craig Barth, CTO of Devil Mountain Software (aka exo.performance.network), in interviews for a number of stories regarding Windows and other Microsoft software topics. ... <a href="http://infoworld.com/d/adventures-in-it/unfortunate-ending-357">There is no Craig Barth</a>.' Knorr's post goes on to say that Kennedy has been fired from his blogging gig at InfoWorld over this 'serious breach of trust,' and that his blog will be removed."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>A few days ago , we ran word of a report alleging that Windows 7 consumed more memory than it should , based on a report from Devil Mountain Software ; a followup post linked to Ars Technica 's robust deconstruction of that claim .
Now the story gets weird : Fred Flowers writes The original story quoted the company 's CTO , Craig Barth on the issue .
Now , InfoWorld editor in chief Eric Knorr has still more to add .
From Knorr 's blog at InfoWorld.com : 'On Friday , Feb. 19 , we discovered that one of our contributors , Randall C. Kennedy , had been misrepresenting himself to other media organizations as Craig Barth , CTO of Devil Mountain Software ( aka exo.performance.network ) , in interviews for a number of stories regarding Windows and other Microsoft software topics .
... There is no Craig Barth .
' Knorr 's post goes on to say that Kennedy has been fired from his blogging gig at InfoWorld over this 'serious breach of trust, ' and that his blog will be removed .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A few days ago, we ran word of a report alleging that Windows 7 consumed more memory than it should, based on a report from Devil Mountain Software; a followup post linked to Ars Technica's robust deconstruction of that claim.
Now the story gets weird: Fred Flowers writes  The original story quoted the company's CTO, Craig Barth on the issue.
Now, InfoWorld editor in chief Eric Knorr has still  more to add.
From Knorr's blog at InfoWorld.com: 'On Friday, Feb. 19, we discovered that one of our contributors, Randall C. Kennedy, had been misrepresenting himself to other media organizations as Craig Barth, CTO of Devil Mountain Software (aka exo.performance.network), in interviews for a number of stories regarding Windows and other Microsoft software topics.
... There is no Craig Barth.
' Knorr's post goes on to say that Kennedy has been fired from his blogging gig at InfoWorld over this 'serious breach of trust,' and that his blog will be removed.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223922</id>
	<title>Re:Reason</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266759780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Windows 7 is actually good.</i></p><p>Well, that's stretching it a bit.  Windows 7 is heaps better than Vista, but I've had bowel movements which function as an OS better than Vista does.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows 7 is actually good.Well , that 's stretching it a bit .
Windows 7 is heaps better than Vista , but I 've had bowel movements which function as an OS better than Vista does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows 7 is actually good.Well, that's stretching it a bit.
Windows 7 is heaps better than Vista, but I've had bowel movements which function as an OS better than Vista does.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31224322</id>
	<title>Slashdot get trolled, news at 11</title>
	<author>beakerMeep</author>
	<datestamp>1266762300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder if Slashdot will follow up on the anti-adobe fake-flash-developer cant-handle-mobile-development-becuase-there-are-no-roll-overs troll that's further down?  Yeah unlikely.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if Slashdot will follow up on the anti-adobe fake-flash-developer cant-handle-mobile-development-becuase-there-are-no-roll-overs troll that 's further down ?
Yeah unlikely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if Slashdot will follow up on the anti-adobe fake-flash-developer cant-handle-mobile-development-becuase-there-are-no-roll-overs troll that's further down?
Yeah unlikely.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31240904</id>
	<title>Hey, at least OfficeBench was free...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266862020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As much crap as people are shoveling, at least the Office benchmark macro tool they were providing was free and basically did what it was meant to. How many free benchmarking tools are there left now, that don't require diving through archive.org, sleazy psuedo-software.com clones, and the soft white underbelly of the chinese academic internet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As much crap as people are shoveling , at least the Office benchmark macro tool they were providing was free and basically did what it was meant to .
How many free benchmarking tools are there left now , that do n't require diving through archive.org , sleazy psuedo-software.com clones , and the soft white underbelly of the chinese academic internet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As much crap as people are shoveling, at least the Office benchmark macro tool they were providing was free and basically did what it was meant to.
How many free benchmarking tools are there left now, that don't require diving through archive.org, sleazy psuedo-software.com clones, and the soft white underbelly of the chinese academic internet?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31224690</id>
	<title>Re:More information</title>
	<author>macintard</author>
	<datestamp>1266764820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Come on Infoworld, you need to learn a thing or two from Cnet!  If you're going to have a writer make dubious claims, pimp his own software, and bash Microsoft repeatedly, at least have them do it openly!

<a href="http://news.cnet.com/openroad/" title="cnet.com" rel="nofollow">http://news.cnet.com/openroad/</a> [cnet.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Come on Infoworld , you need to learn a thing or two from Cnet !
If you 're going to have a writer make dubious claims , pimp his own software , and bash Microsoft repeatedly , at least have them do it openly !
http : //news.cnet.com/openroad/ [ cnet.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come on Infoworld, you need to learn a thing or two from Cnet!
If you're going to have a writer make dubious claims, pimp his own software, and bash Microsoft repeatedly, at least have them do it openly!
http://news.cnet.com/openroad/ [cnet.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31225410</id>
	<title>Re:NEWS! Slashdot doesn't check facts, gets letter</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1266770100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you actually read the story in question on Slashdot, you'll see everyone point out what an idiot whoever put the story up is and explain that the whole point of memory is that you use close to 100\% of it since every byte you use makes things go faster. It's been this way for years. kdawson et al's anti-MS biases get on the front page, and everyone kicks them down (unless they're justified).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you actually read the story in question on Slashdot , you 'll see everyone point out what an idiot whoever put the story up is and explain that the whole point of memory is that you use close to 100 \ % of it since every byte you use makes things go faster .
It 's been this way for years .
kdawson et al 's anti-MS biases get on the front page , and everyone kicks them down ( unless they 're justified ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you actually read the story in question on Slashdot, you'll see everyone point out what an idiot whoever put the story up is and explain that the whole point of memory is that you use close to 100\% of it since every byte you use makes things go faster.
It's been this way for years.
kdawson et al's anti-MS biases get on the front page, and everyone kicks them down (unless they're justified).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31224148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31226668</id>
	<title>WTF Devil Mountain Software?</title>
	<author>HeavyDevelopment</author>
	<datestamp>1266869100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This didn't raise any red flags for anyone? If that doesn't sound like a shill I'm not sure what does.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This did n't raise any red flags for anyone ?
If that does n't sound like a shill I 'm not sure what does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This didn't raise any red flags for anyone?
If that doesn't sound like a shill I'm not sure what does.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31227344</id>
	<title>Memory footprint still bigger than Vista and XP</title>
	<author>fluor2</author>
	<datestamp>1266836280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At work we have a lot of issues using Autocad when loading large files in 32-bit. I can confirm that Windows 7 leaves less RAM for applications than Vista and XP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At work we have a lot of issues using Autocad when loading large files in 32-bit .
I can confirm that Windows 7 leaves less RAM for applications than Vista and XP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At work we have a lot of issues using Autocad when loading large files in 32-bit.
I can confirm that Windows 7 leaves less RAM for applications than Vista and XP.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223850</id>
	<title>Windows 7 is pretty good.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266759060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I upgraded from XP to Windows 7 and I like it.  Everything seems to install/load/work a lot faster.  It was pretty cool for $120 that I got both 32 and 64-bit versions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I upgraded from XP to Windows 7 and I like it .
Everything seems to install/load/work a lot faster .
It was pretty cool for $ 120 that I got both 32 and 64-bit versions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I upgraded from XP to Windows 7 and I like it.
Everything seems to install/load/work a lot faster.
It was pretty cool for $120 that I got both 32 and 64-bit versions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31226826</id>
	<title>Possible future /. editor</title>
	<author>heffrey</author>
	<datestamp>1266871680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Randall C. Kennedy was an InfoWorld blogger known for his outrageous, inflammatory posts. Often these posts appeared to disregard the facts, overinflate the issues, or otherwise ignore the tenets of basic journalism in favor of sensationalism and manufactured furor.</p></div></blockquote><p>Combine this with the fact that the guy is already very comfortable using a pseudonym then I heartily recommend him for the post of Slashdot editor!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Randall C. Kennedy was an InfoWorld blogger known for his outrageous , inflammatory posts .
Often these posts appeared to disregard the facts , overinflate the issues , or otherwise ignore the tenets of basic journalism in favor of sensationalism and manufactured furor.Combine this with the fact that the guy is already very comfortable using a pseudonym then I heartily recommend him for the post of Slashdot editor !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Randall C. Kennedy was an InfoWorld blogger known for his outrageous, inflammatory posts.
Often these posts appeared to disregard the facts, overinflate the issues, or otherwise ignore the tenets of basic journalism in favor of sensationalism and manufactured furor.Combine this with the fact that the guy is already very comfortable using a pseudonym then I heartily recommend him for the post of Slashdot editor!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31225478</id>
	<title>Window 7/Vista Memory Managment Rots!</title>
	<author>BrendaEM</author>
	<datestamp>1266770580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, what a POS!</p><p>At some point, I am going to have to "upgrade" from XP to 7, and I am not looking forward to it. Superfetch is just not practical for coexistence heavy hitter video,/graphics/sound applications.<br>If it weren't for Rhino3d, and a handful of games, I'd dump Windows entirely.</p><p>Linux never uses a bit of VM unless you need it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , what a POS ! At some point , I am going to have to " upgrade " from XP to 7 , and I am not looking forward to it .
Superfetch is just not practical for coexistence heavy hitter video,/graphics/sound applications.If it were n't for Rhino3d , and a handful of games , I 'd dump Windows entirely.Linux never uses a bit of VM unless you need it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, what a POS!At some point, I am going to have to "upgrade" from XP to 7, and I am not looking forward to it.
Superfetch is just not practical for coexistence heavy hitter video,/graphics/sound applications.If it weren't for Rhino3d, and a handful of games, I'd dump Windows entirely.Linux never uses a bit of VM unless you need it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31224640</id>
	<title>Re:More information</title>
	<author>recoiledsnake</author>
	<datestamp>1266764460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>InfoWorld's editor in chief, Eric Knorr, should be commended for dealing this matter quickly and decisively when he discovered Mr. Kennedy's deception. At the same time, he should think very carefully about the series of decisions that led to this outcome.</p></div><p>Wrong, looks like he knew all along.</p><p>From <a href="http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-10532-0.html?forumID=1&amp;threadID=75498&amp;messageID=1468379" title="zdnet.com">http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-10532-0.html?forumID=1&amp;threadID=75498&amp;messageID=1468379</a> [zdnet.com] [zdnet.com]</p><p><div class="quote"><p>IDG knew. Galen Gruman, Executive Editor of InfoWorld knew. As<br>did Eric Knorr. And several others. But poor Gregg Keizer - hey,<br>the man was looking for an anti-Microsoft angle at every turn, and<br>he let his zeal get the best of him. I honestly never meant any<br>harm, especially to Gregg.</p></div><p>Slashdot should ban all articles from InfoWorld. After all, most of the anti-Vista fud articles posted here were written by Randall Kennedy.</p><p>One example among the many: Windows 7 Benchmarks Show Little Improvement On Vista <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/11/11/0110251" title="slashdot.org">http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/11/11/0110251</a> [slashdot.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>InfoWorld 's editor in chief , Eric Knorr , should be commended for dealing this matter quickly and decisively when he discovered Mr. Kennedy 's deception .
At the same time , he should think very carefully about the series of decisions that led to this outcome.Wrong , looks like he knew all along.From http : //talkback.zdnet.com/5208-10532-0.html ? forumID = 1&amp;threadID = 75498&amp;messageID = 1468379 [ zdnet.com ] [ zdnet.com ] IDG knew .
Galen Gruman , Executive Editor of InfoWorld knew .
Asdid Eric Knorr .
And several others .
But poor Gregg Keizer - hey,the man was looking for an anti-Microsoft angle at every turn , andhe let his zeal get the best of him .
I honestly never meant anyharm , especially to Gregg.Slashdot should ban all articles from InfoWorld .
After all , most of the anti-Vista fud articles posted here were written by Randall Kennedy.One example among the many : Windows 7 Benchmarks Show Little Improvement On Vista http : //tech.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 08/11/11/0110251 [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>InfoWorld's editor in chief, Eric Knorr, should be commended for dealing this matter quickly and decisively when he discovered Mr. Kennedy's deception.
At the same time, he should think very carefully about the series of decisions that led to this outcome.Wrong, looks like he knew all along.From http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-10532-0.html?forumID=1&amp;threadID=75498&amp;messageID=1468379 [zdnet.com] [zdnet.com]IDG knew.
Galen Gruman, Executive Editor of InfoWorld knew.
Asdid Eric Knorr.
And several others.
But poor Gregg Keizer - hey,the man was looking for an anti-Microsoft angle at every turn, andhe let his zeal get the best of him.
I honestly never meant anyharm, especially to Gregg.Slashdot should ban all articles from InfoWorld.
After all, most of the anti-Vista fud articles posted here were written by Randall Kennedy.One example among the many: Windows 7 Benchmarks Show Little Improvement On Vista http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/11/11/0110251 [slashdot.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31225916</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't make memory usage good though.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266774300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you paid for a 1.5TB HD, would you fill it up completely when you got it?</p><p>Sure, it's not quite the same, but seriously, what is the use of filling it up with things Windows *thinks* you might use?  It's a waste of HD access to preload what you don't end up using.</p><p>Disabling Superfetch on Vista/7 made my computer MUCH faster.  I'm inclined to believe that disabling the rest of this preloading mumbo-jumbo -- even on other OSes like GNU/Linux -- will speed that up as well, because I only load what is needed and LEAVE MY RAM FREE TO ONLY HOLD WHAT I WANT AND NEED IT TO.</p><p>It's a damn shame this guy got canned because he dared speak the truth about this braindead approach to memory use.  If I was any more of a conspiracy theorist, I'd say that Microsoft paid to shut him up.</p><p>AC because everyone will disagree with me just like they disagreed with this guy, and mod me down to below nothing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you paid for a 1.5TB HD , would you fill it up completely when you got it ? Sure , it 's not quite the same , but seriously , what is the use of filling it up with things Windows * thinks * you might use ?
It 's a waste of HD access to preload what you do n't end up using.Disabling Superfetch on Vista/7 made my computer MUCH faster .
I 'm inclined to believe that disabling the rest of this preloading mumbo-jumbo -- even on other OSes like GNU/Linux -- will speed that up as well , because I only load what is needed and LEAVE MY RAM FREE TO ONLY HOLD WHAT I WANT AND NEED IT TO.It 's a damn shame this guy got canned because he dared speak the truth about this braindead approach to memory use .
If I was any more of a conspiracy theorist , I 'd say that Microsoft paid to shut him up.AC because everyone will disagree with me just like they disagreed with this guy , and mod me down to below nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you paid for a 1.5TB HD, would you fill it up completely when you got it?Sure, it's not quite the same, but seriously, what is the use of filling it up with things Windows *thinks* you might use?
It's a waste of HD access to preload what you don't end up using.Disabling Superfetch on Vista/7 made my computer MUCH faster.
I'm inclined to believe that disabling the rest of this preloading mumbo-jumbo -- even on other OSes like GNU/Linux -- will speed that up as well, because I only load what is needed and LEAVE MY RAM FREE TO ONLY HOLD WHAT I WANT AND NEED IT TO.It's a damn shame this guy got canned because he dared speak the truth about this braindead approach to memory use.
If I was any more of a conspiracy theorist, I'd say that Microsoft paid to shut him up.AC because everyone will disagree with me just like they disagreed with this guy, and mod me down to below nothing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31224842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31259200</id>
	<title>So what?</title>
	<author>tengeta</author>
	<datestamp>1265125740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thousands, if not millions of articles were posted about the "horrors" of vista. I used it myself and deployed it at the business I work at with... ZERO ISSUES! So yeah, I'm not even remotely surprised that things posted about Windows 7 are fake if 99\% of the hate against Vista took 5 minutes to tweak.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thousands , if not millions of articles were posted about the " horrors " of vista .
I used it myself and deployed it at the business I work at with... ZERO ISSUES !
So yeah , I 'm not even remotely surprised that things posted about Windows 7 are fake if 99 \ % of the hate against Vista took 5 minutes to tweak .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thousands, if not millions of articles were posted about the "horrors" of vista.
I used it myself and deployed it at the business I work at with... ZERO ISSUES!
So yeah, I'm not even remotely surprised that things posted about Windows 7 are fake if 99\% of the hate against Vista took 5 minutes to tweak.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31226050</id>
	<title>Re:Window 7/Vista Memory Managment Rots!</title>
	<author>Beelzebud</author>
	<datestamp>1266775260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you had read anything to do with this story, you'd already be aware that superfetch will not interfere with "heavy hitter" apps like games and 3d modeling programs, because the superfetched data is dumped the millisecond it's needed by an application...</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you had read anything to do with this story , you 'd already be aware that superfetch will not interfere with " heavy hitter " apps like games and 3d modeling programs , because the superfetched data is dumped the millisecond it 's needed by an application.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you had read anything to do with this story, you'd already be aware that superfetch will not interfere with "heavy hitter" apps like games and 3d modeling programs, because the superfetched data is dumped the millisecond it's needed by an application...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31225478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223820</id>
	<title>More information</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266758820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ZDNet, an InfoWorld competitor, was about to go public with <a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=31024" title="zdnet.com" rel="nofollow">an expos&eacute; on Randall C. Kennedy and Devil Mountain Software</a> [zdnet.com], but InfoWorld actually beat it to the punch by disclosing the matter itself.</p><p>InfoWorld's editor in chief, Eric Knorr, should be commended for dealing this matter quickly and decisively when he discovered Mr. Kennedy's deception. At the same time, he should think very carefully about the series of decisions that led to this outcome.</p><p>Randall C. Kennedy was an InfoWorld blogger known for his outrageous, inflammatory posts. Often these posts appeared to disregard the facts, overinflate the issues, or otherwise ignore the tenets of basic journalism in favor of sensationalism and manufactured furor. Doubtless InfoWorld appreciated the traffic such posts drove to its site. What it should have realized, however, was that beyond contributing to InfoWorld's success, Mr. Kennedy had a personal incentive for generating that traffic: promoting his own company, Devil Mountain Software. With that as his motive, he had far less incentive to consider InfoWorld's journalistic integrity when crafting his blog posts. Preserving that integrity was the job of InfoWorld's editorial staff. They failed to do so.</p><p>Compounding the issue is InfoWorld's decision to partner with Mr. Kennedy on the "Windows Sentinel" project, InfoWorld's in-house branded version of Devil Mountain Software's exo.performance.network Windows monitoring product. The original post announcing Windows Sentinel is currently <a href="http://www.infoworld.com/t/tech-industry-analysis/windows-sentinel-launches-006" title="infoworld.com" rel="nofollow">hidden behind a password</a> [infoworld.com], but the <a href="http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:TOwjFcOc3TsJ:www.infoworld.com/t/tech-industry-analysis/windows-sentinel-launches-006+site:infoworld.com+windows+sentinel+launches" title="209.85.229.132" rel="nofollow">Google cache</a> [209.85.229.132] clearly shows that InfoWorld was aware that Mr. Kennedy was behind Devil Mountain Software all along:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Today, I'm happy to announce the beta version of InfoWorld Windows Sentinel, a joint project with the exo.performance.network founded by InfoWorld Contributing Editor Randall C. Kennedy.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... According to Randall, the main point is "to develop a more concise picture of the Windows computing landscape.</p></div><p>InfoWorld's editorial staff should have seen that allowing a contributor to use InfoWorld's brand to promote his own company's products and/or services constituted a conflict of interest at best, and at worst, a serious breach of InfoWorld's responsibility to provide truthful, unbiased reporting to its readers.</p><p>InfoWorld needs to think very carefully about how to proceed in future if it hopes to recover its integrity after this incident. In an age where publications are under increasing pressure to demonstrate their power to drive revenue, it is more important than ever that editors take a stand for the paramount importance of high-quality, thorough, accurate reporting and editorials, untainted by financial interests or the pursuit of personal gain. InfoWorld stumbled by continuing to support Randall C. Kennedy when it should have, at the very least, questioned his judgment. It can and must do better.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>ZDNet , an InfoWorld competitor , was about to go public with an expos   on Randall C. Kennedy and Devil Mountain Software [ zdnet.com ] , but InfoWorld actually beat it to the punch by disclosing the matter itself.InfoWorld 's editor in chief , Eric Knorr , should be commended for dealing this matter quickly and decisively when he discovered Mr. Kennedy 's deception .
At the same time , he should think very carefully about the series of decisions that led to this outcome.Randall C. Kennedy was an InfoWorld blogger known for his outrageous , inflammatory posts .
Often these posts appeared to disregard the facts , overinflate the issues , or otherwise ignore the tenets of basic journalism in favor of sensationalism and manufactured furor .
Doubtless InfoWorld appreciated the traffic such posts drove to its site .
What it should have realized , however , was that beyond contributing to InfoWorld 's success , Mr. Kennedy had a personal incentive for generating that traffic : promoting his own company , Devil Mountain Software .
With that as his motive , he had far less incentive to consider InfoWorld 's journalistic integrity when crafting his blog posts .
Preserving that integrity was the job of InfoWorld 's editorial staff .
They failed to do so.Compounding the issue is InfoWorld 's decision to partner with Mr. Kennedy on the " Windows Sentinel " project , InfoWorld 's in-house branded version of Devil Mountain Software 's exo.performance.network Windows monitoring product .
The original post announcing Windows Sentinel is currently hidden behind a password [ infoworld.com ] , but the Google cache [ 209.85.229.132 ] clearly shows that InfoWorld was aware that Mr. Kennedy was behind Devil Mountain Software all along : Today , I 'm happy to announce the beta version of InfoWorld Windows Sentinel , a joint project with the exo.performance.network founded by InfoWorld Contributing Editor Randall C. Kennedy. ... According to Randall , the main point is " to develop a more concise picture of the Windows computing landscape.InfoWorld 's editorial staff should have seen that allowing a contributor to use InfoWorld 's brand to promote his own company 's products and/or services constituted a conflict of interest at best , and at worst , a serious breach of InfoWorld 's responsibility to provide truthful , unbiased reporting to its readers.InfoWorld needs to think very carefully about how to proceed in future if it hopes to recover its integrity after this incident .
In an age where publications are under increasing pressure to demonstrate their power to drive revenue , it is more important than ever that editors take a stand for the paramount importance of high-quality , thorough , accurate reporting and editorials , untainted by financial interests or the pursuit of personal gain .
InfoWorld stumbled by continuing to support Randall C. Kennedy when it should have , at the very least , questioned his judgment .
It can and must do better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ZDNet, an InfoWorld competitor, was about to go public with an exposé on Randall C. Kennedy and Devil Mountain Software [zdnet.com], but InfoWorld actually beat it to the punch by disclosing the matter itself.InfoWorld's editor in chief, Eric Knorr, should be commended for dealing this matter quickly and decisively when he discovered Mr. Kennedy's deception.
At the same time, he should think very carefully about the series of decisions that led to this outcome.Randall C. Kennedy was an InfoWorld blogger known for his outrageous, inflammatory posts.
Often these posts appeared to disregard the facts, overinflate the issues, or otherwise ignore the tenets of basic journalism in favor of sensationalism and manufactured furor.
Doubtless InfoWorld appreciated the traffic such posts drove to its site.
What it should have realized, however, was that beyond contributing to InfoWorld's success, Mr. Kennedy had a personal incentive for generating that traffic: promoting his own company, Devil Mountain Software.
With that as his motive, he had far less incentive to consider InfoWorld's journalistic integrity when crafting his blog posts.
Preserving that integrity was the job of InfoWorld's editorial staff.
They failed to do so.Compounding the issue is InfoWorld's decision to partner with Mr. Kennedy on the "Windows Sentinel" project, InfoWorld's in-house branded version of Devil Mountain Software's exo.performance.network Windows monitoring product.
The original post announcing Windows Sentinel is currently hidden behind a password [infoworld.com], but the Google cache [209.85.229.132] clearly shows that InfoWorld was aware that Mr. Kennedy was behind Devil Mountain Software all along:Today, I'm happy to announce the beta version of InfoWorld Windows Sentinel, a joint project with the exo.performance.network founded by InfoWorld Contributing Editor Randall C. Kennedy. ... According to Randall, the main point is "to develop a more concise picture of the Windows computing landscape.InfoWorld's editorial staff should have seen that allowing a contributor to use InfoWorld's brand to promote his own company's products and/or services constituted a conflict of interest at best, and at worst, a serious breach of InfoWorld's responsibility to provide truthful, unbiased reporting to its readers.InfoWorld needs to think very carefully about how to proceed in future if it hopes to recover its integrity after this incident.
In an age where publications are under increasing pressure to demonstrate their power to drive revenue, it is more important than ever that editors take a stand for the paramount importance of high-quality, thorough, accurate reporting and editorials, untainted by financial interests or the pursuit of personal gain.
InfoWorld stumbled by continuing to support Randall C. Kennedy when it should have, at the very least, questioned his judgment.
It can and must do better.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31228808</id>
	<title>Re:Window 7/Vista Memory Managment Rots!</title>
	<author>Ant P.</author>
	<datestamp>1266851100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Linux never uses a bit of VM unless you need it.</p></div><p>Actually it does. But <a href="http://lwn.net/Articles/372384/" title="lwn.net">they're fixing that too</a> [lwn.net].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux never uses a bit of VM unless you need it.Actually it does .
But they 're fixing that too [ lwn.net ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linux never uses a bit of VM unless you need it.Actually it does.
But they're fixing that too [lwn.net].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31225478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223782</id>
	<title>Re:Reason</title>
	<author>MillionthMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1266758520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Stupidity is a meta-motivation, not a motivation itself. Being stupid makes certain motivations possible.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Stupidity is a meta-motivation , not a motivation itself .
Being stupid makes certain motivations possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stupidity is a meta-motivation, not a motivation itself.
Being stupid makes certain motivations possible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31263944</id>
	<title>Re:Reason</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265102580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think Apple is that worried about Windows 7.  Steve has already conceded on  multiple occasions that MS has won the traditional desktop/laptop space.  While Mac OSX isn't going away, it's clear it's not their main focus any more.  The iPhone, iPad and I'm sure whatever follow up devices they have cooking are were Apple is moving - into new, unconquered territory.  They single handedly turned the smartphone market on it's ear, and they are getting ready to explode into appliance computing and tap users  (like my father) that have little use for a full blown computer but just want to do a set number of tasks.  The personal/appliance computing market is even larger than the traditional computer market, and Apple not only firmly planted their flag their first, they are blowing the doors off of everyone else by their focus on total integration and the overall experience.  As long as traditional tech companies try to focus on just features, or one or two areas they will loose to Apple.  Apple covers and controls (and no, that's not a bad thing!) everything from the buying experience, to manufacturing of hardware (no dependency on IBM, Intel or anyone else for mobile CPUs - they own their own foundry!) , to software, to service - they have it all covered.  They are far better than anyone else at paying fanatical attention to detail and the end user experience.</p><p>The iPad will succeed for all the reasons the techies deride it.  It's not a feature laden general purpose computer that is not suited to any one task well - it is extremely targeted and for what it is targeted at, it's experience will blow everything else away.  With their own in house mobile CPU designs, clones and knock off's won't be able to source the same off the shelf parts and make it "good enough" with mediocre software. The gap is widening - if you want to catch up, never mind pass Apple you are going to seriously have to innovate now.</p><p>So if you think Apple is concerned about Windows 7 your fooling yourself.  That's where the puck was yesterday.  They are sprinting to where the puck is moving - I would go so far as to say they are driving the puck forward.  The iPod probably spawned the idea - the best kind caused by happy accident of circumstance.  The iPhone confirmed the model was viable, the iPad is the first of no doubt many devices designed to utterly dominate personal/appliance computing.  Each iteration built on the strengths (app store!) and success of the past, while incrementally growing and providing an instant market from the momentum of models before.</p><p>I have a feeling we haven't seen anything yet.  And I also am pretty positive five years from now most &#252;ber geeks will still be just as clueless as to the source of Apple's success (no doubt childishly ranting about style over substance - still).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think Apple is that worried about Windows 7 .
Steve has already conceded on multiple occasions that MS has won the traditional desktop/laptop space .
While Mac OSX is n't going away , it 's clear it 's not their main focus any more .
The iPhone , iPad and I 'm sure whatever follow up devices they have cooking are were Apple is moving - into new , unconquered territory .
They single handedly turned the smartphone market on it 's ear , and they are getting ready to explode into appliance computing and tap users ( like my father ) that have little use for a full blown computer but just want to do a set number of tasks .
The personal/appliance computing market is even larger than the traditional computer market , and Apple not only firmly planted their flag their first , they are blowing the doors off of everyone else by their focus on total integration and the overall experience .
As long as traditional tech companies try to focus on just features , or one or two areas they will loose to Apple .
Apple covers and controls ( and no , that 's not a bad thing !
) everything from the buying experience , to manufacturing of hardware ( no dependency on IBM , Intel or anyone else for mobile CPUs - they own their own foundry !
) , to software , to service - they have it all covered .
They are far better than anyone else at paying fanatical attention to detail and the end user experience.The iPad will succeed for all the reasons the techies deride it .
It 's not a feature laden general purpose computer that is not suited to any one task well - it is extremely targeted and for what it is targeted at , it 's experience will blow everything else away .
With their own in house mobile CPU designs , clones and knock off 's wo n't be able to source the same off the shelf parts and make it " good enough " with mediocre software .
The gap is widening - if you want to catch up , never mind pass Apple you are going to seriously have to innovate now.So if you think Apple is concerned about Windows 7 your fooling yourself .
That 's where the puck was yesterday .
They are sprinting to where the puck is moving - I would go so far as to say they are driving the puck forward .
The iPod probably spawned the idea - the best kind caused by happy accident of circumstance .
The iPhone confirmed the model was viable , the iPad is the first of no doubt many devices designed to utterly dominate personal/appliance computing .
Each iteration built on the strengths ( app store !
) and success of the past , while incrementally growing and providing an instant market from the momentum of models before.I have a feeling we have n't seen anything yet .
And I also am pretty positive five years from now most   ber geeks will still be just as clueless as to the source of Apple 's success ( no doubt childishly ranting about style over substance - still ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think Apple is that worried about Windows 7.
Steve has already conceded on  multiple occasions that MS has won the traditional desktop/laptop space.
While Mac OSX isn't going away, it's clear it's not their main focus any more.
The iPhone, iPad and I'm sure whatever follow up devices they have cooking are were Apple is moving - into new, unconquered territory.
They single handedly turned the smartphone market on it's ear, and they are getting ready to explode into appliance computing and tap users  (like my father) that have little use for a full blown computer but just want to do a set number of tasks.
The personal/appliance computing market is even larger than the traditional computer market, and Apple not only firmly planted their flag their first, they are blowing the doors off of everyone else by their focus on total integration and the overall experience.
As long as traditional tech companies try to focus on just features, or one or two areas they will loose to Apple.
Apple covers and controls (and no, that's not a bad thing!
) everything from the buying experience, to manufacturing of hardware (no dependency on IBM, Intel or anyone else for mobile CPUs - they own their own foundry!
) , to software, to service - they have it all covered.
They are far better than anyone else at paying fanatical attention to detail and the end user experience.The iPad will succeed for all the reasons the techies deride it.
It's not a feature laden general purpose computer that is not suited to any one task well - it is extremely targeted and for what it is targeted at, it's experience will blow everything else away.
With their own in house mobile CPU designs, clones and knock off's won't be able to source the same off the shelf parts and make it "good enough" with mediocre software.
The gap is widening - if you want to catch up, never mind pass Apple you are going to seriously have to innovate now.So if you think Apple is concerned about Windows 7 your fooling yourself.
That's where the puck was yesterday.
They are sprinting to where the puck is moving - I would go so far as to say they are driving the puck forward.
The iPod probably spawned the idea - the best kind caused by happy accident of circumstance.
The iPhone confirmed the model was viable, the iPad is the first of no doubt many devices designed to utterly dominate personal/appliance computing.
Each iteration built on the strengths (app store!
) and success of the past, while incrementally growing and providing an instant market from the momentum of models before.I have a feeling we haven't seen anything yet.
And I also am pretty positive five years from now most über geeks will still be just as clueless as to the source of Apple's success (no doubt childishly ranting about style over substance - still).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223872</id>
	<title>Re:Reason</title>
	<author>Nefarious Wheel</author>
	<datestamp>1266759240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm not sure, but Craig Barth is an anagram for Hair Grab Ct, which is obviously the location of the next clue.</p></div><p>It's also an anagram for <i>Rig bar chat</i>. Anything to stir controversy, then...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure , but Craig Barth is an anagram for Hair Grab Ct , which is obviously the location of the next clue.It 's also an anagram for Rig bar chat .
Anything to stir controversy , then.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure, but Craig Barth is an anagram for Hair Grab Ct, which is obviously the location of the next clue.It's also an anagram for Rig bar chat.
Anything to stir controversy, then...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223772</id>
	<title>Re:The fraud was not in the claims about Windows</title>
	<author>postmortem</author>
	<datestamp>1266758460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even if there is remote possibility that he didn't know better, it does not give him rights to spread rumors.</p><p>With so many fake experts, no wonder truth is hard to come by. These 'experts' prey on gullible people who know nothing more than to blame Microsoft. Often they don't know much themselves.</p><p>One good example is myth that you need to use System Configuration Utility msconfig utility to properly set up number of processors. That muth is truth on thousands of pages on internet. Although max number of processors is used by default, and msconfig option is meant only for troubleshooting, many idiots believe they 'improve performance' by setting same number of processors as it were without turning that on.<br>For example:<br><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmUXx-szfJI" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmUXx-szfJI</a> [youtube.com] - again advice is false.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if there is remote possibility that he did n't know better , it does not give him rights to spread rumors.With so many fake experts , no wonder truth is hard to come by .
These 'experts ' prey on gullible people who know nothing more than to blame Microsoft .
Often they do n't know much themselves.One good example is myth that you need to use System Configuration Utility msconfig utility to properly set up number of processors .
That muth is truth on thousands of pages on internet .
Although max number of processors is used by default , and msconfig option is meant only for troubleshooting , many idiots believe they 'improve performance ' by setting same number of processors as it were without turning that on.For example : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = bmUXx-szfJI [ youtube.com ] - again advice is false .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if there is remote possibility that he didn't know better, it does not give him rights to spread rumors.With so many fake experts, no wonder truth is hard to come by.
These 'experts' prey on gullible people who know nothing more than to blame Microsoft.
Often they don't know much themselves.One good example is myth that you need to use System Configuration Utility msconfig utility to properly set up number of processors.
That muth is truth on thousands of pages on internet.
Although max number of processors is used by default, and msconfig option is meant only for troubleshooting, many idiots believe they 'improve performance' by setting same number of processors as it were without turning that on.For example:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmUXx-szfJI [youtube.com] - again advice is false.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31261534</id>
	<title>What's the World Coming To?</title>
	<author>konohitowa</author>
	<datestamp>1265135700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is just shattering my whole world view. Today it may be The National InfoQuirer putting out mud-raking stories full of bogus information. But I fear for tomorrow. Who knows, we might even see pillars of objectivity such as kdawson approving stories with the same level of journalistic integrity.</p><p>Scary times...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just shattering my whole world view .
Today it may be The National InfoQuirer putting out mud-raking stories full of bogus information .
But I fear for tomorrow .
Who knows , we might even see pillars of objectivity such as kdawson approving stories with the same level of journalistic integrity.Scary times.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just shattering my whole world view.
Today it may be The National InfoQuirer putting out mud-raking stories full of bogus information.
But I fear for tomorrow.
Who knows, we might even see pillars of objectivity such as kdawson approving stories with the same level of journalistic integrity.Scary times...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31235472</id>
	<title>Re:Good for them..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266832380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because you really only have to get away with it long enough to make the cash you'd need to disappear off the map and flee to a country without an extradition treaty.</p><p>You're thinking it through as an honest person, not as a crook.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because you really only have to get away with it long enough to make the cash you 'd need to disappear off the map and flee to a country without an extradition treaty.You 're thinking it through as an honest person , not as a crook .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because you really only have to get away with it long enough to make the cash you'd need to disappear off the map and flee to a country without an extradition treaty.You're thinking it through as an honest person, not as a crook.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223862</id>
	<title>Re:Reason</title>
	<author>Totenglocke</author>
	<datestamp>1266759120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Obviously we have Mac fanboy's with mod points.  If you bothered to read my comment, I said it was a joke - besides, the person asked what his motivation for lying might be and I gave a possible explanation, so it's far from off topic.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously we have Mac fanboy 's with mod points .
If you bothered to read my comment , I said it was a joke - besides , the person asked what his motivation for lying might be and I gave a possible explanation , so it 's far from off topic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously we have Mac fanboy's with mod points.
If you bothered to read my comment, I said it was a joke - besides, the person asked what his motivation for lying might be and I gave a possible explanation, so it's far from off topic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223798</id>
	<title>Stay Glassy..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266758640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Was he also CEO of Jukt Micronics?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Was he also CEO of Jukt Micronics ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Was he also CEO of Jukt Micronics?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31225284</id>
	<title>Windows 7, memory and me</title>
	<author>theendlessnow</author>
	<datestamp>1266769080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have done what I believe to be identical installations on exact same hardware and in some cases Windows 7 consumes ALL of the memory all of the time and sometimes it doesn't.  It's a mystery to me.  I don't know what else to say.  I realize that to Microsoft problems aren't problems unless they say they are problems.... but I really think there is some kind of problem here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have done what I believe to be identical installations on exact same hardware and in some cases Windows 7 consumes ALL of the memory all of the time and sometimes it does n't .
It 's a mystery to me .
I do n't know what else to say .
I realize that to Microsoft problems are n't problems unless they say they are problems.... but I really think there is some kind of problem here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have done what I believe to be identical installations on exact same hardware and in some cases Windows 7 consumes ALL of the memory all of the time and sometimes it doesn't.
It's a mystery to me.
I don't know what else to say.
I realize that to Microsoft problems aren't problems unless they say they are problems.... but I really think there is some kind of problem here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31224842</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't make memory usage good though.</title>
	<author>im\_thatoneguy</author>
	<datestamp>1266766260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Were you needing that memory for something else and when you did, did Windows 7 not give it up immediately?</p><p>I see these sorts of posts all the time and wonder what exactly it is that all these people want unused RAM for.  I payed for it.  I want it in use dammit!   And unless you're on a notebook there is no reason to not have 4-8GB of RAM.  Even DDR3 RAM is now less than $20 a gig. So what you're saying is no OS should use more than $5 of RAM?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Were you needing that memory for something else and when you did , did Windows 7 not give it up immediately ? I see these sorts of posts all the time and wonder what exactly it is that all these people want unused RAM for .
I payed for it .
I want it in use dammit !
And unless you 're on a notebook there is no reason to not have 4-8GB of RAM .
Even DDR3 RAM is now less than $ 20 a gig .
So what you 're saying is no OS should use more than $ 5 of RAM ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Were you needing that memory for something else and when you did, did Windows 7 not give it up immediately?I see these sorts of posts all the time and wonder what exactly it is that all these people want unused RAM for.
I payed for it.
I want it in use dammit!
And unless you're on a notebook there is no reason to not have 4-8GB of RAM.
Even DDR3 RAM is now less than $20 a gig.
So what you're saying is no OS should use more than $5 of RAM?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31224242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31225342</id>
	<title>Re:More information</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266769620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm going to further speculate that the person who authored that post also wrote the report that exposed Kennedy and his various outfit. The writing style is very similar to that seen in the article, as does the tone.</p><p>If that is the case, I would like to say that the article was extremely well-written and I applaud the amount of research and investigation done on the issue. The only thing that I'm wondering about is the <i>motive</i> for all of this. Did Kennedy somehow want information on thousands of PCs for some reason? Or did he just want some limelight and attention?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm going to further speculate that the person who authored that post also wrote the report that exposed Kennedy and his various outfit .
The writing style is very similar to that seen in the article , as does the tone.If that is the case , I would like to say that the article was extremely well-written and I applaud the amount of research and investigation done on the issue .
The only thing that I 'm wondering about is the motive for all of this .
Did Kennedy somehow want information on thousands of PCs for some reason ?
Or did he just want some limelight and attention ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm going to further speculate that the person who authored that post also wrote the report that exposed Kennedy and his various outfit.
The writing style is very similar to that seen in the article, as does the tone.If that is the case, I would like to say that the article was extremely well-written and I applaud the amount of research and investigation done on the issue.
The only thing that I'm wondering about is the motive for all of this.
Did Kennedy somehow want information on thousands of PCs for some reason?
Or did he just want some limelight and attention?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31226180</id>
	<title>Re:The fraud was not in the claims about Windows</title>
	<author>Endo13</author>
	<datestamp>1266776580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's true that a gig machine would turn into a brick, but 4 gigs on a new machine is what? $100? I forget, but it's inconsequential.</p></div><p>Actually, I think Win7 is tuned to use a certain percentage (with a specific maximum amount) of your memory to "preload" programs. A machine with less memory will also have considerably less tied up like that. Actual memory use as best as I can tell is very similar to XP.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's true that a gig machine would turn into a brick , but 4 gigs on a new machine is what ?
$ 100 ? I forget , but it 's inconsequential.Actually , I think Win7 is tuned to use a certain percentage ( with a specific maximum amount ) of your memory to " preload " programs .
A machine with less memory will also have considerably less tied up like that .
Actual memory use as best as I can tell is very similar to XP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's true that a gig machine would turn into a brick, but 4 gigs on a new machine is what?
$100? I forget, but it's inconsequential.Actually, I think Win7 is tuned to use a certain percentage (with a specific maximum amount) of your memory to "preload" programs.
A machine with less memory will also have considerably less tied up like that.
Actual memory use as best as I can tell is very similar to XP.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31224350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31224100</id>
	<title>Re:The fraud was not in the claims about Windows</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1266760800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It doesn't mean the memory consumption article's contents are faked or wrong.</i></p><p>To be clear, they *are* wrong. But this particular article isn't about that... there was one friday or yesterday discussing how wrong the memory consumption figures were.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't mean the memory consumption article 's contents are faked or wrong.To be clear , they * are * wrong .
But this particular article is n't about that... there was one friday or yesterday discussing how wrong the memory consumption figures were .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't mean the memory consumption article's contents are faked or wrong.To be clear, they *are* wrong.
But this particular article isn't about that... there was one friday or yesterday discussing how wrong the memory consumption figures were.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31226524</id>
	<title>Clear messege.</title>
	<author>miffo.swe</author>
	<datestamp>1266780660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do not critizise Vista 7 *cough* Windows 7 or Microsoft will eat your soul, get you fired and send lawyers at you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do not critizise Vista 7 * cough * Windows 7 or Microsoft will eat your soul , get you fired and send lawyers at you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do not critizise Vista 7 *cough* Windows 7 or Microsoft will eat your soul, get you fired and send lawyers at you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223534</id>
	<title>Eh wouldn't surprise me...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266756720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even with all the real things you can slam Microsoft for, some people feel the need to make things up.  Reminds me of that pre-Vista paper by that (I think) NZ guy that was full of stuff that even then people who had the RC knew to be false.  Sensational things get page views I guess.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even with all the real things you can slam Microsoft for , some people feel the need to make things up .
Reminds me of that pre-Vista paper by that ( I think ) NZ guy that was full of stuff that even then people who had the RC knew to be false .
Sensational things get page views I guess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even with all the real things you can slam Microsoft for, some people feel the need to make things up.
Reminds me of that pre-Vista paper by that (I think) NZ guy that was full of stuff that even then people who had the RC knew to be false.
Sensational things get page views I guess.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31228408</id>
	<title>Re:Window 7/Vista Memory Managment Rots!</title>
	<author>Anarchduke</author>
	<datestamp>1266848340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Then use <b>Linux</b>.  <br>
<br>
And use more <a href="http://frankscorner.org/index.php?p=rhino3d" title="frankscorner.org">WINE</a> [frankscorner.org] and less whine.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then use Linux .
And use more WINE [ frankscorner.org ] and less whine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then use Linux.
And use more WINE [frankscorner.org] and less whine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31225478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31226618</id>
	<title>Does it run putty?</title>
	<author>codepunk</author>
	<datestamp>1266782100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As long as it can run Putty, I am perfectly fine with whatever junk they decide to produce.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as it can run Putty , I am perfectly fine with whatever junk they decide to produce .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as it can run Putty, I am perfectly fine with whatever junk they decide to produce.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31224204</id>
	<title>Re:Reason</title>
	<author>node 3</author>
	<datestamp>1266761460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Duh, Paranoia 101; The guy was obviously a covert operative from Microsofts Intelligence Service put there to discredit views that criticize Windows.</p></div><p>I know you're joking, but MS has done shit like that in the past. I don't think that's the case here, but there's nothing in "The Shady, Underhanded Guide to Dominating a Market" that MS hasn't done before.</p><p>You should read some of the emails from the anti-trust cases. They are <i>very</i> revealing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Duh , Paranoia 101 ; The guy was obviously a covert operative from Microsofts Intelligence Service put there to discredit views that criticize Windows.I know you 're joking , but MS has done shit like that in the past .
I do n't think that 's the case here , but there 's nothing in " The Shady , Underhanded Guide to Dominating a Market " that MS has n't done before.You should read some of the emails from the anti-trust cases .
They are very revealing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Duh, Paranoia 101; The guy was obviously a covert operative from Microsofts Intelligence Service put there to discredit views that criticize Windows.I know you're joking, but MS has done shit like that in the past.
I don't think that's the case here, but there's nothing in "The Shady, Underhanded Guide to Dominating a Market" that MS hasn't done before.You should read some of the emails from the anti-trust cases.
They are very revealing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31225246</id>
	<title>OMG, they killed Craig!</title>
	<author>nottooloud</author>
	<datestamp>1266768900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now they're trying to pretend he didn't exist!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now they 're trying to pretend he did n't exist !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now they're trying to pretend he didn't exist!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31224132</id>
	<title>Re:Reason</title>
	<author>node 3</author>
	<datestamp>1266761040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Well, I'm sure Apple is a little worried considering Windows 7 is actually good.</p></div><p>No, you can rest assured that Apple is not worried. They know they have a better product (and they're right).</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Now, it's still Windows but let's be honest, it's pretty good.</p></div><p>You're *almost* saying it right. "It's pretty good for Windows" is what you're saying without coming right out and saying it. And that's true. But as a consumer OS, Mac OS X is better. As a server OS, Linux is better.</p><p>The only two cases where Windows is truly better is in an office environment, and gaming. In the office environment, Windows 7 isn't really any better than XP. Worse, in many ways, better in a few. For gaming, <i>presently</i>, XP is still better, but XP is sort of a dead-end OS in that regard, so Windows 7 is a better choice, even if it currently isn't the better system for games.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Consider UNIX has been around for getting on 40 years meanwhile Windows is what, 15 years old? Given that I would say yeah it's starting to getting pretty decent.</p></div><p>This is not only factually incorrect, but it doesn't even make sense in any way. Are you saying that Windows is pretty good, for such a young OS? That's hardly praise.</p><p>Thing is, aside from games and an office setting, I can think of no compelling reason to choose Windows over its competitors. I know this is partially subjective, and other people will have other values and opinions, but really, taken in context of the broader computing realm, it's hard to call Windows "pretty good", or "actually good". When taken in the context solely of Windows itself, then sure, it's definitely getting better.</p><p>Unfortunately for MS, so is their competition, so it's not really a net win for them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I 'm sure Apple is a little worried considering Windows 7 is actually good.No , you can rest assured that Apple is not worried .
They know they have a better product ( and they 're right ) .Now , it 's still Windows but let 's be honest , it 's pretty good.You 're * almost * saying it right .
" It 's pretty good for Windows " is what you 're saying without coming right out and saying it .
And that 's true .
But as a consumer OS , Mac OS X is better .
As a server OS , Linux is better.The only two cases where Windows is truly better is in an office environment , and gaming .
In the office environment , Windows 7 is n't really any better than XP .
Worse , in many ways , better in a few .
For gaming , presently , XP is still better , but XP is sort of a dead-end OS in that regard , so Windows 7 is a better choice , even if it currently is n't the better system for games.Consider UNIX has been around for getting on 40 years meanwhile Windows is what , 15 years old ?
Given that I would say yeah it 's starting to getting pretty decent.This is not only factually incorrect , but it does n't even make sense in any way .
Are you saying that Windows is pretty good , for such a young OS ?
That 's hardly praise.Thing is , aside from games and an office setting , I can think of no compelling reason to choose Windows over its competitors .
I know this is partially subjective , and other people will have other values and opinions , but really , taken in context of the broader computing realm , it 's hard to call Windows " pretty good " , or " actually good " .
When taken in the context solely of Windows itself , then sure , it 's definitely getting better.Unfortunately for MS , so is their competition , so it 's not really a net win for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I'm sure Apple is a little worried considering Windows 7 is actually good.No, you can rest assured that Apple is not worried.
They know they have a better product (and they're right).Now, it's still Windows but let's be honest, it's pretty good.You're *almost* saying it right.
"It's pretty good for Windows" is what you're saying without coming right out and saying it.
And that's true.
But as a consumer OS, Mac OS X is better.
As a server OS, Linux is better.The only two cases where Windows is truly better is in an office environment, and gaming.
In the office environment, Windows 7 isn't really any better than XP.
Worse, in many ways, better in a few.
For gaming, presently, XP is still better, but XP is sort of a dead-end OS in that regard, so Windows 7 is a better choice, even if it currently isn't the better system for games.Consider UNIX has been around for getting on 40 years meanwhile Windows is what, 15 years old?
Given that I would say yeah it's starting to getting pretty decent.This is not only factually incorrect, but it doesn't even make sense in any way.
Are you saying that Windows is pretty good, for such a young OS?
That's hardly praise.Thing is, aside from games and an office setting, I can think of no compelling reason to choose Windows over its competitors.
I know this is partially subjective, and other people will have other values and opinions, but really, taken in context of the broader computing realm, it's hard to call Windows "pretty good", or "actually good".
When taken in the context solely of Windows itself, then sure, it's definitely getting better.Unfortunately for MS, so is their competition, so it's not really a net win for them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223864</id>
	<title>Good for them..</title>
	<author>FartKnockerz</author>
	<datestamp>1266759120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I have never considered InfoWorld the pinnacle of journalism nor anything more than a regurgitation machine, I say good for them.</p><p>It takes balls to publicly retract something like this.</p><p>However, the 'damage' to InfoWorld's 'credibility' with Mr. Kennedy as a contributor/blogger is immense.  They washed their hands of him faster than a John squirting himself with hand sanitizer after a nasty romp with a meth-induced hooker.</p><p>I am somewhat mystified how Mr. Kennedy thought that spreading FUD would actually <i>help</i> his career.  Interesting tact..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I have never considered InfoWorld the pinnacle of journalism nor anything more than a regurgitation machine , I say good for them.It takes balls to publicly retract something like this.However , the 'damage ' to InfoWorld 's 'credibility ' with Mr. Kennedy as a contributor/blogger is immense .
They washed their hands of him faster than a John squirting himself with hand sanitizer after a nasty romp with a meth-induced hooker.I am somewhat mystified how Mr. Kennedy thought that spreading FUD would actually help his career .
Interesting tact. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I have never considered InfoWorld the pinnacle of journalism nor anything more than a regurgitation machine, I say good for them.It takes balls to publicly retract something like this.However, the 'damage' to InfoWorld's 'credibility' with Mr. Kennedy as a contributor/blogger is immense.
They washed their hands of him faster than a John squirting himself with hand sanitizer after a nasty romp with a meth-induced hooker.I am somewhat mystified how Mr. Kennedy thought that spreading FUD would actually help his career.
Interesting tact..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31228842</id>
	<title>Or....</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1266851400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>M$ paid alot of money to put this guy into a corner where he looks like he misrepresented the facts, and by doing so, made this whole issue go away.<br>It would be nice to see if someone else that M$ could not corrupt, like Google,<br>could test this very same thing, and give us an unbiased review as if it was just a regular company putting out a product<br>and not some massive corporation with its tentacles everywhere, paying off everybody, and setting up fake benchmarks.<br>I read on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. a while back their benchmarks had been tainted with misrepresentation, but I forget which post it was, maybe vista associated???</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>M $ paid alot of money to put this guy into a corner where he looks like he misrepresented the facts , and by doing so , made this whole issue go away.It would be nice to see if someone else that M $ could not corrupt , like Google,could test this very same thing , and give us an unbiased review as if it was just a regular company putting out a productand not some massive corporation with its tentacles everywhere , paying off everybody , and setting up fake benchmarks.I read on / .
a while back their benchmarks had been tainted with misrepresentation , but I forget which post it was , maybe vista associated ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>M$ paid alot of money to put this guy into a corner where he looks like he misrepresented the facts, and by doing so, made this whole issue go away.It would be nice to see if someone else that M$ could not corrupt, like Google,could test this very same thing, and give us an unbiased review as if it was just a regular company putting out a productand not some massive corporation with its tentacles everywhere, paying off everybody, and setting up fake benchmarks.I read on /.
a while back their benchmarks had been tainted with misrepresentation, but I forget which post it was, maybe vista associated??
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223662</id>
	<title>Re:Reason</title>
	<author>icepick72</author>
	<datestamp>1266757680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt; I wonder what his motivation for lying like about it was</p><p>The same motivation you had for that grammatical error: stupidity. Nothing personal, it's just an analogy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; I wonder what his motivation for lying like about it wasThe same motivation you had for that grammatical error : stupidity .
Nothing personal , it 's just an analogy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; I wonder what his motivation for lying like about it wasThe same motivation you had for that grammatical error: stupidity.
Nothing personal, it's just an analogy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31228500</id>
	<title>response from devil mountain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266848880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2010/02/when-microsoft-attacks-again.html</p><p>And his response.  He'll get some sympathy to many people hate M$ to look at facts, kinda like the global warming people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //exo-blog.blogspot.com/2010/02/when-microsoft-attacks-again.htmlAnd his response .
He 'll get some sympathy to many people hate M $ to look at facts , kinda like the global warming people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2010/02/when-microsoft-attacks-again.htmlAnd his response.
He'll get some sympathy to many people hate M$ to look at facts, kinda like the global warming people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31224398</id>
	<title>Re:Reason</title>
	<author>bonch</author>
	<datestamp>1266762900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Worried about what?  The direction of computing today is mobile devices and online services, and Apple and Google have soundly defeated Microsoft there.  Windows 7 is a relic of an outdated paradigm.  It may end up being the last of desktop Windows as we think of it today.</p><p>By the way, Windows is much older than 15 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Worried about what ?
The direction of computing today is mobile devices and online services , and Apple and Google have soundly defeated Microsoft there .
Windows 7 is a relic of an outdated paradigm .
It may end up being the last of desktop Windows as we think of it today.By the way , Windows is much older than 15 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Worried about what?
The direction of computing today is mobile devices and online services, and Apple and Google have soundly defeated Microsoft there.
Windows 7 is a relic of an outdated paradigm.
It may end up being the last of desktop Windows as we think of it today.By the way, Windows is much older than 15 years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31224168</id>
	<title>HAHAHAH ASSHOLE.</title>
	<author>Jackie\_Chan\_Fan</author>
	<datestamp>1266761280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hope microsoft sues him.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hope microsoft sues him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hope microsoft sues him.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31230306</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't make memory usage good though.</title>
	<author>Endo13</author>
	<datestamp>1266859680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pfft, kids these days. Think you need 256MB!! 640k ought to be enough for anybody!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pfft , kids these days .
Think you need 256MB ! !
640k ought to be enough for anybody !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pfft, kids these days.
Think you need 256MB!!
640k ought to be enough for anybody!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31224242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31225078</id>
	<title>Windows 7 does use too much ram.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266767880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But.... Windows 7 does seem to use too much memory, not as much as the O.P. claimed, perhaps, but more than Windows XP used.  My system rapidly ramps up to the 75 to 80\% level, which is a bit surprising.  I installed 32-bit Windows 7, whereas I see most of the commercial offerings are the 64-bit version.  The latter can utilize more than 3GB of memory, and arguably, may be happier with smaller amounts of ram than 32-bit installs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But.... Windows 7 does seem to use too much memory , not as much as the O.P .
claimed , perhaps , but more than Windows XP used .
My system rapidly ramps up to the 75 to 80 \ % level , which is a bit surprising .
I installed 32-bit Windows 7 , whereas I see most of the commercial offerings are the 64-bit version .
The latter can utilize more than 3GB of memory , and arguably , may be happier with smaller amounts of ram than 32-bit installs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But.... Windows 7 does seem to use too much memory, not as much as the O.P.
claimed, perhaps, but more than Windows XP used.
My system rapidly ramps up to the 75 to 80\% level, which is a bit surprising.
I installed 32-bit Windows 7, whereas I see most of the commercial offerings are the 64-bit version.
The latter can utilize more than 3GB of memory, and arguably, may be happier with smaller amounts of ram than 32-bit installs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223542</id>
	<title>Reason</title>
	<author>xbeefsupreme</author>
	<datestamp>1266756780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder what his motivation for lying like about it was.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder what his motivation for lying like about it was .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder what his motivation for lying like about it was.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31224148</id>
	<title>NEWS! Slashdot doesn't check facts, gets letter.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266761100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>So Slashdot posted a second hand story from another site with a (potentially) misleading headline, without checking the facts, because it would drive traffic?  And now they've had a letter from a lawyer?  Big surprise.  I'd be proud to get banned for this post.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So Slashdot posted a second hand story from another site with a ( potentially ) misleading headline , without checking the facts , because it would drive traffic ?
And now they 've had a letter from a lawyer ?
Big surprise .
I 'd be proud to get banned for this post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So Slashdot posted a second hand story from another site with a (potentially) misleading headline, without checking the facts, because it would drive traffic?
And now they've had a letter from a lawyer?
Big surprise.
I'd be proud to get banned for this post.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31224350</id>
	<title>Re:The fraud was not in the claims about Windows</title>
	<author>mschuyler</author>
	<datestamp>1266762480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is this 'insightful'? It's completely wrong. I've been running 7 for awhile now with a constant monitor on CPU and memory. The memory sits at 1.3 gigs no matter what I do. The only time I have EVER seen it go to about 1.8 was when running a DVD backup image. It has NEVER gone to 50\% (The machine has 4 gigs). CPU utilization has never to my knowledge gone above 25\% and usually sits at 2-3\%. The thing boots in 2 minutes flat and is capable of very fast mistakes. I don't run 25 windows open or anything, but I do throw some statistical crunching on it that I would have expected to take a few more cycles. I'm not raving on winblows, but compared to Vista and XP I am a bit surprised that it is working as well as it is. It's true that a gig machine would turn into a brick, but 4 gigs on a new machine is what? $100? I forget, but it's inconsequential.</p><p>So, NO, it's not just a pseudonym that is the problem, it's also pseudo facts.</p><p>Now back to my Linux servers so I can get some real work done.......</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is this 'insightful ' ?
It 's completely wrong .
I 've been running 7 for awhile now with a constant monitor on CPU and memory .
The memory sits at 1.3 gigs no matter what I do .
The only time I have EVER seen it go to about 1.8 was when running a DVD backup image .
It has NEVER gone to 50 \ % ( The machine has 4 gigs ) .
CPU utilization has never to my knowledge gone above 25 \ % and usually sits at 2-3 \ % .
The thing boots in 2 minutes flat and is capable of very fast mistakes .
I do n't run 25 windows open or anything , but I do throw some statistical crunching on it that I would have expected to take a few more cycles .
I 'm not raving on winblows , but compared to Vista and XP I am a bit surprised that it is working as well as it is .
It 's true that a gig machine would turn into a brick , but 4 gigs on a new machine is what ?
$ 100 ? I forget , but it 's inconsequential.So , NO , it 's not just a pseudonym that is the problem , it 's also pseudo facts.Now back to my Linux servers so I can get some real work done...... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is this 'insightful'?
It's completely wrong.
I've been running 7 for awhile now with a constant monitor on CPU and memory.
The memory sits at 1.3 gigs no matter what I do.
The only time I have EVER seen it go to about 1.8 was when running a DVD backup image.
It has NEVER gone to 50\% (The machine has 4 gigs).
CPU utilization has never to my knowledge gone above 25\% and usually sits at 2-3\%.
The thing boots in 2 minutes flat and is capable of very fast mistakes.
I don't run 25 windows open or anything, but I do throw some statistical crunching on it that I would have expected to take a few more cycles.
I'm not raving on winblows, but compared to Vista and XP I am a bit surprised that it is working as well as it is.
It's true that a gig machine would turn into a brick, but 4 gigs on a new machine is what?
$100? I forget, but it's inconsequential.So, NO, it's not just a pseudonym that is the problem, it's also pseudo facts.Now back to my Linux servers so I can get some real work done.......</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223636</id>
	<title>The fraud was not in the claims about Windows</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266757560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>from what it looks like.  Rather, it was about the identity of the blogger.  It looks like he was a paid blogger for InfoWorld and a Windows performance analyst at the same time, and wrote the Windows memory consumption post under a pseudonym without disclosing the relationship to InfoWorld.  It doesn't mean the memory consumption article's contents are faked or wrong.  Its conclusions are disputed, but that's a a separate issue.  The issue is disclosure of its authorship.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>from what it looks like .
Rather , it was about the identity of the blogger .
It looks like he was a paid blogger for InfoWorld and a Windows performance analyst at the same time , and wrote the Windows memory consumption post under a pseudonym without disclosing the relationship to InfoWorld .
It does n't mean the memory consumption article 's contents are faked or wrong .
Its conclusions are disputed , but that 's a a separate issue .
The issue is disclosure of its authorship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>from what it looks like.
Rather, it was about the identity of the blogger.
It looks like he was a paid blogger for InfoWorld and a Windows performance analyst at the same time, and wrote the Windows memory consumption post under a pseudonym without disclosing the relationship to InfoWorld.
It doesn't mean the memory consumption article's contents are faked or wrong.
Its conclusions are disputed, but that's a a separate issue.
The issue is disclosure of its authorship.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31224242</id>
	<title>Doesn't make memory usage good though.</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1266761640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All that you see when you use just Windows 7, should in no way ever go over 256 MB! All the rest is bloat. Like using 64-bit values to store single boolean values. Like having a bazillion of 32-bit animated icons and shit in memory. Like having services running in the background, that optimize what would have no need for optimizing, weren&rsquo;t it for those services running. Etc, etc, etc</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All that you see when you use just Windows 7 , should in no way ever go over 256 MB !
All the rest is bloat .
Like using 64-bit values to store single boolean values .
Like having a bazillion of 32-bit animated icons and shit in memory .
Like having services running in the background , that optimize what would have no need for optimizing , weren    t it for those services running .
Etc , etc , etc</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All that you see when you use just Windows 7, should in no way ever go over 256 MB!
All the rest is bloat.
Like using 64-bit values to store single boolean values.
Like having a bazillion of 32-bit animated icons and shit in memory.
Like having services running in the background, that optimize what would have no need for optimizing, weren’t it for those services running.
Etc, etc, etc</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31225096</id>
	<title>Re:NEWS! Slashdot doesn't check facts, gets letter</title>
	<author>Doug52392</author>
	<datestamp>1266768060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Slashdot mods were probably like "OH GOD! FINALLY! An article saying something BAD about Windows 7! MUST. PUBLISH!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot mods were probably like " OH GOD !
FINALLY ! An article saying something BAD about Windows 7 !
MUST. PUBLISH !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot mods were probably like "OH GOD!
FINALLY! An article saying something BAD about Windows 7!
MUST. PUBLISH!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31224148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223860</id>
	<title>Re:Reason</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1266759120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suspect he believed the <em>content</em> of his message, and was willing to go to whatever lengths necessary to get the message out, even if that meant fraud elsewhere. You know, the kind of guy who dreams of outing an evil megacorp.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect he believed the content of his message , and was willing to go to whatever lengths necessary to get the message out , even if that meant fraud elsewhere .
You know , the kind of guy who dreams of outing an evil megacorp .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect he believed the content of his message, and was willing to go to whatever lengths necessary to get the message out, even if that meant fraud elsewhere.
You know, the kind of guy who dreams of outing an evil megacorp.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31227430</id>
	<title>There is no Craig Barth ...</title>
	<author>sourcerror</author>
	<datestamp>1266837480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no Craig Barth. And we've been always been in war with Eurasia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no Craig Barth .
And we 've been always been in war with Eurasia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no Craig Barth.
And we've been always been in war with Eurasia.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31225962</id>
	<title>Re:More information</title>
	<author>baegucb</author>
	<datestamp>1266774720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I took a look at coiledsnake's comment and noticed something odd<br><a href="http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1558288&amp;cid=31224858" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1558288&amp;cid=31224858</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>There are 3 links in his comment, and all to frequent submitters of stories that get put up on slashdot.</p><p>One link: <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/23/1710245" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/23/1710245</a> [slashdot.org]<br>submitted by "Stony Stevenson"</p><p>Another link: <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/02/1418252" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/02/1418252</a> [slashdot.org]<br>submitted by snydeq  which links to <a href="http://www.infoworld.com/" title="infoworld.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.infoworld.com/</a> [infoworld.com]</p><p>and another link: <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/tech/08/08/18/2016228.shtml" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://tech.slashdot.org/tech/08/08/18/2016228.shtml</a> [slashdot.org]<br>submitted by CWmike  which links to <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/" title="computerworld.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.computerworld.com/</a> [computerworld.com]</p><p>Why would these frequent story contributors link their nick to publications? (hope I got the links right)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I took a look at coiledsnake 's comment and noticed something oddhttp : //news.slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1558288&amp;cid = 31224858 [ slashdot.org ] There are 3 links in his comment , and all to frequent submitters of stories that get put up on slashdot.One link : http : //tech.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 07/11/23/1710245 [ slashdot.org ] submitted by " Stony Stevenson " Another link : http : //tech.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 08/09/02/1418252 [ slashdot.org ] submitted by snydeq which links to http : //www.infoworld.com/ [ infoworld.com ] and another link : http : //tech.slashdot.org/tech/08/08/18/2016228.shtml [ slashdot.org ] submitted by CWmike which links to http : //www.computerworld.com/ [ computerworld.com ] Why would these frequent story contributors link their nick to publications ?
( hope I got the links right )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I took a look at coiledsnake's comment and noticed something oddhttp://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1558288&amp;cid=31224858 [slashdot.org]There are 3 links in his comment, and all to frequent submitters of stories that get put up on slashdot.One link: http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/23/1710245 [slashdot.org]submitted by "Stony Stevenson"Another link: http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/02/1418252 [slashdot.org]submitted by snydeq  which links to http://www.infoworld.com/ [infoworld.com]and another link: http://tech.slashdot.org/tech/08/08/18/2016228.shtml [slashdot.org]submitted by CWmike  which links to http://www.computerworld.com/ [computerworld.com]Why would these frequent story contributors link their nick to publications?
(hope I got the links right)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31224640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31230304</id>
	<title>Re:The fraud was not in the claims about Windows</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1266859620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Indeed. The summary reads as if he made up a fake person at a real company to which he had no connection.  Truth is that he made up a fake person at a company that he owned, as a pseudonym.  I think they're right in no longer keeping him on as a blogger (full disclosure and all that), but the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. summary makes it look like something much more serious than what actually happened.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed .
The summary reads as if he made up a fake person at a real company to which he had no connection .
Truth is that he made up a fake person at a company that he owned , as a pseudonym .
I think they 're right in no longer keeping him on as a blogger ( full disclosure and all that ) , but the / .
summary makes it look like something much more serious than what actually happened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed.
The summary reads as if he made up a fake person at a real company to which he had no connection.
Truth is that he made up a fake person at a company that he owned, as a pseudonym.
I think they're right in no longer keeping him on as a blogger (full disclosure and all that), but the /.
summary makes it look like something much more serious than what actually happened.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31226266</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't make memory usage good though.</title>
	<author>cgenman</author>
	<datestamp>1266777660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>And unless you're on a notebook there is no reason to not have 4-8GB of RAM.</i></p><p>Notebooks have been outselling desktops for <a href="http://news.cnet.com/PC-milestone--notebooks-outsell-desktops/2100-1047\_3-5731417.html" title="cnet.com">a few years now.</a> [cnet.com]  Desktops are now the minority of computers.  Also, 4+ GB of RAM isn't possible under windows unless A: running a 64 bit variant, and B: your system provider hasn't cheaped out and has actually updated the BIOS to support it.  Considering how useless Vista 64 was, that essentially limits you to computers designed recently and bought in the last year.  (or any OSX or Linux variant for a long time now, but that's another argument).</p><p>The 4GB RAM ceiling hasn't been smashed for that long.  It will take time to adopt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And unless you 're on a notebook there is no reason to not have 4-8GB of RAM.Notebooks have been outselling desktops for a few years now .
[ cnet.com ] Desktops are now the minority of computers .
Also , 4 + GB of RAM is n't possible under windows unless A : running a 64 bit variant , and B : your system provider has n't cheaped out and has actually updated the BIOS to support it .
Considering how useless Vista 64 was , that essentially limits you to computers designed recently and bought in the last year .
( or any OSX or Linux variant for a long time now , but that 's another argument ) .The 4GB RAM ceiling has n't been smashed for that long .
It will take time to adopt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And unless you're on a notebook there is no reason to not have 4-8GB of RAM.Notebooks have been outselling desktops for a few years now.
[cnet.com]  Desktops are now the minority of computers.
Also, 4+ GB of RAM isn't possible under windows unless A: running a 64 bit variant, and B: your system provider hasn't cheaped out and has actually updated the BIOS to support it.
Considering how useless Vista 64 was, that essentially limits you to computers designed recently and bought in the last year.
(or any OSX or Linux variant for a long time now, but that's another argument).The 4GB RAM ceiling hasn't been smashed for that long.
It will take time to adopt.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31224842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223630</id>
	<title>Re:Reason</title>
	<author>Narpak</author>
	<datestamp>1266757500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I wonder what his motivation for lying like about it was.</p></div><p>Duh, Paranoia 101; The guy was obviously a covert operative from Microsofts Intelligence Service put there to discredit views that criticize Windows. As my conspiracy teacher told me <i>"Never attribute to stupidity what can be explained by malicious intent from our evil alien overlords!"</i></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder what his motivation for lying like about it was.Duh , Paranoia 101 ; The guy was obviously a covert operative from Microsofts Intelligence Service put there to discredit views that criticize Windows .
As my conspiracy teacher told me " Never attribute to stupidity what can be explained by malicious intent from our evil alien overlords !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder what his motivation for lying like about it was.Duh, Paranoia 101; The guy was obviously a covert operative from Microsofts Intelligence Service put there to discredit views that criticize Windows.
As my conspiracy teacher told me "Never attribute to stupidity what can be explained by malicious intent from our evil alien overlords!
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31226040</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't make memory usage good though.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266775200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what you're saying is no OS should use more than $5 of RAM?</p><p>I insist that it run on my 1981 vintage PC. I paid good bucks for that 64kbyte upgrade, I want to use it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what you 're saying is no OS should use more than $ 5 of RAM ? I insist that it run on my 1981 vintage PC .
I paid good bucks for that 64kbyte upgrade , I want to use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what you're saying is no OS should use more than $5 of RAM?I insist that it run on my 1981 vintage PC.
I paid good bucks for that 64kbyte upgrade, I want to use it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31224842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223648</id>
	<title>Re:Reason</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266757620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I'm sure Apple is a little worried considering Windows 7 is actually good. Now, it's still Windows but let's be honest, it's pretty good. Consider UNIX has been around for getting on 40 years meanwhile Windows is what, 15 years old? Given that I would say yeah it's starting to getting pretty decent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I 'm sure Apple is a little worried considering Windows 7 is actually good .
Now , it 's still Windows but let 's be honest , it 's pretty good .
Consider UNIX has been around for getting on 40 years meanwhile Windows is what , 15 years old ?
Given that I would say yeah it 's starting to getting pretty decent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I'm sure Apple is a little worried considering Windows 7 is actually good.
Now, it's still Windows but let's be honest, it's pretty good.
Consider UNIX has been around for getting on 40 years meanwhile Windows is what, 15 years old?
Given that I would say yeah it's starting to getting pretty decent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31224748</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot get trolled, news at 11</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266765300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The management of Slashdot doesn't give a fuck about journalistic integrity. It's so obvious that it makes me sick.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The management of Slashdot does n't give a fuck about journalistic integrity .
It 's so obvious that it makes me sick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The management of Slashdot doesn't give a fuck about journalistic integrity.
It's so obvious that it makes me sick.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31224322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223574</id>
	<title>Re:Reason</title>
	<author>Totenglocke</author>
	<datestamp>1266757080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I wonder what his motivation for lying like about it was.</p></div><p>He's a Mac fanboy.  While I say that jokingly, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be the truth.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder what his motivation for lying like about it was.He 's a Mac fanboy .
While I say that jokingly , I honestly would n't be surprised if it turns out to be the truth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder what his motivation for lying like about it was.He's a Mac fanboy.
While I say that jokingly, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be the truth.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31225972</id>
	<title>Re:More information</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1266774780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Randall C. Kennedy was an InfoWorld blogger known for his outrageous, inflammatory posts.</p></div></blockquote><p>It worked for "system idle process is eating my CPU" Dvorak so maybe they though this would work too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Randall C. Kennedy was an InfoWorld blogger known for his outrageous , inflammatory posts.It worked for " system idle process is eating my CPU " Dvorak so maybe they though this would work too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Randall C. Kennedy was an InfoWorld blogger known for his outrageous, inflammatory posts.It worked for "system idle process is eating my CPU" Dvorak so maybe they though this would work too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31225980</id>
	<title>Re:More information</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266774840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hah hah!  You wrote "blog" and "journalistic integrity" in the same sentence!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hah hah !
You wrote " blog " and " journalistic integrity " in the same sentence !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hah hah!
You wrote "blog" and "journalistic integrity" in the same sentence!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31226152</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 7 is pretty good.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266776280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I upgraded from 32 bit Linux to 64 bit Linux.  Everything works smoothly and near instantaneously as usual.  It was pretty cool for $0.00 I got 32 and 64 bit versions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I upgraded from 32 bit Linux to 64 bit Linux .
Everything works smoothly and near instantaneously as usual .
It was pretty cool for $ 0.00 I got 32 and 64 bit versions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I upgraded from 32 bit Linux to 64 bit Linux.
Everything works smoothly and near instantaneously as usual.
It was pretty cool for $0.00 I got 32 and 64 bit versions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31230026</id>
	<title>Re:NEWS! Slashdot doesn't check facts, gets letter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266858360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And yet you have some people constantly complaining about programs that are memory hogs which is like complaining about how your brain cell count is large.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And yet you have some people constantly complaining about programs that are memory hogs which is like complaining about how your brain cell count is large .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And yet you have some people constantly complaining about programs that are memory hogs which is like complaining about how your brain cell count is large.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31225410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223788</id>
	<title>Re:Reason</title>
	<author>WrongSizeGlass</author>
	<datestamp>1266758580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I wonder what his motivation for lying like about it was.</p></div><p>I'm not sure, but Craig Barth is an anagram for <i>Hair Grab Ct</i>, which is obviously the location of the next clue.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder what his motivation for lying like about it was.I 'm not sure , but Craig Barth is an anagram for Hair Grab Ct , which is obviously the location of the next clue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder what his motivation for lying like about it was.I'm not sure, but Craig Barth is an anagram for Hair Grab Ct, which is obviously the location of the next clue.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223716</id>
	<title>Re:The fraud was not in the claims about Windows</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266758040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The bottom line is that the articles contents *ARE* wrong. Any attempt to divert attention from that fact is disingenuous.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The bottom line is that the articles contents * ARE * wrong .
Any attempt to divert attention from that fact is disingenuous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The bottom line is that the articles contents *ARE* wrong.
Any attempt to divert attention from that fact is disingenuous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31230942</id>
	<title>Kennedy's side</title>
	<author>pinkUZI</author>
	<datestamp>1266861780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Kennedy has posted his side of the story here: <a href="http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2010/02/when-microsoft-attacks-again.html" title="blogspot.com">http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2010/02/when-microsoft-attacks-again.html</a> [blogspot.com]

"Apologize? For what? Using a pen name when dealing with an overzealous reporter? Because that't the extend of the "deception" that everyone is so excited about. The company itself exists, has real clients and is profitable. Nothing they can say will change that or other facts, like:

* We have nearly 24,000 users at xpnet.com.
* We collect and analyze over 230 million system metrics records and over 13 billion process metrics records every week.
* We publish our findings and make all of our resources freely available to the IT industry.

People want to skewer me because they don't agree with my point of view. Microsoft wants to skewer me because I hurt sales. IDG wants to skewer me to cover their asses - because, as I pointed out to ZDNet/CNet, they knew about the Craig Barth ruse all along. And they did nothing.

If anyone needs to apologize, it's IDG - but not for the reasons they've stated. It was their hunger for page views that ultimately drove them to turn a blind eye.

Me? I just used a pseudonym in a few email exchanges and during a a couple of phone calls. The rest is all BS and posturing, and they (IDG &amp; ZDNet) know it.

RCK"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Kennedy has posted his side of the story here : http : //exo-blog.blogspot.com/2010/02/when-microsoft-attacks-again.html [ blogspot.com ] " Apologize ?
For what ?
Using a pen name when dealing with an overzealous reporter ?
Because that't the extend of the " deception " that everyone is so excited about .
The company itself exists , has real clients and is profitable .
Nothing they can say will change that or other facts , like : * We have nearly 24,000 users at xpnet.com .
* We collect and analyze over 230 million system metrics records and over 13 billion process metrics records every week .
* We publish our findings and make all of our resources freely available to the IT industry .
People want to skewer me because they do n't agree with my point of view .
Microsoft wants to skewer me because I hurt sales .
IDG wants to skewer me to cover their asses - because , as I pointed out to ZDNet/CNet , they knew about the Craig Barth ruse all along .
And they did nothing .
If anyone needs to apologize , it 's IDG - but not for the reasons they 've stated .
It was their hunger for page views that ultimately drove them to turn a blind eye .
Me ? I just used a pseudonym in a few email exchanges and during a a couple of phone calls .
The rest is all BS and posturing , and they ( IDG &amp; ZDNet ) know it .
RCK "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kennedy has posted his side of the story here: http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2010/02/when-microsoft-attacks-again.html [blogspot.com]

"Apologize?
For what?
Using a pen name when dealing with an overzealous reporter?
Because that't the extend of the "deception" that everyone is so excited about.
The company itself exists, has real clients and is profitable.
Nothing they can say will change that or other facts, like:

* We have nearly 24,000 users at xpnet.com.
* We collect and analyze over 230 million system metrics records and over 13 billion process metrics records every week.
* We publish our findings and make all of our resources freely available to the IT industry.
People want to skewer me because they don't agree with my point of view.
Microsoft wants to skewer me because I hurt sales.
IDG wants to skewer me to cover their asses - because, as I pointed out to ZDNet/CNet, they knew about the Craig Barth ruse all along.
And they did nothing.
If anyone needs to apologize, it's IDG - but not for the reasons they've stated.
It was their hunger for page views that ultimately drove them to turn a blind eye.
Me? I just used a pseudonym in a few email exchanges and during a a couple of phone calls.
The rest is all BS and posturing, and they (IDG &amp; ZDNet) know it.
RCK"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223764</id>
	<title>Maybe Mr Kennedy ...</title>
	<author>WrongSizeGlass</author>
	<datestamp>1266758400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>... just had a <i>memory problem</i> of his own?</htmltext>
<tokenext>... just had a memory problem of his own ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... just had a memory problem of his own?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_2329249_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_2329249_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31228808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31225478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_2329249_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31226266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31224842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31224242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_2329249_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31224100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_2329249_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31224748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31224322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_2329249_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31235472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_2329249_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31225980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_2329249_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31224398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_2329249_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31225342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_2329249_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31228408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31225478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_2329249_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_2329249_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31225962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31224640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_2329249_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31226152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_2329249_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31226040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31224842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31224242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_2329249_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31230306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31224242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_2329249_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31226180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31224350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_2329249_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_2329249_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_2329249_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_2329249_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_2329249_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_2329249_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31224132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_2329249_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31226826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_2329249_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31225916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31224842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31224242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_2329249_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31225096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31224148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_2329249_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31225972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_2329249_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31230026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31225410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31224148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_2329249_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31224690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_2329249_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31230304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_2329249_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31224204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_2329249_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31226050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31225478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_2329249_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31263944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_2329249.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31224148
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31225096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31225410
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31230026
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_2329249.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223798
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_2329249.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31225478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31228408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31226050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31228808
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_2329249.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31230942
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_2329249.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31224242
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31224842
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31226040
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31225916
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31226266
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31230306
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_2329249.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31226152
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_2329249.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31235472
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_2329249.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31230304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31224350
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31226180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31224100
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_2329249.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31225284
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_2329249.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31228500
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_2329249.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31224322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31224748
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_2329249.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223534
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_2329249.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31224690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31225342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31224640
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31225962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31225972
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31226826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31225980
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_2329249.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223764
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_2329249.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223788
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223630
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31224204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223574
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223862
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223648
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31224132
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31224398
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31263944
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223662
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31223782
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_2329249.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31228842
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_2329249.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_2329249.31225078
</commentlist>
</conversation>
