<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_27_0045226</id>
	<title>Microsoft Wins Windows XP Downgrade Lawsuit</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1267283700000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>CWmike writes <i>"A federal judge has <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9162658/Microsoft\_wins\_Windows\_XP\_downgrade\_lawsuit">dismissed a year-old lawsuit against Microsoft</a> over alleged antitrust violations for the 'downgrade' rules it set for Windows Vista and XP. The order put an end to the lawsuit filed by Emma Alvarado in February 2009. In her original complaint, she accused Microsoft of coercing computer makers into <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9127950/Lawsuit\_targets\_Microsoft\_over\_Vista\_to\_XP\_downgrades">forcing consumers who wanted to run Windows XP to first buy Windows Vista, or later, Windows 7</a>, before they were allowed to downgrade to XP. The judge rejected Alvarado's accusations, saying that the plaintiff had not proved Microsoft benefited from the downgrade practices that it created and that OEMs implemented."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>CWmike writes " A federal judge has dismissed a year-old lawsuit against Microsoft over alleged antitrust violations for the 'downgrade ' rules it set for Windows Vista and XP .
The order put an end to the lawsuit filed by Emma Alvarado in February 2009 .
In her original complaint , she accused Microsoft of coercing computer makers into forcing consumers who wanted to run Windows XP to first buy Windows Vista , or later , Windows 7 , before they were allowed to downgrade to XP .
The judge rejected Alvarado 's accusations , saying that the plaintiff had not proved Microsoft benefited from the downgrade practices that it created and that OEMs implemented .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CWmike writes "A federal judge has dismissed a year-old lawsuit against Microsoft over alleged antitrust violations for the 'downgrade' rules it set for Windows Vista and XP.
The order put an end to the lawsuit filed by Emma Alvarado in February 2009.
In her original complaint, she accused Microsoft of coercing computer makers into forcing consumers who wanted to run Windows XP to first buy Windows Vista, or later, Windows 7, before they were allowed to downgrade to XP.
The judge rejected Alvarado's accusations, saying that the plaintiff had not proved Microsoft benefited from the downgrade practices that it created and that OEMs implemented.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294182</id>
	<title>How?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267201080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not a lawyer but how do you not prove that they benefited by having OEMs sell the newer version of their software before allowing a downgrade path?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not a lawyer but how do you not prove that they benefited by having OEMs sell the newer version of their software before allowing a downgrade path ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not a lawyer but how do you not prove that they benefited by having OEMs sell the newer version of their software before allowing a downgrade path?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295840</id>
	<title>Re:It's their copyright and they can do as they wa</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1267269900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>As long as Microsoft wants to enjoy the lucrative benefits of being a singular part of society's information infrastructure, society ought to have a say in how Microsoft is run.<br>You might argue that imposing such restrictions is "punishing success"</i> </p><p>You could also argue that society's choices - it's collective decisions - made Microsoft and Windows what they are today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as Microsoft wants to enjoy the lucrative benefits of being a singular part of society 's information infrastructure , society ought to have a say in how Microsoft is run.You might argue that imposing such restrictions is " punishing success " You could also argue that society 's choices - it 's collective decisions - made Microsoft and Windows what they are today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as Microsoft wants to enjoy the lucrative benefits of being a singular part of society's information infrastructure, society ought to have a say in how Microsoft is run.You might argue that imposing such restrictions is "punishing success" You could also argue that society's choices - it's collective decisions - made Microsoft and Windows what they are today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295222</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid Lawsuit</title>
	<author>Khyber</author>
	<datestamp>1267214340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"And Vista wasn't bad at all."</p><p>Vista constantly ate itself. NTLDR would just disappear from the system (even booting with a LiveCD and looking for it turned up nothing) at random. It was a total POS for me, and I was using nothing but big-company hardware. I tried different hard drives and even an additional SATA controller in case my onboard controller was fubar'd, kept getting Vista eating itself. I formatted, installed XP, hacked the video<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.INF to make it work, and that was that, no issues.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" And Vista was n't bad at all .
" Vista constantly ate itself .
NTLDR would just disappear from the system ( even booting with a LiveCD and looking for it turned up nothing ) at random .
It was a total POS for me , and I was using nothing but big-company hardware .
I tried different hard drives and even an additional SATA controller in case my onboard controller was fubar 'd , kept getting Vista eating itself .
I formatted , installed XP , hacked the video .INF to make it work , and that was that , no issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"And Vista wasn't bad at all.
"Vista constantly ate itself.
NTLDR would just disappear from the system (even booting with a LiveCD and looking for it turned up nothing) at random.
It was a total POS for me, and I was using nothing but big-company hardware.
I tried different hard drives and even an additional SATA controller in case my onboard controller was fubar'd, kept getting Vista eating itself.
I formatted, installed XP, hacked the video .INF to make it work, and that was that, no issues.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295100</id>
	<title>Re:But Windows OS still sucks.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267212660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The green button is a "zoom to fit" button.  The plus sign inside might be suboptimal, but there are no "fiery logic hoops" involved.  If the window is larger than the "fit" size, it shrinks.  The button's behavior is quite consistent--the destination is always the same.  Different starting points just lead to different paths.</p><p>The plus sign on hover might be suboptimal, but I don't think there's a simple symbol for "zoom to fit"--and zoom is generally regarded intuitively as zooming <em>in</em>.  I doubt most people associate the mouseover symbol with the button function, though, given the strong associations people have with color.</p><p>For what it's worth, when you click the maximize button on Windows on a window that is already maximizes, it too shrinks back--the button symbol doesn't reflect this, either.  I can't really see a meaningful difference.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>This may be a petty complaint on my part, but if I click the red X, I expect the application to stop</p></div><p>If I click the close button on a window, I expect the window to close.  I do not expect that command to be passed upstream or laterally to other windows.  Application-level control is performed at the application-level interface:  the menu bar.  As a shortcut, some simple apps automatically close when the last document does because the application can't do anything without windows open.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If I have no windows open for a given application, I do not expect that application to be considered to be "running".</p></div><p>And I wouldn't expect that closing desktop windows would terminate an application that continues to work in the background without open windows.</p><p>Word, iTunes, Firefox, etc. however all CAN continue to run without windows open, playing music, downloading files, etc.</p><p>It saves me tremendous amounts of frustration that applications with long load times don't shut down when I absentmindedly close the last document I was working on before opening the next.</p><p>It's your conditioning entirely because the way windows work in Windows is different, and the popular Linux desktops duplicated the market leader for familiarity.  Nothing more and nothing less.  The windows model puts the application in a master "frame" if you will, with all the child windows contained within it.  Close the frame, close the child windows.  Apple doesn't use the frame; there's no "master" window for most applications.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The green button is a " zoom to fit " button .
The plus sign inside might be suboptimal , but there are no " fiery logic hoops " involved .
If the window is larger than the " fit " size , it shrinks .
The button 's behavior is quite consistent--the destination is always the same .
Different starting points just lead to different paths.The plus sign on hover might be suboptimal , but I do n't think there 's a simple symbol for " zoom to fit " --and zoom is generally regarded intuitively as zooming in .
I doubt most people associate the mouseover symbol with the button function , though , given the strong associations people have with color.For what it 's worth , when you click the maximize button on Windows on a window that is already maximizes , it too shrinks back--the button symbol does n't reflect this , either .
I ca n't really see a meaningful difference.This may be a petty complaint on my part , but if I click the red X , I expect the application to stopIf I click the close button on a window , I expect the window to close .
I do not expect that command to be passed upstream or laterally to other windows .
Application-level control is performed at the application-level interface : the menu bar .
As a shortcut , some simple apps automatically close when the last document does because the application ca n't do anything without windows open.If I have no windows open for a given application , I do not expect that application to be considered to be " running " .And I would n't expect that closing desktop windows would terminate an application that continues to work in the background without open windows.Word , iTunes , Firefox , etc .
however all CAN continue to run without windows open , playing music , downloading files , etc.It saves me tremendous amounts of frustration that applications with long load times do n't shut down when I absentmindedly close the last document I was working on before opening the next.It 's your conditioning entirely because the way windows work in Windows is different , and the popular Linux desktops duplicated the market leader for familiarity .
Nothing more and nothing less .
The windows model puts the application in a master " frame " if you will , with all the child windows contained within it .
Close the frame , close the child windows .
Apple does n't use the frame ; there 's no " master " window for most applications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The green button is a "zoom to fit" button.
The plus sign inside might be suboptimal, but there are no "fiery logic hoops" involved.
If the window is larger than the "fit" size, it shrinks.
The button's behavior is quite consistent--the destination is always the same.
Different starting points just lead to different paths.The plus sign on hover might be suboptimal, but I don't think there's a simple symbol for "zoom to fit"--and zoom is generally regarded intuitively as zooming in.
I doubt most people associate the mouseover symbol with the button function, though, given the strong associations people have with color.For what it's worth, when you click the maximize button on Windows on a window that is already maximizes, it too shrinks back--the button symbol doesn't reflect this, either.
I can't really see a meaningful difference.This may be a petty complaint on my part, but if I click the red X, I expect the application to stopIf I click the close button on a window, I expect the window to close.
I do not expect that command to be passed upstream or laterally to other windows.
Application-level control is performed at the application-level interface:  the menu bar.
As a shortcut, some simple apps automatically close when the last document does because the application can't do anything without windows open.If I have no windows open for a given application, I do not expect that application to be considered to be "running".And I wouldn't expect that closing desktop windows would terminate an application that continues to work in the background without open windows.Word, iTunes, Firefox, etc.
however all CAN continue to run without windows open, playing music, downloading files, etc.It saves me tremendous amounts of frustration that applications with long load times don't shut down when I absentmindedly close the last document I was working on before opening the next.It's your conditioning entirely because the way windows work in Windows is different, and the popular Linux desktops duplicated the market leader for familiarity.
Nothing more and nothing less.
The windows model puts the application in a master "frame" if you will, with all the child windows contained within it.
Close the frame, close the child windows.
Apple doesn't use the frame; there's no "master" window for most applications.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31296834</id>
	<title>Re:Why did this have to go to trial?</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1267288140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Why can't the system have a panel of retired judges look at civil cases before a full trial to ensure it is warranted?</p></div></blockquote><p>That's exactly what your lawyer's job is.  If he's lying to you, or horribly mistaken, you can sue him.  That's why all the lawyers here on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. post lengthy disclaimers...</p><p>And with your pre-trial trial, how does "discovery" work?  Does it have the full force to subpoena documents, in which case it's trivial for anyone to do so without consequences...  Or does it have no such power, in which case it's a useless waste of time, as no information is available?</p><blockquote><div><p>But the loser and the loser's lawyer should have to pay something to the winner.</p></div></blockquote><p>The problems with a loser-pays system have been discussed to-death on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. and everywhere else.  Your plan adds nothing new.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ca n't the system have a panel of retired judges look at civil cases before a full trial to ensure it is warranted ? That 's exactly what your lawyer 's job is .
If he 's lying to you , or horribly mistaken , you can sue him .
That 's why all the lawyers here on / .
post lengthy disclaimers...And with your pre-trial trial , how does " discovery " work ?
Does it have the full force to subpoena documents , in which case it 's trivial for anyone to do so without consequences... Or does it have no such power , in which case it 's a useless waste of time , as no information is available ? But the loser and the loser 's lawyer should have to pay something to the winner.The problems with a loser-pays system have been discussed to-death on / .
and everywhere else .
Your plan adds nothing new .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why can't the system have a panel of retired judges look at civil cases before a full trial to ensure it is warranted?That's exactly what your lawyer's job is.
If he's lying to you, or horribly mistaken, you can sue him.
That's why all the lawyers here on /.
post lengthy disclaimers...And with your pre-trial trial, how does "discovery" work?
Does it have the full force to subpoena documents, in which case it's trivial for anyone to do so without consequences...  Or does it have no such power, in which case it's a useless waste of time, as no information is available?But the loser and the loser's lawyer should have to pay something to the winner.The problems with a loser-pays system have been discussed to-death on /.
and everywhere else.
Your plan adds nothing new.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31298214</id>
	<title>Just upgrade already....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267298400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It annoys me that people don't upgrade. Windows XP is the next IE6, but for OSes. Move on, and upgrade or try something else. People flame the crap out of Vista, but when I ask them to site a specific problem...they can't. It is is snowballed, populous hate with very little justification.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It annoys me that people do n't upgrade .
Windows XP is the next IE6 , but for OSes .
Move on , and upgrade or try something else .
People flame the crap out of Vista , but when I ask them to site a specific problem...they ca n't .
It is is snowballed , populous hate with very little justification .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It annoys me that people don't upgrade.
Windows XP is the next IE6, but for OSes.
Move on, and upgrade or try something else.
People flame the crap out of Vista, but when I ask them to site a specific problem...they can't.
It is is snowballed, populous hate with very little justification.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294470</id>
	<title>Oh the irony</title>
	<author>Main Gauche</author>
	<datestamp>1267204080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I have a hard time wrapping idea around the concept of <b>forcing</b> someone [Microsoft] to sell something [XP] they don't want to sell.  The idea is absurd.</p></div><p>And if you RTFA, you'll note that the lawsuit was about the fact that Microsoft was coercing downstream computer sellers NOT to sell XP; in other words MS was <b>forcing</b> them to sell Vista with the new laptops!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a hard time wrapping idea around the concept of forcing someone [ Microsoft ] to sell something [ XP ] they do n't want to sell .
The idea is absurd.And if you RTFA , you 'll note that the lawsuit was about the fact that Microsoft was coercing downstream computer sellers NOT to sell XP ; in other words MS was forcing them to sell Vista with the new laptops !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a hard time wrapping idea around the concept of forcing someone [Microsoft] to sell something [XP] they don't want to sell.
The idea is absurd.And if you RTFA, you'll note that the lawsuit was about the fact that Microsoft was coercing downstream computer sellers NOT to sell XP; in other words MS was forcing them to sell Vista with the new laptops!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294814</id>
	<title>Re:Why did this have to go to trial?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267208220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What you're asking for is essentially a civil-court equivalent of the grand jury. Which, I must agree, would be a great idea.<br>For those who don't know what a grand jury is, it's sort-of a pre-trial trial in major criminal cases. The prosecutors present their evidence to a jury, usually without the defendant there. The jury then decides if there's enough evidence to go to an actual criminal trial. This prevents prosecutors from bringing unwarranted prosecutions; if they have no evidence, they won't get past the grand jury and the defendant doesn't have to do a thing.<br>A similar set-up should be used in civil trials outside of small-claims. Let the plaintiff first prove their case passes the common-sense test before a defendant has to pay millions to defend against unwarranted lawsuits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What you 're asking for is essentially a civil-court equivalent of the grand jury .
Which , I must agree , would be a great idea.For those who do n't know what a grand jury is , it 's sort-of a pre-trial trial in major criminal cases .
The prosecutors present their evidence to a jury , usually without the defendant there .
The jury then decides if there 's enough evidence to go to an actual criminal trial .
This prevents prosecutors from bringing unwarranted prosecutions ; if they have no evidence , they wo n't get past the grand jury and the defendant does n't have to do a thing.A similar set-up should be used in civil trials outside of small-claims .
Let the plaintiff first prove their case passes the common-sense test before a defendant has to pay millions to defend against unwarranted lawsuits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you're asking for is essentially a civil-court equivalent of the grand jury.
Which, I must agree, would be a great idea.For those who don't know what a grand jury is, it's sort-of a pre-trial trial in major criminal cases.
The prosecutors present their evidence to a jury, usually without the defendant there.
The jury then decides if there's enough evidence to go to an actual criminal trial.
This prevents prosecutors from bringing unwarranted prosecutions; if they have no evidence, they won't get past the grand jury and the defendant doesn't have to do a thing.A similar set-up should be used in civil trials outside of small-claims.
Let the plaintiff first prove their case passes the common-sense test before a defendant has to pay millions to defend against unwarranted lawsuits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31296882</id>
	<title>Re:It's their copyright and they can do as they wa</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267288620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As long as Microsoft wants to enjoy the lucrative benefits of being a singular part of society's information infrastructure, society ought to have a say in how Microsoft is run.</p></div><p>Why? You have no argument to back this up so I'm just supposed to believe you? No, I don't think so. Society was already in place by the time Microsoft showed up. We already had roads and telephones because WE wanted them, not Microsoft. So, now that they show up after the fact, use the benefits of society just like everyone else, they should be charged out the ass?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>You might argue that imposing such restrictions is "punishing success".</p></div><p>That's exactly what it is. You're saying if it wasn't for society that Microsoft wouldn't be where it's at while ignoring the fact that WE wouldn't be where we are at either without society. It's something we were going to do anyways yet for some reason Microsoft should foot the bill because "they gots lots o' money and I ain't got none!"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as Microsoft wants to enjoy the lucrative benefits of being a singular part of society 's information infrastructure , society ought to have a say in how Microsoft is run.Why ?
You have no argument to back this up so I 'm just supposed to believe you ?
No , I do n't think so .
Society was already in place by the time Microsoft showed up .
We already had roads and telephones because WE wanted them , not Microsoft .
So , now that they show up after the fact , use the benefits of society just like everyone else , they should be charged out the ass ? You might argue that imposing such restrictions is " punishing success " .That 's exactly what it is .
You 're saying if it was n't for society that Microsoft would n't be where it 's at while ignoring the fact that WE would n't be where we are at either without society .
It 's something we were going to do anyways yet for some reason Microsoft should foot the bill because " they gots lots o ' money and I ai n't got none !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as Microsoft wants to enjoy the lucrative benefits of being a singular part of society's information infrastructure, society ought to have a say in how Microsoft is run.Why?
You have no argument to back this up so I'm just supposed to believe you?
No, I don't think so.
Society was already in place by the time Microsoft showed up.
We already had roads and telephones because WE wanted them, not Microsoft.
So, now that they show up after the fact, use the benefits of society just like everyone else, they should be charged out the ass?You might argue that imposing such restrictions is "punishing success".That's exactly what it is.
You're saying if it wasn't for society that Microsoft wouldn't be where it's at while ignoring the fact that WE wouldn't be where we are at either without society.
It's something we were going to do anyways yet for some reason Microsoft should foot the bill because "they gots lots o' money and I ain't got none!
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294228</id>
	<title>Stupid Lawsuit</title>
	<author>cualexander</author>
	<datestamp>1267201440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So this lady was suing because of what? Being slightly inconvenienced?  And Vista wasn't bad at all. Especially with a new machine that had the proper drivers.  All you had to do was turn off UAC and set it to classic theme and you couldn't tell the difference between it and XP. Windows 7 rocks.  This lady was just trying to make a quick buck off a frivolous lawsuit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So this lady was suing because of what ?
Being slightly inconvenienced ?
And Vista was n't bad at all .
Especially with a new machine that had the proper drivers .
All you had to do was turn off UAC and set it to classic theme and you could n't tell the difference between it and XP .
Windows 7 rocks .
This lady was just trying to make a quick buck off a frivolous lawsuit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So this lady was suing because of what?
Being slightly inconvenienced?
And Vista wasn't bad at all.
Especially with a new machine that had the proper drivers.
All you had to do was turn off UAC and set it to classic theme and you couldn't tell the difference between it and XP.
Windows 7 rocks.
This lady was just trying to make a quick buck off a frivolous lawsuit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31296304</id>
	<title>Re:How?</title>
	<author>Artifakt</author>
	<datestamp>1267280460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why does someone have to prove Microsoft benefited?</p><p>Let's say hypothetically that I shoot my very rich uncle, get caught, and in the middle of the trial it turns out I'm not in his will after all. I couldn't argue that I didn't actually benefit so I should get off. No one is going to conclude that If I knew about the will, that proves I had no other reason to shoot dear old uncle Fred, or that if I didn't know, I definitely did it for the money. If the state proves I did it based on solid eye witnesses, ballistic evidence and such, they may not bother much with my motives at all.</p><p>If Microsoft did something with the goal of benefiting, why does it have to have been successful before they are culpable? If Microsoft did something, and it didn't work as well as they thought, what relevance does that have to the question of whether what they did was itself right or wrong?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does someone have to prove Microsoft benefited ? Let 's say hypothetically that I shoot my very rich uncle , get caught , and in the middle of the trial it turns out I 'm not in his will after all .
I could n't argue that I did n't actually benefit so I should get off .
No one is going to conclude that If I knew about the will , that proves I had no other reason to shoot dear old uncle Fred , or that if I did n't know , I definitely did it for the money .
If the state proves I did it based on solid eye witnesses , ballistic evidence and such , they may not bother much with my motives at all.If Microsoft did something with the goal of benefiting , why does it have to have been successful before they are culpable ?
If Microsoft did something , and it did n't work as well as they thought , what relevance does that have to the question of whether what they did was itself right or wrong ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does someone have to prove Microsoft benefited?Let's say hypothetically that I shoot my very rich uncle, get caught, and in the middle of the trial it turns out I'm not in his will after all.
I couldn't argue that I didn't actually benefit so I should get off.
No one is going to conclude that If I knew about the will, that proves I had no other reason to shoot dear old uncle Fred, or that if I didn't know, I definitely did it for the money.
If the state proves I did it based on solid eye witnesses, ballistic evidence and such, they may not bother much with my motives at all.If Microsoft did something with the goal of benefiting, why does it have to have been successful before they are culpable?
If Microsoft did something, and it didn't work as well as they thought, what relevance does that have to the question of whether what they did was itself right or wrong?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294950</id>
	<title>Re:But Windows OS still sucks.</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1267210200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>As a user of Linux, OS X and Windows, Windows is still the worst. Unfortunately a lot of Linux flavours take their queue from Windows where they should be taking them from OS X.</i> </p><p>I believe the word you are looking for is "cue." That said:</p><p>The latest client OS webstats from Net Applications, W3Schools, and others, should be out early next week. There have been some surprises posted already: <a href="http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/02/windows-7-eclipses-vista-on-steam-64-bit-dominating-32-bit.ars" title="arstechnica.com">Windows 7 eclipses Vista on Steam, 64-bit dominating 32-bit</a> [arstechnica.com] 1 in 5 Windows PC gamers running 64 Bit Win 7.</p><p>The one certainty is that Linux will be bringing up the rear.</p><p>The Apple OSX model is a tightly integrated - tightly controlled - bundle of OS, UI, hardware, apps and marketing. That targets a profitable upscale niche market little changed in 33 years.</p><p>It's not a comfortable fit for a geek.</p><p>Windows is shamelessly middle class and commercial.</p><p> It is good, serviceable, tech that is available in every form factor and at every price point. The "protected path" is there for the user who thinks Netflix and Blu-Ray offer something of value.</p><p>Windows doesn't compell you to buy Corel Draw and MS Publisher when Inkscape and Scribus are available. But neither does it give the GIMP a free ride because of its ideological purity or political correctness.</p><p>That seems to be what most folks want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a user of Linux , OS X and Windows , Windows is still the worst .
Unfortunately a lot of Linux flavours take their queue from Windows where they should be taking them from OS X. I believe the word you are looking for is " cue .
" That said : The latest client OS webstats from Net Applications , W3Schools , and others , should be out early next week .
There have been some surprises posted already : Windows 7 eclipses Vista on Steam , 64-bit dominating 32-bit [ arstechnica.com ] 1 in 5 Windows PC gamers running 64 Bit Win 7.The one certainty is that Linux will be bringing up the rear.The Apple OSX model is a tightly integrated - tightly controlled - bundle of OS , UI , hardware , apps and marketing .
That targets a profitable upscale niche market little changed in 33 years.It 's not a comfortable fit for a geek.Windows is shamelessly middle class and commercial .
It is good , serviceable , tech that is available in every form factor and at every price point .
The " protected path " is there for the user who thinks Netflix and Blu-Ray offer something of value.Windows does n't compell you to buy Corel Draw and MS Publisher when Inkscape and Scribus are available .
But neither does it give the GIMP a free ride because of its ideological purity or political correctness.That seems to be what most folks want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a user of Linux, OS X and Windows, Windows is still the worst.
Unfortunately a lot of Linux flavours take their queue from Windows where they should be taking them from OS X. I believe the word you are looking for is "cue.
" That said:The latest client OS webstats from Net Applications, W3Schools, and others, should be out early next week.
There have been some surprises posted already: Windows 7 eclipses Vista on Steam, 64-bit dominating 32-bit [arstechnica.com] 1 in 5 Windows PC gamers running 64 Bit Win 7.The one certainty is that Linux will be bringing up the rear.The Apple OSX model is a tightly integrated - tightly controlled - bundle of OS, UI, hardware, apps and marketing.
That targets a profitable upscale niche market little changed in 33 years.It's not a comfortable fit for a geek.Windows is shamelessly middle class and commercial.
It is good, serviceable, tech that is available in every form factor and at every price point.
The "protected path" is there for the user who thinks Netflix and Blu-Ray offer something of value.Windows doesn't compell you to buy Corel Draw and MS Publisher when Inkscape and Scribus are available.
But neither does it give the GIMP a free ride because of its ideological purity or political correctness.That seems to be what most folks want.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295154</id>
	<title>Re:Why did this have to go to trial?</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1267213440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>If the plaintiff wants to move anyway when told there is not case, so be it.</i> <p>
This is a lunatic waste of a court's time and resources.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the plaintiff wants to move anyway when told there is not case , so be it .
This is a lunatic waste of a court 's time and resources .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the plaintiff wants to move anyway when told there is not case, so be it.
This is a lunatic waste of a court's time and resources.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31296002</id>
	<title>Re:But Windows OS still sucks.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267273740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For what it's worth, when you click the maximize button on Windows on a window that is already maximizes, it too shrinks back--the button symbol doesn't reflect this, either.  I can't really see a meaningful difference.</p></div><p>There is no meaningful difference because you flat out lied. Windows doesn't have the same button for maximize and restore. It has <b>two</b> separate icons that replace eachother depending on the state of the window. As such, it is pretty clear and easy for one to figure out what state a window is in and what they can do with it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For what it 's worth , when you click the maximize button on Windows on a window that is already maximizes , it too shrinks back--the button symbol does n't reflect this , either .
I ca n't really see a meaningful difference.There is no meaningful difference because you flat out lied .
Windows does n't have the same button for maximize and restore .
It has two separate icons that replace eachother depending on the state of the window .
As such , it is pretty clear and easy for one to figure out what state a window is in and what they can do with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For what it's worth, when you click the maximize button on Windows on a window that is already maximizes, it too shrinks back--the button symbol doesn't reflect this, either.
I can't really see a meaningful difference.There is no meaningful difference because you flat out lied.
Windows doesn't have the same button for maximize and restore.
It has two separate icons that replace eachother depending on the state of the window.
As such, it is pretty clear and easy for one to figure out what state a window is in and what they can do with it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294668</id>
	<title>You sue the wrong party or pursue the wrong action</title>
	<author>Telephone Sanitizer</author>
	<datestamp>1267206240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>how do you not prove that they benefited by having OEMs sell the newer version of their software before allowing a downgrade path?</p></div></blockquote><p>This is from the article:</p><p><i>Computer makers, not Microsoft, charged users the additional fees for downgrading a new PC from Vista to XP at the factory. However, Alvarado did not name Lenovo Group Ltd. in her lawsuit.</i></p><p>She sued MS for a practice of the OEM. Wrong defendant.</p><p>It's possible that she could have shown vertical market manipulation, but that might not have been relevant. Such practices might give rise to a federal antitrust suit, but she brought a state unfair practices action.</p><p>I'm no expert in the laws of Washington state, but from the article it appears that among other things she had to show that she did not receive value for her money and she failed to do so.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>how do you not prove that they benefited by having OEMs sell the newer version of their software before allowing a downgrade path ? This is from the article : Computer makers , not Microsoft , charged users the additional fees for downgrading a new PC from Vista to XP at the factory .
However , Alvarado did not name Lenovo Group Ltd. in her lawsuit.She sued MS for a practice of the OEM .
Wrong defendant.It 's possible that she could have shown vertical market manipulation , but that might not have been relevant .
Such practices might give rise to a federal antitrust suit , but she brought a state unfair practices action.I 'm no expert in the laws of Washington state , but from the article it appears that among other things she had to show that she did not receive value for her money and she failed to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how do you not prove that they benefited by having OEMs sell the newer version of their software before allowing a downgrade path?This is from the article:Computer makers, not Microsoft, charged users the additional fees for downgrading a new PC from Vista to XP at the factory.
However, Alvarado did not name Lenovo Group Ltd. in her lawsuit.She sued MS for a practice of the OEM.
Wrong defendant.It's possible that she could have shown vertical market manipulation, but that might not have been relevant.
Such practices might give rise to a federal antitrust suit, but she brought a state unfair practices action.I'm no expert in the laws of Washington state, but from the article it appears that among other things she had to show that she did not receive value for her money and she failed to do so.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294194</id>
	<title>But Windows OS still sucks.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267201200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a user of Linux, OS X and Windows, Windows is still the worst. Unfortunately a lot of Linux flavours take their queue from Windows where they should be taking them from OS X.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a user of Linux , OS X and Windows , Windows is still the worst .
Unfortunately a lot of Linux flavours take their queue from Windows where they should be taking them from OS X .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a user of Linux, OS X and Windows, Windows is still the worst.
Unfortunately a lot of Linux flavours take their queue from Windows where they should be taking them from OS X.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294434</id>
	<title>Like, say, attorney fees?</title>
	<author>Oxford\_Comma\_Lover</author>
	<datestamp>1267203600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>&gt; There has to be some meaningful consequence for the losers.</i></p><p>Almost nobody wants to go to court.  (Attorneys sometimes do because it's fun to do advocacy before the court, but most of them are smart enough to put client interests first.  Debt Collection agencies also want to because they're almost never opposed, because people don't have money to fight them, but they don't even really think of it as going to court.)  Courts also have pre-trial systems in place to try to get the parties to agree to a settlement before trial is necessary--pretrial conferences serve that function in most courts.  A judge can look at the record and say "Are you sure you don't want to just settle this?"</p><p>Losing a lawsuit that you've spent years on (and likely paid for someone else to spend years on) is a pretty meaningful consequence for the losers.</p><p>You've also got the problem that the bigger the consequence to the loser, the less likely they are to bring legitimate claims to court.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; There has to be some meaningful consequence for the losers.Almost nobody wants to go to court .
( Attorneys sometimes do because it 's fun to do advocacy before the court , but most of them are smart enough to put client interests first .
Debt Collection agencies also want to because they 're almost never opposed , because people do n't have money to fight them , but they do n't even really think of it as going to court .
) Courts also have pre-trial systems in place to try to get the parties to agree to a settlement before trial is necessary--pretrial conferences serve that function in most courts .
A judge can look at the record and say " Are you sure you do n't want to just settle this ?
" Losing a lawsuit that you 've spent years on ( and likely paid for someone else to spend years on ) is a pretty meaningful consequence for the losers.You 've also got the problem that the bigger the consequence to the loser , the less likely they are to bring legitimate claims to court .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; There has to be some meaningful consequence for the losers.Almost nobody wants to go to court.
(Attorneys sometimes do because it's fun to do advocacy before the court, but most of them are smart enough to put client interests first.
Debt Collection agencies also want to because they're almost never opposed, because people don't have money to fight them, but they don't even really think of it as going to court.
)  Courts also have pre-trial systems in place to try to get the parties to agree to a settlement before trial is necessary--pretrial conferences serve that function in most courts.
A judge can look at the record and say "Are you sure you don't want to just settle this?
"Losing a lawsuit that you've spent years on (and likely paid for someone else to spend years on) is a pretty meaningful consequence for the losers.You've also got the problem that the bigger the consequence to the loser, the less likely they are to bring legitimate claims to court.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295678</id>
	<title>Re:It's their copyright and they can do as they wa</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267266720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even if you buy your rather strange argument, the proper forum to regulate the behavior of large corporations is the government not individual  random lawsuits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if you buy your rather strange argument , the proper forum to regulate the behavior of large corporations is the government not individual random lawsuits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if you buy your rather strange argument, the proper forum to regulate the behavior of large corporations is the government not individual  random lawsuits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31297160</id>
	<title>Re:But Windows OS still sucks.</title>
	<author>jisatsusha</author>
	<datestamp>1267291560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>In theory, you're correct. In practice, however, things don't really work that way. What is the content size of a terminal window? Even Apple can't decide. since the "zoom" button in Terminal.app simply fills the screen. Then there's web browsers. Safari seems to implement that zoom style behaviour, but Firefox does not. It's application specific behaviour on a control that appears on every window, and that's what's confusing.
<br> <br>
Contrast this with Windows, where the maximise button always either makes the window fill the entire screen, or returns it to its original size. As other commenters stated, the button does indeed change its icon to indicate that this is the case, and it may not be entirely intuitive (two overlapped boxes?) but neither is an x, a - or a + sign with traffic light colours, it's all something the user has to learn.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In theory , you 're correct .
In practice , however , things do n't really work that way .
What is the content size of a terminal window ?
Even Apple ca n't decide .
since the " zoom " button in Terminal.app simply fills the screen .
Then there 's web browsers .
Safari seems to implement that zoom style behaviour , but Firefox does not .
It 's application specific behaviour on a control that appears on every window , and that 's what 's confusing .
Contrast this with Windows , where the maximise button always either makes the window fill the entire screen , or returns it to its original size .
As other commenters stated , the button does indeed change its icon to indicate that this is the case , and it may not be entirely intuitive ( two overlapped boxes ?
) but neither is an x , a - or a + sign with traffic light colours , it 's all something the user has to learn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In theory, you're correct.
In practice, however, things don't really work that way.
What is the content size of a terminal window?
Even Apple can't decide.
since the "zoom" button in Terminal.app simply fills the screen.
Then there's web browsers.
Safari seems to implement that zoom style behaviour, but Firefox does not.
It's application specific behaviour on a control that appears on every window, and that's what's confusing.
Contrast this with Windows, where the maximise button always either makes the window fill the entire screen, or returns it to its original size.
As other commenters stated, the button does indeed change its icon to indicate that this is the case, and it may not be entirely intuitive (two overlapped boxes?
) but neither is an x, a - or a + sign with traffic light colours, it's all something the user has to learn.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31301792</id>
	<title>Re:But Windows OS still sucks.</title>
	<author>Belial6</author>
	<datestamp>1267285080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ouch!!!  The heat...  It Buurrrrnnnnssss!<br> <br>

Seriously, "The plus sign inside might be suboptimal" is a perfect example of jumping through hoops to rationalize incredibly bad design.  A plus sign ALWAYS means ADD.  Every grade school child can tell you this.  It is an international standard that has been in effect long before Apple was even thought of.  Making a window smaller is the epitome of counter intuitive.<br> <br>

It also is not "Zoom to Fit", as pressing it once MIGHT make the contents fit, but pressing the "Zoom to Fit" again, has the reverse effect, and thus could not be called "Zoom To Fit" by any rational English speaker.  Besides, even on applications that come with OSX, I have pressed the green button and found that it leaves scroll bars.  It could more rightly be called the, "Uninformatively change to an shape that you will learn after pressing it".  The behaviour is definitly application specific, and totally inconsistant for an OS widget.
<br> <br>
Claiming that the most people don't associate a button's behavior with it's functionality is fanboyism at it's best.  Someone points out a massive problem with the UI, and you dismiss it as something no one bothers to pay attention too.  If no one paid attention to the symbol, then why put a symbol at all?  Also, what harm would have been caused by putting a symbol that actually wasn't diametrically opposed to the function of the button?  Of course, if anybody actually uses symbols when they look at a computer, then OSX has been designed in a confusing and unintuitive way.<br> <br>
Even in this bizarre universe you live in where people don't actually look at the symbols on their screen, what does the color green tell you about a button.  Green means go.  Using it to mean change windows shape or size is again counter intuitive.
<br> <br>

For what it's worth, windows has two modes for the button in it's Maximize/Window button.  One is full screen, the other is windowed.  It always does the same behavior, and the icon changes to show exactly what mode it is in.  An icon of a single window if it will fill the screen, and an icon of two windows if it will not, indicating that you can see more than one window.  Go check it out for yourself.  Your comment makes me think that a great many of the OSX has a good interface crowed, have no idea what the other offerings do, so just assume that the OSX failings apply to everyone else.
<br> <br>
Red means stop.  This existed LONG before OSX.  Expecting users to magically know which applications are 'simple' applications that will close, and which are complex applications and will continue to run without a UI is, again, counter intuitive.  Expecting users to identify the difference between an application and a windows is just bad design.  From a user perspective, the UI IS the application.  Your excuse also fail when one considers that pressing the still running application brings up a window.  Also, your "Application-Level" UI control, has an entry to close the window.  This is directly contrary to the Application/Window paradigm that you are claiming exists.  In this so called "Application-Level" UI element, they call the action "Close".  It doesn't say "Stop" the window.  It says "Close"  This is because the metaphore they are going for is in fact "Closing" a window.  Thus, a red button would be totally counter intuitive, and would in fact confuse anyone who was raised in a place where red means "Stop".
<br> <br>
Your example of load times is intuitively solved by caching.  Not by leaving the application running after the user tells it to stop.  Your examples of applications that run without a UI are examples of non-intuitiveness.  The only one that has any merit MIGHT be Firefox with the downloading, but even then I don't agree.  Word definitly has no business running without any documents.  iTunes has no business running without a playlist.  etc.  Running without a UI is the business of a service not an application.  Mixing the two is confusing to a user and counter intuitive.
<br> <br>
The claim that pointing</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ouch ! ! !
The heat... It Buurrrrnnnnssss !
Seriously , " The plus sign inside might be suboptimal " is a perfect example of jumping through hoops to rationalize incredibly bad design .
A plus sign ALWAYS means ADD .
Every grade school child can tell you this .
It is an international standard that has been in effect long before Apple was even thought of .
Making a window smaller is the epitome of counter intuitive .
It also is not " Zoom to Fit " , as pressing it once MIGHT make the contents fit , but pressing the " Zoom to Fit " again , has the reverse effect , and thus could not be called " Zoom To Fit " by any rational English speaker .
Besides , even on applications that come with OSX , I have pressed the green button and found that it leaves scroll bars .
It could more rightly be called the , " Uninformatively change to an shape that you will learn after pressing it " .
The behaviour is definitly application specific , and totally inconsistant for an OS widget .
Claiming that the most people do n't associate a button 's behavior with it 's functionality is fanboyism at it 's best .
Someone points out a massive problem with the UI , and you dismiss it as something no one bothers to pay attention too .
If no one paid attention to the symbol , then why put a symbol at all ?
Also , what harm would have been caused by putting a symbol that actually was n't diametrically opposed to the function of the button ?
Of course , if anybody actually uses symbols when they look at a computer , then OSX has been designed in a confusing and unintuitive way .
Even in this bizarre universe you live in where people do n't actually look at the symbols on their screen , what does the color green tell you about a button .
Green means go .
Using it to mean change windows shape or size is again counter intuitive .
For what it 's worth , windows has two modes for the button in it 's Maximize/Window button .
One is full screen , the other is windowed .
It always does the same behavior , and the icon changes to show exactly what mode it is in .
An icon of a single window if it will fill the screen , and an icon of two windows if it will not , indicating that you can see more than one window .
Go check it out for yourself .
Your comment makes me think that a great many of the OSX has a good interface crowed , have no idea what the other offerings do , so just assume that the OSX failings apply to everyone else .
Red means stop .
This existed LONG before OSX .
Expecting users to magically know which applications are 'simple ' applications that will close , and which are complex applications and will continue to run without a UI is , again , counter intuitive .
Expecting users to identify the difference between an application and a windows is just bad design .
From a user perspective , the UI IS the application .
Your excuse also fail when one considers that pressing the still running application brings up a window .
Also , your " Application-Level " UI control , has an entry to close the window .
This is directly contrary to the Application/Window paradigm that you are claiming exists .
In this so called " Application-Level " UI element , they call the action " Close " .
It does n't say " Stop " the window .
It says " Close " This is because the metaphore they are going for is in fact " Closing " a window .
Thus , a red button would be totally counter intuitive , and would in fact confuse anyone who was raised in a place where red means " Stop " .
Your example of load times is intuitively solved by caching .
Not by leaving the application running after the user tells it to stop .
Your examples of applications that run without a UI are examples of non-intuitiveness .
The only one that has any merit MIGHT be Firefox with the downloading , but even then I do n't agree .
Word definitly has no business running without any documents .
iTunes has no business running without a playlist .
etc. Running without a UI is the business of a service not an application .
Mixing the two is confusing to a user and counter intuitive .
The claim that pointing</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ouch!!!
The heat...  It Buurrrrnnnnssss!
Seriously, "The plus sign inside might be suboptimal" is a perfect example of jumping through hoops to rationalize incredibly bad design.
A plus sign ALWAYS means ADD.
Every grade school child can tell you this.
It is an international standard that has been in effect long before Apple was even thought of.
Making a window smaller is the epitome of counter intuitive.
It also is not "Zoom to Fit", as pressing it once MIGHT make the contents fit, but pressing the "Zoom to Fit" again, has the reverse effect, and thus could not be called "Zoom To Fit" by any rational English speaker.
Besides, even on applications that come with OSX, I have pressed the green button and found that it leaves scroll bars.
It could more rightly be called the, "Uninformatively change to an shape that you will learn after pressing it".
The behaviour is definitly application specific, and totally inconsistant for an OS widget.
Claiming that the most people don't associate a button's behavior with it's functionality is fanboyism at it's best.
Someone points out a massive problem with the UI, and you dismiss it as something no one bothers to pay attention too.
If no one paid attention to the symbol, then why put a symbol at all?
Also, what harm would have been caused by putting a symbol that actually wasn't diametrically opposed to the function of the button?
Of course, if anybody actually uses symbols when they look at a computer, then OSX has been designed in a confusing and unintuitive way.
Even in this bizarre universe you live in where people don't actually look at the symbols on their screen, what does the color green tell you about a button.
Green means go.
Using it to mean change windows shape or size is again counter intuitive.
For what it's worth, windows has two modes for the button in it's Maximize/Window button.
One is full screen, the other is windowed.
It always does the same behavior, and the icon changes to show exactly what mode it is in.
An icon of a single window if it will fill the screen, and an icon of two windows if it will not, indicating that you can see more than one window.
Go check it out for yourself.
Your comment makes me think that a great many of the OSX has a good interface crowed, have no idea what the other offerings do, so just assume that the OSX failings apply to everyone else.
Red means stop.
This existed LONG before OSX.
Expecting users to magically know which applications are 'simple' applications that will close, and which are complex applications and will continue to run without a UI is, again, counter intuitive.
Expecting users to identify the difference between an application and a windows is just bad design.
From a user perspective, the UI IS the application.
Your excuse also fail when one considers that pressing the still running application brings up a window.
Also, your "Application-Level" UI control, has an entry to close the window.
This is directly contrary to the Application/Window paradigm that you are claiming exists.
In this so called "Application-Level" UI element, they call the action "Close".
It doesn't say "Stop" the window.
It says "Close"  This is because the metaphore they are going for is in fact "Closing" a window.
Thus, a red button would be totally counter intuitive, and would in fact confuse anyone who was raised in a place where red means "Stop".
Your example of load times is intuitively solved by caching.
Not by leaving the application running after the user tells it to stop.
Your examples of applications that run without a UI are examples of non-intuitiveness.
The only one that has any merit MIGHT be Firefox with the downloading, but even then I don't agree.
Word definitly has no business running without any documents.
iTunes has no business running without a playlist.
etc.  Running without a UI is the business of a service not an application.
Mixing the two is confusing to a user and counter intuitive.
The claim that pointing</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31297420</id>
	<title>Re:They'd have to sell XP if it weren't for monopo</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1267293780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Alternatives like Linux aren't quite ready for the mainstream desktop user yet.</p></div><p>Yes, but 2010 will be the year of the Linux desktop; just you wait and see...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Alternatives like Linux are n't quite ready for the mainstream desktop user yet.Yes , but 2010 will be the year of the Linux desktop ; just you wait and see.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alternatives like Linux aren't quite ready for the mainstream desktop user yet.Yes, but 2010 will be the year of the Linux desktop; just you wait and see...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31296220</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid Lawsuit</title>
	<author>Targon</author>
	<datestamp>1267279020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In your dislike of Microsoft(which probably dates back to the old days of Microsoft vs. Netscape), you have missed what really happens(or happened since we are in the days of Windows 7, not Vista).</p><p>When you buy a computer from an OEM, the vast majority came with the OS pre-installed.    Now, due to the volume of sales, the company doesn't "install" each and every setup clean and then put drivers and software on the machine, they go from a single hard drive image that they then place onto the hard drive of new machines.   As a result, the cost to the OEM in terms of labor, both in terms of time spent setting up the machine, as well as in getting what is hopefully a reliable set of drivers and software is much lower.    Without this, labor alone in setting up Windows with drivers and software would increase system prices by a significant amount.</p><p>So, what happens when someone complained about Vista and insisted on XP?    The company has to go out of its way in terms of labor(remember, a very low percentage of people buying an OEM computer cared enough to insist on XP over Vista) to make a machine XP when the system is set to go out with Vista.    It isn't like the company offered two machines, one with XP and one with Vista, it was the same model, so extra handling and such come into play.</p><p>From the Microsoft point of view, if an OEM wants to buy copies of XP, that is up to the OEM, Microsoft does not charge there, and Microsoft was not the one charging ANYTHING, except for the license and disc for XP.    So, it wasn't Microsoft who was doing the sales.    And sales, not Microsoft is where things come into play.    In theory, if you order a system from an OEM with XP on it, and they ONLY put XP on the machine, there is no double charge.    If you buy a system with Vista, and then pay for it to be downgraded by the company to XP, then you have to fight with the OEM about you being sold two operating systems when you only wanted one.</p><p>In any case, there was still the labor cost to manually place XP on the machine, and the company could easily charge $100 since it is an extra labor cost, and then give the XP license for free if you prefer to do it that way.     If you want something out of the ordinary, you will generally have to pay for it.   The only exception is when you get a REAL custom built machine where the company has to pick the OS rather than just grabbing a machine off the shelf and ship it since thousands of the same configuration have been put together with zero difference.</p><p>Blame Microsoft when they do something wrong, but in this case, if a sales rep on the phone sells you two operating systems and you only wanted one, then blame the sales person.    This applies to EVERYTHING, where sales people will always try to sell more, and the buyer has to know when not to buy it.      Now, it is also the option of the company selling something to only offer certain services on select items.    High cost items will generally provide the greatest number of options when it comes to extras, while low cost items may not have certain things available.   This really comes back to the idea that companies will be more inclined to take a "lesser profit" on extra services if they have already made a good profit on the sale.</p><p>So, how much money do YOU feel your time is worth?     If you make $20/hour at your job, your employers would want to make at least $30/hour from the work you do to make it worth it to them, probably more.    How much total time, from sales to installation of XP to shipping would it take to send out a specially configured system?    Is it worth it for a company if they only make $10 total profit on the sale of a low-cost $400 computer tower?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In your dislike of Microsoft ( which probably dates back to the old days of Microsoft vs. Netscape ) , you have missed what really happens ( or happened since we are in the days of Windows 7 , not Vista ) .When you buy a computer from an OEM , the vast majority came with the OS pre-installed .
Now , due to the volume of sales , the company does n't " install " each and every setup clean and then put drivers and software on the machine , they go from a single hard drive image that they then place onto the hard drive of new machines .
As a result , the cost to the OEM in terms of labor , both in terms of time spent setting up the machine , as well as in getting what is hopefully a reliable set of drivers and software is much lower .
Without this , labor alone in setting up Windows with drivers and software would increase system prices by a significant amount.So , what happens when someone complained about Vista and insisted on XP ?
The company has to go out of its way in terms of labor ( remember , a very low percentage of people buying an OEM computer cared enough to insist on XP over Vista ) to make a machine XP when the system is set to go out with Vista .
It is n't like the company offered two machines , one with XP and one with Vista , it was the same model , so extra handling and such come into play.From the Microsoft point of view , if an OEM wants to buy copies of XP , that is up to the OEM , Microsoft does not charge there , and Microsoft was not the one charging ANYTHING , except for the license and disc for XP .
So , it was n't Microsoft who was doing the sales .
And sales , not Microsoft is where things come into play .
In theory , if you order a system from an OEM with XP on it , and they ONLY put XP on the machine , there is no double charge .
If you buy a system with Vista , and then pay for it to be downgraded by the company to XP , then you have to fight with the OEM about you being sold two operating systems when you only wanted one.In any case , there was still the labor cost to manually place XP on the machine , and the company could easily charge $ 100 since it is an extra labor cost , and then give the XP license for free if you prefer to do it that way .
If you want something out of the ordinary , you will generally have to pay for it .
The only exception is when you get a REAL custom built machine where the company has to pick the OS rather than just grabbing a machine off the shelf and ship it since thousands of the same configuration have been put together with zero difference.Blame Microsoft when they do something wrong , but in this case , if a sales rep on the phone sells you two operating systems and you only wanted one , then blame the sales person .
This applies to EVERYTHING , where sales people will always try to sell more , and the buyer has to know when not to buy it .
Now , it is also the option of the company selling something to only offer certain services on select items .
High cost items will generally provide the greatest number of options when it comes to extras , while low cost items may not have certain things available .
This really comes back to the idea that companies will be more inclined to take a " lesser profit " on extra services if they have already made a good profit on the sale.So , how much money do YOU feel your time is worth ?
If you make $ 20/hour at your job , your employers would want to make at least $ 30/hour from the work you do to make it worth it to them , probably more .
How much total time , from sales to installation of XP to shipping would it take to send out a specially configured system ?
Is it worth it for a company if they only make $ 10 total profit on the sale of a low-cost $ 400 computer tower ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In your dislike of Microsoft(which probably dates back to the old days of Microsoft vs. Netscape), you have missed what really happens(or happened since we are in the days of Windows 7, not Vista).When you buy a computer from an OEM, the vast majority came with the OS pre-installed.
Now, due to the volume of sales, the company doesn't "install" each and every setup clean and then put drivers and software on the machine, they go from a single hard drive image that they then place onto the hard drive of new machines.
As a result, the cost to the OEM in terms of labor, both in terms of time spent setting up the machine, as well as in getting what is hopefully a reliable set of drivers and software is much lower.
Without this, labor alone in setting up Windows with drivers and software would increase system prices by a significant amount.So, what happens when someone complained about Vista and insisted on XP?
The company has to go out of its way in terms of labor(remember, a very low percentage of people buying an OEM computer cared enough to insist on XP over Vista) to make a machine XP when the system is set to go out with Vista.
It isn't like the company offered two machines, one with XP and one with Vista, it was the same model, so extra handling and such come into play.From the Microsoft point of view, if an OEM wants to buy copies of XP, that is up to the OEM, Microsoft does not charge there, and Microsoft was not the one charging ANYTHING, except for the license and disc for XP.
So, it wasn't Microsoft who was doing the sales.
And sales, not Microsoft is where things come into play.
In theory, if you order a system from an OEM with XP on it, and they ONLY put XP on the machine, there is no double charge.
If you buy a system with Vista, and then pay for it to be downgraded by the company to XP, then you have to fight with the OEM about you being sold two operating systems when you only wanted one.In any case, there was still the labor cost to manually place XP on the machine, and the company could easily charge $100 since it is an extra labor cost, and then give the XP license for free if you prefer to do it that way.
If you want something out of the ordinary, you will generally have to pay for it.
The only exception is when you get a REAL custom built machine where the company has to pick the OS rather than just grabbing a machine off the shelf and ship it since thousands of the same configuration have been put together with zero difference.Blame Microsoft when they do something wrong, but in this case, if a sales rep on the phone sells you two operating systems and you only wanted one, then blame the sales person.
This applies to EVERYTHING, where sales people will always try to sell more, and the buyer has to know when not to buy it.
Now, it is also the option of the company selling something to only offer certain services on select items.
High cost items will generally provide the greatest number of options when it comes to extras, while low cost items may not have certain things available.
This really comes back to the idea that companies will be more inclined to take a "lesser profit" on extra services if they have already made a good profit on the sale.So, how much money do YOU feel your time is worth?
If you make $20/hour at your job, your employers would want to make at least $30/hour from the work you do to make it worth it to them, probably more.
How much total time, from sales to installation of XP to shipping would it take to send out a specially configured system?
Is it worth it for a company if they only make $10 total profit on the sale of a low-cost $400 computer tower?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294586</id>
	<title>Re:How?</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1267205160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I have a hard time wrapping idea around the concept of forcing someone to sell something they don't want to sell. The idea is absurd. It's very mafia-ish at the very least.</p></div></blockquote><p>  A computer should be separate from the software; as such a customer should never be compelled to buy a computer conditional on also buying the software on the device.  Of course this is already covered under US antitrust law as illegal tying even if it is rarely if ever enforced.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a hard time wrapping idea around the concept of forcing someone to sell something they do n't want to sell .
The idea is absurd .
It 's very mafia-ish at the very least .
A computer should be separate from the software ; as such a customer should never be compelled to buy a computer conditional on also buying the software on the device .
Of course this is already covered under US antitrust law as illegal tying even if it is rarely if ever enforced .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a hard time wrapping idea around the concept of forcing someone to sell something they don't want to sell.
The idea is absurd.
It's very mafia-ish at the very least.
A computer should be separate from the software; as such a customer should never be compelled to buy a computer conditional on also buying the software on the device.
Of course this is already covered under US antitrust law as illegal tying even if it is rarely if ever enforced.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294404</id>
	<title>No surprise really, but the judge was an idiot.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267203180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And considering Vista and its rebranded shite pile win7 are complete retarded crap, and that XP still pisses all over both of them in customization, shell extensions, performance, less UI inconsistencies and not to mention that it doesn't have completely fucking shit explorer shell fuckups..</p><p>Then yes why would you want to buy a license for that vis7a junk when really you just wanted the far better more mature XPsp3/64 release before those Microscum retards ruined Windows for stupid clueless sheeple.</p><p>MS obviously  doesn't want to sell XP anymore because once it gets the all morons onto the shity vis7a gravy train then it will be easier for them to force on later upgrades.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And considering Vista and its rebranded shite pile win7 are complete retarded crap , and that XP still pisses all over both of them in customization , shell extensions , performance , less UI inconsistencies and not to mention that it does n't have completely fucking shit explorer shell fuckups..Then yes why would you want to buy a license for that vis7a junk when really you just wanted the far better more mature XPsp3/64 release before those Microscum retards ruined Windows for stupid clueless sheeple.MS obviously does n't want to sell XP anymore because once it gets the all morons onto the shity vis7a gravy train then it will be easier for them to force on later upgrades .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And considering Vista and its rebranded shite pile win7 are complete retarded crap, and that XP still pisses all over both of them in customization, shell extensions, performance, less UI inconsistencies and not to mention that it doesn't have completely fucking shit explorer shell fuckups..Then yes why would you want to buy a license for that vis7a junk when really you just wanted the far better more mature XPsp3/64 release before those Microscum retards ruined Windows for stupid clueless sheeple.MS obviously  doesn't want to sell XP anymore because once it gets the all morons onto the shity vis7a gravy train then it will be easier for them to force on later upgrades.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294924</id>
	<title>Re:How?</title>
	<author>Tacvek</author>
	<datestamp>1267209720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Although the license fail to explicitly state it, it appears to be Apple's policy to allow downgrades. If you want to upgrade an old mac that will not run the newest OS, and contact Apple they are likely to have you buy the latest version, and then provide the older version. That is at least what I have seen happen in the past.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Although the license fail to explicitly state it , it appears to be Apple 's policy to allow downgrades .
If you want to upgrade an old mac that will not run the newest OS , and contact Apple they are likely to have you buy the latest version , and then provide the older version .
That is at least what I have seen happen in the past .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although the license fail to explicitly state it, it appears to be Apple's policy to allow downgrades.
If you want to upgrade an old mac that will not run the newest OS, and contact Apple they are likely to have you buy the latest version, and then provide the older version.
That is at least what I have seen happen in the past.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295144</id>
	<title>Re:It's their copyright and they can do as they wa</title>
	<author>peterfedric</author>
	<datestamp>1267213320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree with your comment, all the rights are with Microsoft and so no one can do anything for that. Even if you sue it then also you wont be about to get any better results.<br> <a href="http://www.greenzeal.co.uk/Store/british\_army\_rations/veg\_army\_rations" title="greenzeal.co.uk" rel="nofollow">vegetarian army rations</a> [greenzeal.co.uk]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with your comment , all the rights are with Microsoft and so no one can do anything for that .
Even if you sue it then also you wont be about to get any better results .
vegetarian army rations [ greenzeal.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with your comment, all the rights are with Microsoft and so no one can do anything for that.
Even if you sue it then also you wont be about to get any better results.
vegetarian army rations [greenzeal.co.uk]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31296164</id>
	<title>Re:How?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267277820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; It arrives as a properly configured and fully<br>&gt; functional bundle of hardware and software<br><br>Wait, we're talking about a Windows system here, right?<br><br>It arrives as no such thing.  It arrives as a horribly misconfigured near-useless paperweight.<br><br>It takes *hours* to get a new Windows system (or a fresh install) configured properly and ready for actual use.  Among other things, you have to create a proper user account, password-protect the Administrator account, turn off Welcome Center, spend about four hours installing service packs and security updates, install Antivirus software and get that up to date, turn off the "offer to erase my desktop icons every five minutes" wizard, turn off Aero and set the theme back to Classic so the users will recognize and know how to use it, install whatever software you need because Windows doesn't *come* with such basic things as a decent word processor (with such advanced state-of-the-art 1985 features as spellcheck), and go systematically through the Control Panel and change about half the settings, because the defaults are beyond horrible and get worse with every passing version.  The defaults for the Folder Settings have gotten so bad you can't really even use Windows Explorer until you fix it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; It arrives as a properly configured and fully &gt; functional bundle of hardware and softwareWait , we 're talking about a Windows system here , right ? It arrives as no such thing .
It arrives as a horribly misconfigured near-useless paperweight.It takes * hours * to get a new Windows system ( or a fresh install ) configured properly and ready for actual use .
Among other things , you have to create a proper user account , password-protect the Administrator account , turn off Welcome Center , spend about four hours installing service packs and security updates , install Antivirus software and get that up to date , turn off the " offer to erase my desktop icons every five minutes " wizard , turn off Aero and set the theme back to Classic so the users will recognize and know how to use it , install whatever software you need because Windows does n't * come * with such basic things as a decent word processor ( with such advanced state-of-the-art 1985 features as spellcheck ) , and go systematically through the Control Panel and change about half the settings , because the defaults are beyond horrible and get worse with every passing version .
The defaults for the Folder Settings have gotten so bad you ca n't really even use Windows Explorer until you fix it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; It arrives as a properly configured and fully&gt; functional bundle of hardware and softwareWait, we're talking about a Windows system here, right?It arrives as no such thing.
It arrives as a horribly misconfigured near-useless paperweight.It takes *hours* to get a new Windows system (or a fresh install) configured properly and ready for actual use.
Among other things, you have to create a proper user account, password-protect the Administrator account, turn off Welcome Center, spend about four hours installing service packs and security updates, install Antivirus software and get that up to date, turn off the "offer to erase my desktop icons every five minutes" wizard, turn off Aero and set the theme back to Classic so the users will recognize and know how to use it, install whatever software you need because Windows doesn't *come* with such basic things as a decent word processor (with such advanced state-of-the-art 1985 features as spellcheck), and go systematically through the Control Panel and change about half the settings, because the defaults are beyond horrible and get worse with every passing version.
The defaults for the Folder Settings have gotten so bad you can't really even use Windows Explorer until you fix it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294938</id>
	<title>Re:But Windows OS still sucks.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267210020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I mean, you have to jump through some pretty fiery logic hoops to come up with a good reason that a green plus would shrink a window.</p></div><p>In my (limited) OS X experience, that would probably be because the window was already at its larger size, so all the green light could do was shrink it down to its smaller size.</p><p>I do agree that the UI is poorly-designed.  This may be a petty complaint on my part, but if I click the red X, I expect the application to stop.  Maybe that's Windows/GNOME/KDE conditioning, but that's the way it is.  If I have no windows open for a given application, I do not expect that application to be considered to be "running".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , you have to jump through some pretty fiery logic hoops to come up with a good reason that a green plus would shrink a window.In my ( limited ) OS X experience , that would probably be because the window was already at its larger size , so all the green light could do was shrink it down to its smaller size.I do agree that the UI is poorly-designed .
This may be a petty complaint on my part , but if I click the red X , I expect the application to stop .
Maybe that 's Windows/GNOME/KDE conditioning , but that 's the way it is .
If I have no windows open for a given application , I do not expect that application to be considered to be " running " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, you have to jump through some pretty fiery logic hoops to come up with a good reason that a green plus would shrink a window.In my (limited) OS X experience, that would probably be because the window was already at its larger size, so all the green light could do was shrink it down to its smaller size.I do agree that the UI is poorly-designed.
This may be a petty complaint on my part, but if I click the red X, I expect the application to stop.
Maybe that's Windows/GNOME/KDE conditioning, but that's the way it is.
If I have no windows open for a given application, I do not expect that application to be considered to be "running".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31296104</id>
	<title>Re:How?</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1267276680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; How did they benefit?<br><br>Several ways, but probably the most important, for Microsoft, is that it makes the sales numbers for Vista, and now Seven, look vaguely respectable.  This is very important to the stockholders.<br><br>&gt; It's a lot easier to make the case that the end user<br>&gt; benefits for actually recieving two (non-concurrent)<br>&gt; licenses for the price of a single license<br><br>Except that nobody actually needs or wants that.<br><br>&gt; I don't think the OEM price for Vista or Win7 is any different from XP<br><br>You don't know that.  None of the big OEMs will say what they pay for Windows.  You're *guessing* that it's the same for Vista and Seven as it was for XP.<br><br>&gt; You don't see Apple offering a free downgrade<br>&gt; option from Leopard to Tiger, do you?<br><br>You don't see Apple users steadfastly refusing to touch Leopard with a ten foot pole and holding onto Tiger for dear life, either.  The last time you saw anything like that was with the transition from OS 9 to OS X, and at that time Apple shipped dual-boot setups for a couple of years and continued selling OS 9 for a while longer after that.<br><br>Granted, Apple didn't ship OS9-only systems after a certain point, but since there were never any third-party OEMs, they weren't really telling other companies what configurations they could and couldn't sell, so it's a little different than Microsoft's situation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; How did they benefit ? Several ways , but probably the most important , for Microsoft , is that it makes the sales numbers for Vista , and now Seven , look vaguely respectable .
This is very important to the stockholders. &gt; It 's a lot easier to make the case that the end user &gt; benefits for actually recieving two ( non-concurrent ) &gt; licenses for the price of a single licenseExcept that nobody actually needs or wants that. &gt; I do n't think the OEM price for Vista or Win7 is any different from XPYou do n't know that .
None of the big OEMs will say what they pay for Windows .
You 're * guessing * that it 's the same for Vista and Seven as it was for XP. &gt; You do n't see Apple offering a free downgrade &gt; option from Leopard to Tiger , do you ? You do n't see Apple users steadfastly refusing to touch Leopard with a ten foot pole and holding onto Tiger for dear life , either .
The last time you saw anything like that was with the transition from OS 9 to OS X , and at that time Apple shipped dual-boot setups for a couple of years and continued selling OS 9 for a while longer after that.Granted , Apple did n't ship OS9-only systems after a certain point , but since there were never any third-party OEMs , they were n't really telling other companies what configurations they could and could n't sell , so it 's a little different than Microsoft 's situation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; How did they benefit?Several ways, but probably the most important, for Microsoft, is that it makes the sales numbers for Vista, and now Seven, look vaguely respectable.
This is very important to the stockholders.&gt; It's a lot easier to make the case that the end user&gt; benefits for actually recieving two (non-concurrent)&gt; licenses for the price of a single licenseExcept that nobody actually needs or wants that.&gt; I don't think the OEM price for Vista or Win7 is any different from XPYou don't know that.
None of the big OEMs will say what they pay for Windows.
You're *guessing* that it's the same for Vista and Seven as it was for XP.&gt; You don't see Apple offering a free downgrade&gt; option from Leopard to Tiger, do you?You don't see Apple users steadfastly refusing to touch Leopard with a ten foot pole and holding onto Tiger for dear life, either.
The last time you saw anything like that was with the transition from OS 9 to OS X, and at that time Apple shipped dual-boot setups for a couple of years and continued selling OS 9 for a while longer after that.Granted, Apple didn't ship OS9-only systems after a certain point, but since there were never any third-party OEMs, they weren't really telling other companies what configurations they could and couldn't sell, so it's a little different than Microsoft's situation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31298158</id>
	<title>Re:It's their copyright and they can do as they wa</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1267298160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>As long as Microsoft wants to enjoy the lucrative benefits of being a singular part of society's information infrastructure, society ought to have a say in how Microsoft is run.</i></p><p>Society already has a say. They can stop buying Windows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as Microsoft wants to enjoy the lucrative benefits of being a singular part of society 's information infrastructure , society ought to have a say in how Microsoft is run.Society already has a say .
They can stop buying Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as Microsoft wants to enjoy the lucrative benefits of being a singular part of society's information infrastructure, society ought to have a say in how Microsoft is run.Society already has a say.
They can stop buying Windows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294258</id>
	<title>Re:How?</title>
	<author>LostCluster</author>
	<datestamp>1267201800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You fail to submit such proof to the judge, and even though that should be easy to prove, you lose. This sounds more like this was the point the plaintiff's side ran out of money to fund the case.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You fail to submit such proof to the judge , and even though that should be easy to prove , you lose .
This sounds more like this was the point the plaintiff 's side ran out of money to fund the case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You fail to submit such proof to the judge, and even though that should be easy to prove, you lose.
This sounds more like this was the point the plaintiff's side ran out of money to fund the case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295676</id>
	<title>Re:But Windows OS still sucks.</title>
	<author>Tromad</author>
	<datestamp>1267266600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The applications I despise in Windows violate this rule. MS Messenger and Steam are my biggest offenders. If I wanted to minimize you I would click that freaking button. Offer an option in config like utorrent if you want it to go to the notification area instead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The applications I despise in Windows violate this rule .
MS Messenger and Steam are my biggest offenders .
If I wanted to minimize you I would click that freaking button .
Offer an option in config like utorrent if you want it to go to the notification area instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The applications I despise in Windows violate this rule.
MS Messenger and Steam are my biggest offenders.
If I wanted to minimize you I would click that freaking button.
Offer an option in config like utorrent if you want it to go to the notification area instead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31301810</id>
	<title>Re:But Windows OS still sucks.</title>
	<author>Belial6</author>
	<datestamp>1267285320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just tried it.  The window got smaller.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just tried it .
The window got smaller .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just tried it.
The window got smaller.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294234</id>
	<title>Re:How?</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1267201500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The judge rejected Alvarado's accusations, saying that the plaintiff had not proved Microsoft benefited from the downgrade practices that it created and that OEMs implemented."</p></div></blockquote><p>  Yeah really...  Microsoft isn't doing this for the good of their customers at Microsoft's expense after all.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The judge rejected Alvarado 's accusations , saying that the plaintiff had not proved Microsoft benefited from the downgrade practices that it created and that OEMs implemented .
" Yeah really... Microsoft is n't doing this for the good of their customers at Microsoft 's expense after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The judge rejected Alvarado's accusations, saying that the plaintiff had not proved Microsoft benefited from the downgrade practices that it created and that OEMs implemented.
"  Yeah really...  Microsoft isn't doing this for the good of their customers at Microsoft's expense after all.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294900</id>
	<title>Re:It's their copyright and they can do as they wa</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267209240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most of the world's non-embedded computers run Windows. When a company reaches that level of influence, it ceases to be just another firm and instead becomes a part of our societal infrastructure. It's certainly reasonable to hold such organizations to a higher standard than we hold smaller organizations. The power company can't "do as they want" either.</p><p>As long as Microsoft wants to enjoy the lucrative benefits of being a singular part of society's information infrastructure, society ought to have a say in how Microsoft is run.</p><p>You might argue that imposing such restrictions is "punishing success". That's hardly true. The people responsible for Microsoft's growth have been rewarded many times over. If Microsoft finds regulations unbearable, it can split itself in two smaller companies, or shrink some other way. Then, it would no longer be subject to the same scrutiny.</p><p>But as long as Microsoft</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of the world 's non-embedded computers run Windows .
When a company reaches that level of influence , it ceases to be just another firm and instead becomes a part of our societal infrastructure .
It 's certainly reasonable to hold such organizations to a higher standard than we hold smaller organizations .
The power company ca n't " do as they want " either.As long as Microsoft wants to enjoy the lucrative benefits of being a singular part of society 's information infrastructure , society ought to have a say in how Microsoft is run.You might argue that imposing such restrictions is " punishing success " .
That 's hardly true .
The people responsible for Microsoft 's growth have been rewarded many times over .
If Microsoft finds regulations unbearable , it can split itself in two smaller companies , or shrink some other way .
Then , it would no longer be subject to the same scrutiny.But as long as Microsoft</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of the world's non-embedded computers run Windows.
When a company reaches that level of influence, it ceases to be just another firm and instead becomes a part of our societal infrastructure.
It's certainly reasonable to hold such organizations to a higher standard than we hold smaller organizations.
The power company can't "do as they want" either.As long as Microsoft wants to enjoy the lucrative benefits of being a singular part of society's information infrastructure, society ought to have a say in how Microsoft is run.You might argue that imposing such restrictions is "punishing success".
That's hardly true.
The people responsible for Microsoft's growth have been rewarded many times over.
If Microsoft finds regulations unbearable, it can split itself in two smaller companies, or shrink some other way.
Then, it would no longer be subject to the same scrutiny.But as long as Microsoft</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294388</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid Lawsuit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267202880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How does it rock?<br>I had it on a PC that I switched to linux. The damn thing would not even play a DVD without setting the region code on the drive. Way to be in Big Medias pocket.</p><p>Still no cron, still no real headless operation, still the same old windows crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How does it rock ? I had it on a PC that I switched to linux .
The damn thing would not even play a DVD without setting the region code on the drive .
Way to be in Big Medias pocket.Still no cron , still no real headless operation , still the same old windows crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does it rock?I had it on a PC that I switched to linux.
The damn thing would not even play a DVD without setting the region code on the drive.
Way to be in Big Medias pocket.Still no cron, still no real headless operation, still the same old windows crap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294888</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid Lawsuit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267209120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The key fact from the article is that the downgrade charge is levied by the OEMs and not Microsoft.  Given that information and the fact that this suit was brought against only Micorosft the outcome makes sense.  Remember, these OEMs are the same bastards that charge $20 for original installation media; it's not unreasonable to expect them to charge another exorbitant fee for this downgrade option.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The key fact from the article is that the downgrade charge is levied by the OEMs and not Microsoft .
Given that information and the fact that this suit was brought against only Micorosft the outcome makes sense .
Remember , these OEMs are the same bastards that charge $ 20 for original installation media ; it 's not unreasonable to expect them to charge another exorbitant fee for this downgrade option .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The key fact from the article is that the downgrade charge is levied by the OEMs and not Microsoft.
Given that information and the fact that this suit was brought against only Micorosft the outcome makes sense.
Remember, these OEMs are the same bastards that charge $20 for original installation media; it's not unreasonable to expect them to charge another exorbitant fee for this downgrade option.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31303810</id>
	<title>Re:How?</title>
	<author>mqduck</author>
	<datestamp>1267347960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>frankly they weren't required to offer an XP option at all (except by the oft-derided free market pressure that was upon them, of course - nothing bad to say about free markets when they help you out eh?)</p></div><p>Where are you getting this idea that Slashdotters hate the free market? You won't find more Ayn Rand freaks outside the Libertarian party than on this site.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>frankly they were n't required to offer an XP option at all ( except by the oft-derided free market pressure that was upon them , of course - nothing bad to say about free markets when they help you out eh ?
) Where are you getting this idea that Slashdotters hate the free market ?
You wo n't find more Ayn Rand freaks outside the Libertarian party than on this site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>frankly they weren't required to offer an XP option at all (except by the oft-derided free market pressure that was upon them, of course - nothing bad to say about free markets when they help you out eh?
)Where are you getting this idea that Slashdotters hate the free market?
You won't find more Ayn Rand freaks outside the Libertarian party than on this site.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295240</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid Judges Ruling our Lives</title>
	<author>Khyber</author>
	<datestamp>1267300860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Don't you think a judge ought to know something about the field he is ruling in before he is allowed to make judgments there?"</p><p>Then big corporations would NEVER get what they wanted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Do n't you think a judge ought to know something about the field he is ruling in before he is allowed to make judgments there ?
" Then big corporations would NEVER get what they wanted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Don't you think a judge ought to know something about the field he is ruling in before he is allowed to make judgments there?
"Then big corporations would NEVER get what they wanted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295618</id>
	<title>Of course there IS a benefit...</title>
	<author>Eth1csGrad1ent</author>
	<datestamp>1267264920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>
Instead of counting as an XP sale.  It is instead counted as a Vista sale, and the marketing clowns at Microsoft get to beat their chests about how well the uptake of Vista was going (in stark contrast to the bad trade press no less).  Nothing builds momentum like manufactured momentum...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead of counting as an XP sale .
It is instead counted as a Vista sale , and the marketing clowns at Microsoft get to beat their chests about how well the uptake of Vista was going ( in stark contrast to the bad trade press no less ) .
Nothing builds momentum like manufactured momentum.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Instead of counting as an XP sale.
It is instead counted as a Vista sale, and the marketing clowns at Microsoft get to beat their chests about how well the uptake of Vista was going (in stark contrast to the bad trade press no less).
Nothing builds momentum like manufactured momentum...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294726</id>
	<title>Vis7a = Shi7e</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267207020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>7 is still just the same vista shit rebranded, its barely any improvement at all, same shit.</p><p>Why the fuck should people be forced to pay for crap just because Microscum-tards spent a few years building absolute fucking junk, infact I swear they probably spent more time twiddling their thumbs, and product/feature lab testing using noobtards, because I've seen third party addons made by one person and offered for free completely fucking piss all over MS designed shit!...and they hired complete fucking morons to designed its GUI/UX...I mean its FailAero GPU crap, the entire vista OS is a inconsistent pile of fucking shit, and every windows app is faster and more responsive on XP.</p><p>So XPsp3/64 is still many times better than Win7, sure it doesn't have Dx11 but who gives a crap, you seen any half assed console ports worth fucking playing with DX11.. NO!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... XP pisses all over 7 in so many ways... so I ask again why should consumers be forced to PAY and FUND a fucking monopoly by paying full price for new shit, when an OS 8+years old still does a fucking better job!?!?!</p><p>The judge here was a fucking retard!, much like the 10000's of retards who bought vis7a or had that junk bundled with pc hardware, and who will inevitably be forced to buy/upgrade to the next version through devious software development lock-ins!</p><p>fucking idiots, you get what you pay for, and soon you'll be getting screwed because of it.</p><p>The good thing is more are starting to see how Microscum does business, and uses patent hoarding to prevent anyone else from fucking them over! Linux is the Next step, it just needs more to start jumping ship on it and supporting its progress and development.</p><p>-----------<br>Brad Smith, Microsoft general counsel, 2007: "Protection for software patents and other intellectual property is essential to maintaining the incentives that encourage and underwrite technological breakthroughs. In every industry, patents provide the legal foundation for innovation. The ensuing legal disputes may be messy, but protection is no less necessary, even so."<br>---<br>Bill Gates, Microsoft CEO, 1991: "If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today... A future start-up with no patents of its own will be forced to pay whatever price the giants choose to impose."<br>-----------</p><p>Microsoft you are going down! Best of all, your own shit developments and dumbifications are helping<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>7 is still just the same vista shit rebranded , its barely any improvement at all , same shit.Why the fuck should people be forced to pay for crap just because Microscum-tards spent a few years building absolute fucking junk , infact I swear they probably spent more time twiddling their thumbs , and product/feature lab testing using noobtards , because I 've seen third party addons made by one person and offered for free completely fucking piss all over MS designed shit ! ...and they hired complete fucking morons to designed its GUI/UX...I mean its FailAero GPU crap , the entire vista OS is a inconsistent pile of fucking shit , and every windows app is faster and more responsive on XP.So XPsp3/64 is still many times better than Win7 , sure it does n't have Dx11 but who gives a crap , you seen any half assed console ports worth fucking playing with DX11.. NO ! ... XP pisses all over 7 in so many ways... so I ask again why should consumers be forced to PAY and FUND a fucking monopoly by paying full price for new shit , when an OS 8 + years old still does a fucking better job ! ? ! ?
! The judge here was a fucking retard ! , much like the 10000 's of retards who bought vis7a or had that junk bundled with pc hardware , and who will inevitably be forced to buy/upgrade to the next version through devious software development lock-ins ! fucking idiots , you get what you pay for , and soon you 'll be getting screwed because of it.The good thing is more are starting to see how Microscum does business , and uses patent hoarding to prevent anyone else from fucking them over !
Linux is the Next step , it just needs more to start jumping ship on it and supporting its progress and development.-----------Brad Smith , Microsoft general counsel , 2007 : " Protection for software patents and other intellectual property is essential to maintaining the incentives that encourage and underwrite technological breakthroughs .
In every industry , patents provide the legal foundation for innovation .
The ensuing legal disputes may be messy , but protection is no less necessary , even so .
" ---Bill Gates , Microsoft CEO , 1991 : " If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today 's ideas were invented and had taken out patents , the industry would be at a complete standstill today... A future start-up with no patents of its own will be forced to pay whatever price the giants choose to impose .
" -----------Microsoft you are going down !
Best of all , your own shit developments and dumbifications are helping : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>7 is still just the same vista shit rebranded, its barely any improvement at all, same shit.Why the fuck should people be forced to pay for crap just because Microscum-tards spent a few years building absolute fucking junk, infact I swear they probably spent more time twiddling their thumbs, and product/feature lab testing using noobtards, because I've seen third party addons made by one person and offered for free completely fucking piss all over MS designed shit!...and they hired complete fucking morons to designed its GUI/UX...I mean its FailAero GPU crap, the entire vista OS is a inconsistent pile of fucking shit, and every windows app is faster and more responsive on XP.So XPsp3/64 is still many times better than Win7, sure it doesn't have Dx11 but who gives a crap, you seen any half assed console ports worth fucking playing with DX11.. NO! ... XP pisses all over 7 in so many ways... so I ask again why should consumers be forced to PAY and FUND a fucking monopoly by paying full price for new shit, when an OS 8+years old still does a fucking better job!?!?
!The judge here was a fucking retard!, much like the 10000's of retards who bought vis7a or had that junk bundled with pc hardware, and who will inevitably be forced to buy/upgrade to the next version through devious software development lock-ins!fucking idiots, you get what you pay for, and soon you'll be getting screwed because of it.The good thing is more are starting to see how Microscum does business, and uses patent hoarding to prevent anyone else from fucking them over!
Linux is the Next step, it just needs more to start jumping ship on it and supporting its progress and development.-----------Brad Smith, Microsoft general counsel, 2007: "Protection for software patents and other intellectual property is essential to maintaining the incentives that encourage and underwrite technological breakthroughs.
In every industry, patents provide the legal foundation for innovation.
The ensuing legal disputes may be messy, but protection is no less necessary, even so.
"---Bill Gates, Microsoft CEO, 1991: "If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today... A future start-up with no patents of its own will be forced to pay whatever price the giants choose to impose.
"-----------Microsoft you are going down!
Best of all, your own shit developments and dumbifications are helping :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294330</id>
	<title>more spawn of MS spooge</title>
	<author>harvey the nerd</author>
	<datestamp>1267202340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is always refreshing to watch a master criminal at work.  Microsoft, the company that has made billions by locking users with false promises on knowingly sold defective malware, stolen technology, selling crap EULAs to sell 2, 3, even 4 licenses just get a machine running and compatible, trampling implied warranty into the ground, evading antitrust prosecutions with perjured testimonies and harried, baited judges, and multiples more on jobbed stock.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is always refreshing to watch a master criminal at work .
Microsoft , the company that has made billions by locking users with false promises on knowingly sold defective malware , stolen technology , selling crap EULAs to sell 2 , 3 , even 4 licenses just get a machine running and compatible , trampling implied warranty into the ground , evading antitrust prosecutions with perjured testimonies and harried , baited judges , and multiples more on jobbed stock .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is always refreshing to watch a master criminal at work.
Microsoft, the company that has made billions by locking users with false promises on knowingly sold defective malware, stolen technology, selling crap EULAs to sell 2, 3, even 4 licenses just get a machine running and compatible, trampling implied warranty into the ground, evading antitrust prosecutions with perjured testimonies and harried, baited judges, and multiples more on jobbed stock.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294476</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid Lawsuit</title>
	<author>HermMunster</author>
	<datestamp>1267204080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even Microsoft admitted Vista was bad and worked hard on 7 to get it to market fast before Vista irrevocably harmed their image.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even Microsoft admitted Vista was bad and worked hard on 7 to get it to market fast before Vista irrevocably harmed their image .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even Microsoft admitted Vista was bad and worked hard on 7 to get it to market fast before Vista irrevocably harmed their image.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31297342</id>
	<title>Re:But Windows OS still sucks.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267292940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a single symbol for Zoom that is intuitive and readily understood by almost everyone - the Magnifier Glass.</p><p>A Plus sign designates Increase (add) and is understood by anyone with any mathematical education. Due to this, using a + (plus) sign is idiocy of the highest level and inconsistent with worldwide educational practices. Please correct the inconsistency in your thinking as the Reality Distortion Field has affected it.</p><p>In the event of Firefox, when it is downloading, it leaves a window open (the download window) and does not run as a hidden background process. iTunes is integrated so deeply into OS-X that the Windows equivilent is Internet Explorer. <i>The reason it runs as a hidden background process is due to it being the Sound Subsystem since without it you have no sound available.</i> (not being a Mac Dev, I don't know if this is correct)</p><p>In Windows, Linux and BSD, the purpose of the filesystem cache is to retain the last used files (programs/docs) until the memory is needed by an active process. What it sounds like is that OS-X is flushing this cache too quickly or the app isn't properly integrated with the OS. In my case I do this several times a day on Win7-64/8GB and have noticed no start up delays after the first instance due to the cache, over time even that decreases because not only does Windows cache frequentyly used files, it relocates them to a faster part of the disk to speed initial loading time during system boots.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a single symbol for Zoom that is intuitive and readily understood by almost everyone - the Magnifier Glass.A Plus sign designates Increase ( add ) and is understood by anyone with any mathematical education .
Due to this , using a + ( plus ) sign is idiocy of the highest level and inconsistent with worldwide educational practices .
Please correct the inconsistency in your thinking as the Reality Distortion Field has affected it.In the event of Firefox , when it is downloading , it leaves a window open ( the download window ) and does not run as a hidden background process .
iTunes is integrated so deeply into OS-X that the Windows equivilent is Internet Explorer .
The reason it runs as a hidden background process is due to it being the Sound Subsystem since without it you have no sound available .
( not being a Mac Dev , I do n't know if this is correct ) In Windows , Linux and BSD , the purpose of the filesystem cache is to retain the last used files ( programs/docs ) until the memory is needed by an active process .
What it sounds like is that OS-X is flushing this cache too quickly or the app is n't properly integrated with the OS .
In my case I do this several times a day on Win7-64/8GB and have noticed no start up delays after the first instance due to the cache , over time even that decreases because not only does Windows cache frequentyly used files , it relocates them to a faster part of the disk to speed initial loading time during system boots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a single symbol for Zoom that is intuitive and readily understood by almost everyone - the Magnifier Glass.A Plus sign designates Increase (add) and is understood by anyone with any mathematical education.
Due to this, using a + (plus) sign is idiocy of the highest level and inconsistent with worldwide educational practices.
Please correct the inconsistency in your thinking as the Reality Distortion Field has affected it.In the event of Firefox, when it is downloading, it leaves a window open (the download window) and does not run as a hidden background process.
iTunes is integrated so deeply into OS-X that the Windows equivilent is Internet Explorer.
The reason it runs as a hidden background process is due to it being the Sound Subsystem since without it you have no sound available.
(not being a Mac Dev, I don't know if this is correct)In Windows, Linux and BSD, the purpose of the filesystem cache is to retain the last used files (programs/docs) until the memory is needed by an active process.
What it sounds like is that OS-X is flushing this cache too quickly or the app isn't properly integrated with the OS.
In my case I do this several times a day on Win7-64/8GB and have noticed no start up delays after the first instance due to the cache, over time even that decreases because not only does Windows cache frequentyly used files, it relocates them to a faster part of the disk to speed initial loading time during system boots.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294702</id>
	<title>Re:Benefited? What kind of logic is that?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267206600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Welcome to the wonderful world of judges backwards rationalising and using a half-cocked excuses to cover it up. The fact that the judge missed the fact that Microsoft use Windows Vista and Windows 7 sales numbers to manipulate the market into its ponzi upgrade scheme says a lot. Behind the words he probably had some bullshit excuse like the complaint was too novel by the standards in his closed off world or it would be bad for business. I despair at the number of times I see judges flagrantly breaching guidelines and screwing over victims in the UK. It's like they go out of their way to prop up the big shots and see the whole world through centuries old and often corrupt case law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Welcome to the wonderful world of judges backwards rationalising and using a half-cocked excuses to cover it up .
The fact that the judge missed the fact that Microsoft use Windows Vista and Windows 7 sales numbers to manipulate the market into its ponzi upgrade scheme says a lot .
Behind the words he probably had some bullshit excuse like the complaint was too novel by the standards in his closed off world or it would be bad for business .
I despair at the number of times I see judges flagrantly breaching guidelines and screwing over victims in the UK .
It 's like they go out of their way to prop up the big shots and see the whole world through centuries old and often corrupt case law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Welcome to the wonderful world of judges backwards rationalising and using a half-cocked excuses to cover it up.
The fact that the judge missed the fact that Microsoft use Windows Vista and Windows 7 sales numbers to manipulate the market into its ponzi upgrade scheme says a lot.
Behind the words he probably had some bullshit excuse like the complaint was too novel by the standards in his closed off world or it would be bad for business.
I despair at the number of times I see judges flagrantly breaching guidelines and screwing over victims in the UK.
It's like they go out of their way to prop up the big shots and see the whole world through centuries old and often corrupt case law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294794</id>
	<title>Re:Benefited? What kind of logic is that?</title>
	<author>happylight</author>
	<datestamp>1267207860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your lawyer would probably get you off on an insanity plea since there's no motive.</p><p>So yea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your lawyer would probably get you off on an insanity plea since there 's no motive.So yea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your lawyer would probably get you off on an insanity plea since there's no motive.So yea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295650</id>
	<title>Re:It's their copyright and they can do as they wa</title>
	<author>ByteSlicer</author>
	<datestamp>1267265760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>the money spent would have been better off asking Congress to lower the copyright expiration standard for software.</p></div></blockquote><p>
You do realize that copyright is what makes the GPL work?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the money spent would have been better off asking Congress to lower the copyright expiration standard for software .
You do realize that copyright is what makes the GPL work ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the money spent would have been better off asking Congress to lower the copyright expiration standard for software.
You do realize that copyright is what makes the GPL work?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31300576</id>
	<title>Re:But Windows OS still sucks.</title>
	<author>mr\_lizard13</author>
	<datestamp>1267274460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The green button is a "zoom to fit" button.  The plus sign inside might be suboptimal, but there are no "fiery logic hoops" involved.  If the window is larger than the "fit" size, it shrinks.  The button's behavior is quite consistent--the destination is always the same.</p>  </div><p>
Except in Mail, TextEdit, Dictionary, Font Book, Image Capture, System Profiler, and Disc Utility it maximises the window to full screen.
<br>
<br>
In iTunes, it changes the window to a mini-player view.
<br>
<br>
In Calculator, it changes the view between Basic, Scientific, and Programmer.
<br>
<br>
Other than that, the button's behaviour is indeed quite consistent and the destination is always the same.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The green button is a " zoom to fit " button .
The plus sign inside might be suboptimal , but there are no " fiery logic hoops " involved .
If the window is larger than the " fit " size , it shrinks .
The button 's behavior is quite consistent--the destination is always the same .
Except in Mail , TextEdit , Dictionary , Font Book , Image Capture , System Profiler , and Disc Utility it maximises the window to full screen .
In iTunes , it changes the window to a mini-player view .
In Calculator , it changes the view between Basic , Scientific , and Programmer .
Other than that , the button 's behaviour is indeed quite consistent and the destination is always the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The green button is a "zoom to fit" button.
The plus sign inside might be suboptimal, but there are no "fiery logic hoops" involved.
If the window is larger than the "fit" size, it shrinks.
The button's behavior is quite consistent--the destination is always the same.
Except in Mail, TextEdit, Dictionary, Font Book, Image Capture, System Profiler, and Disc Utility it maximises the window to full screen.
In iTunes, it changes the window to a mini-player view.
In Calculator, it changes the view between Basic, Scientific, and Programmer.
Other than that, the button's behaviour is indeed quite consistent and the destination is always the same.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294560</id>
	<title>Re:But Windows OS still sucks.</title>
	<author>Belial6</author>
	<datestamp>1267204920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Having recently started working with a Mac, I am actually really surprised at how far behind Windows and Linux OSX is in UI.  It is inconsistent, and poorly designed compared to it's modern counterparts.  I mean, you have to jump through some pretty fiery logic hoops to come up with a good reason that a green plus would shrink a window.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Having recently started working with a Mac , I am actually really surprised at how far behind Windows and Linux OSX is in UI .
It is inconsistent , and poorly designed compared to it 's modern counterparts .
I mean , you have to jump through some pretty fiery logic hoops to come up with a good reason that a green plus would shrink a window .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having recently started working with a Mac, I am actually really surprised at how far behind Windows and Linux OSX is in UI.
It is inconsistent, and poorly designed compared to it's modern counterparts.
I mean, you have to jump through some pretty fiery logic hoops to come up with a good reason that a green plus would shrink a window.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294638</id>
	<title>Re:How?</title>
	<author>RobertM1968</author>
	<datestamp>1267205940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How did they benefit?  It's a lot easier to make the case that the end user benefits for actually recieving two (non-concurrent) licenses for the price of a single license, given that the old software has been discontinued.  I don't think the OEM price for Vista or Win7 is any different from XP, and the new versions are the replacements for the old - frankly they weren't required to offer an XP option at all (except by the oft-derided free market pressure that was upon them, of course - nothing bad to say about free markets when they help you out eh?), or any form of downgrade.  You don't see Apple offering a free downgrade option from Leopard to Tiger, do you?  Of course not, ordinarily the idea is absurd.  The only difference is that this upgrade was not well-received, and it was offer a downgrade or lose customers.</p><p>Since they weren't even required to continue selling XP at all, how the hell can you argue that selling a license that includes a free license for XP is anything but a value-add for the customer?</p><p>I have a hard time wrapping idea around the concept of <b>forcing</b> someone to sell something they don't want to sell.  The idea is absurd.  It's very mafia-ish at the very least.</p></div><p>That's weird... I just realized something... and maybe this is the problem:

</p><p>"Back in the day" many OEMs were selling the XP Downgrade at an additional cost. Nowadays, it seems one can buy a machine with Vista/Win7 or XP (with a Vista or Win7 license included) at the same price.

</p><p>Perhaps that is the problem with this suit (or part of it) - <b>nowadays</b> there is no extra charge. When the lawsuit was initiated, virtually everyone (due to Microsoft per their claims) was charging an extra fee for the downgrade license.

</p><p>Just two months ago, I purchased 4 XP machines for a client. They were the same price as the identical hardware with Vista or Win 7. They came with Vista restore disks but XP pre-installed. And a free upgrade coupon for Win7 (which was honored, btw)... meaning, for the price of one OS, it's come with XP pre-installed, Vista restore disks, and Win 7 upgrade on it's way in the mail (for the cost of S/H). (These were for Lenovo ThinkCentres)

</p><p>A year and a few months ago, the machine would have been an extra $40-80 for the "downgrade" to preinstalled XP.

</p><p>Perhaps they had a hard time proving it because there isn't anything available online to help them prove it now. Or they were checking the wrong manufacturers and didnt find any that still may be charging extra.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How did they benefit ?
It 's a lot easier to make the case that the end user benefits for actually recieving two ( non-concurrent ) licenses for the price of a single license , given that the old software has been discontinued .
I do n't think the OEM price for Vista or Win7 is any different from XP , and the new versions are the replacements for the old - frankly they were n't required to offer an XP option at all ( except by the oft-derided free market pressure that was upon them , of course - nothing bad to say about free markets when they help you out eh ?
) , or any form of downgrade .
You do n't see Apple offering a free downgrade option from Leopard to Tiger , do you ?
Of course not , ordinarily the idea is absurd .
The only difference is that this upgrade was not well-received , and it was offer a downgrade or lose customers.Since they were n't even required to continue selling XP at all , how the hell can you argue that selling a license that includes a free license for XP is anything but a value-add for the customer ? I have a hard time wrapping idea around the concept of forcing someone to sell something they do n't want to sell .
The idea is absurd .
It 's very mafia-ish at the very least.That 's weird... I just realized something... and maybe this is the problem : " Back in the day " many OEMs were selling the XP Downgrade at an additional cost .
Nowadays , it seems one can buy a machine with Vista/Win7 or XP ( with a Vista or Win7 license included ) at the same price .
Perhaps that is the problem with this suit ( or part of it ) - nowadays there is no extra charge .
When the lawsuit was initiated , virtually everyone ( due to Microsoft per their claims ) was charging an extra fee for the downgrade license .
Just two months ago , I purchased 4 XP machines for a client .
They were the same price as the identical hardware with Vista or Win 7 .
They came with Vista restore disks but XP pre-installed .
And a free upgrade coupon for Win7 ( which was honored , btw ) ... meaning , for the price of one OS , it 's come with XP pre-installed , Vista restore disks , and Win 7 upgrade on it 's way in the mail ( for the cost of S/H ) .
( These were for Lenovo ThinkCentres ) A year and a few months ago , the machine would have been an extra $ 40-80 for the " downgrade " to preinstalled XP .
Perhaps they had a hard time proving it because there is n't anything available online to help them prove it now .
Or they were checking the wrong manufacturers and didnt find any that still may be charging extra .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How did they benefit?
It's a lot easier to make the case that the end user benefits for actually recieving two (non-concurrent) licenses for the price of a single license, given that the old software has been discontinued.
I don't think the OEM price for Vista or Win7 is any different from XP, and the new versions are the replacements for the old - frankly they weren't required to offer an XP option at all (except by the oft-derided free market pressure that was upon them, of course - nothing bad to say about free markets when they help you out eh?
), or any form of downgrade.
You don't see Apple offering a free downgrade option from Leopard to Tiger, do you?
Of course not, ordinarily the idea is absurd.
The only difference is that this upgrade was not well-received, and it was offer a downgrade or lose customers.Since they weren't even required to continue selling XP at all, how the hell can you argue that selling a license that includes a free license for XP is anything but a value-add for the customer?I have a hard time wrapping idea around the concept of forcing someone to sell something they don't want to sell.
The idea is absurd.
It's very mafia-ish at the very least.That's weird... I just realized something... and maybe this is the problem:

"Back in the day" many OEMs were selling the XP Downgrade at an additional cost.
Nowadays, it seems one can buy a machine with Vista/Win7 or XP (with a Vista or Win7 license included) at the same price.
Perhaps that is the problem with this suit (or part of it) - nowadays there is no extra charge.
When the lawsuit was initiated, virtually everyone (due to Microsoft per their claims) was charging an extra fee for the downgrade license.
Just two months ago, I purchased 4 XP machines for a client.
They were the same price as the identical hardware with Vista or Win 7.
They came with Vista restore disks but XP pre-installed.
And a free upgrade coupon for Win7 (which was honored, btw)... meaning, for the price of one OS, it's come with XP pre-installed, Vista restore disks, and Win 7 upgrade on it's way in the mail (for the cost of S/H).
(These were for Lenovo ThinkCentres)

A year and a few months ago, the machine would have been an extra $40-80 for the "downgrade" to preinstalled XP.
Perhaps they had a hard time proving it because there isn't anything available online to help them prove it now.
Or they were checking the wrong manufacturers and didnt find any that still may be charging extra.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294304</id>
	<title>fuck you homos!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267202100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's friday night, I'm gonna go get some hot ass.  You fags can sit around jacking it and talking about windows.  losers!</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's friday night , I 'm gon na go get some hot ass .
You fags can sit around jacking it and talking about windows .
losers !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's friday night, I'm gonna go get some hot ass.
You fags can sit around jacking it and talking about windows.
losers!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31296368</id>
	<title>Re:They'd have to sell XP if it weren't for monopo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267281840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; What the judge says is true and Microsoft really aren't benefiting from this since they get a sale whether it's XP or 7, but that doesn't change the fact that this is a clear case of severe monopoly abuse.</p><p>They are benefiting! It's very important for M$ to have their latest version adopted as largely as possible.</p><p>If XP would remain the market leader and Vi$ta/W7 could not gather a meaningful market share, in the near future Wind0s XP would be compared to, say, SuSE 12 or Mandriva 2011 or Ubuntu 11.04.</p><p>That would be M$'s demise.</p><p>The judge either is incompetent/dumb (and therefore shouldn't be a judge) or just plainly helped M$ by issuing a misguided ruling (whether willingly or not is not important in the aftermath).</p><p>That's why I said the environment in the US is so biased the EU should take that into account when punishing M$. It's becoming like a Banana Republic.</p><p>Alas, what's the difference?</p><p>Either a socialist party-controlled regime, an oligarchy of self-serving nobles or a corporate-controlled capitalism... which of them respects the people's will?</p><p>Actually, none. They all can be put in the same category: a dictatorship.</p><p>Have a nice day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; What the judge says is true and Microsoft really are n't benefiting from this since they get a sale whether it 's XP or 7 , but that does n't change the fact that this is a clear case of severe monopoly abuse.They are benefiting !
It 's very important for M $ to have their latest version adopted as largely as possible.If XP would remain the market leader and Vi $ ta/W7 could not gather a meaningful market share , in the near future Wind0s XP would be compared to , say , SuSE 12 or Mandriva 2011 or Ubuntu 11.04.That would be M $ 's demise.The judge either is incompetent/dumb ( and therefore should n't be a judge ) or just plainly helped M $ by issuing a misguided ruling ( whether willingly or not is not important in the aftermath ) .That 's why I said the environment in the US is so biased the EU should take that into account when punishing M $ .
It 's becoming like a Banana Republic.Alas , what 's the difference ? Either a socialist party-controlled regime , an oligarchy of self-serving nobles or a corporate-controlled capitalism... which of them respects the people 's will ? Actually , none .
They all can be put in the same category : a dictatorship.Have a nice day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; What the judge says is true and Microsoft really aren't benefiting from this since they get a sale whether it's XP or 7, but that doesn't change the fact that this is a clear case of severe monopoly abuse.They are benefiting!
It's very important for M$ to have their latest version adopted as largely as possible.If XP would remain the market leader and Vi$ta/W7 could not gather a meaningful market share, in the near future Wind0s XP would be compared to, say, SuSE 12 or Mandriva 2011 or Ubuntu 11.04.That would be M$'s demise.The judge either is incompetent/dumb (and therefore shouldn't be a judge) or just plainly helped M$ by issuing a misguided ruling (whether willingly or not is not important in the aftermath).That's why I said the environment in the US is so biased the EU should take that into account when punishing M$.
It's becoming like a Banana Republic.Alas, what's the difference?Either a socialist party-controlled regime, an oligarchy of self-serving nobles or a corporate-controlled capitalism... which of them respects the people's will?Actually, none.
They all can be put in the same category: a dictatorship.Have a nice day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31312548</id>
	<title>Re:Benefited? What kind of logic is that?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1267386240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What the...? Troll? Did someone miss the sarcasm?</p><p>What an idiot.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What the... ?
Troll ? Did someone miss the sarcasm ? What an idiot .
: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the...?
Troll? Did someone miss the sarcasm?What an idiot.
:P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295104</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid Lawsuit</title>
	<author>derGoldstein</author>
	<datestamp>1267212660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Still no cron, still no real headless operation, still the same old windows crap.</p></div><p>You know, it's somewhat telling that those are the only two points that a linux advocate (I assume) could come up with. I used to split my computers into Win/Linux, but I find that the expense in time administering the Linux ones is demanding. I still "believe in" Free Software, and the distros have all made strides, but Windows 7 has made such a significant leap that it's difficult to compete with. With Vista, you needed a quantum computer to even boot the machine, so the division was simple: Vista on the heavier machines, and Linux on the lighter ones. Now though, considering that Win7 was pushed out with new computers at a comparatively low price, it's much harder to find a reason to use Linux even on weaker machines (I realize that the price drop came mainly from hardware price drops, but overall you pay a lot less for a full-features laptop, and Windows 7 will run just fine on it, unlike the sluggish Vista).<br> <br>

I still use OSS for anything that I possibly can, which is almost everything apart from CAD/CAM and some 2D graphics software (but then, I don't need to edit audio/video, otherwise there'd be that too). However, when it comes to the OS, making the decision that "Linux will better suit this machine" almost never happens apart from really old computers (which wasn't true during Vista).<br> <br>

As Tacvek has addressed in the post above, headless operation isn't really what Win7 is supposed to do, and cron can be handled either with the Scheduler, or an array of free software you can easily find. From a practical standpoint, MS has done very well with Windows 7.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Still no cron , still no real headless operation , still the same old windows crap.You know , it 's somewhat telling that those are the only two points that a linux advocate ( I assume ) could come up with .
I used to split my computers into Win/Linux , but I find that the expense in time administering the Linux ones is demanding .
I still " believe in " Free Software , and the distros have all made strides , but Windows 7 has made such a significant leap that it 's difficult to compete with .
With Vista , you needed a quantum computer to even boot the machine , so the division was simple : Vista on the heavier machines , and Linux on the lighter ones .
Now though , considering that Win7 was pushed out with new computers at a comparatively low price , it 's much harder to find a reason to use Linux even on weaker machines ( I realize that the price drop came mainly from hardware price drops , but overall you pay a lot less for a full-features laptop , and Windows 7 will run just fine on it , unlike the sluggish Vista ) .
I still use OSS for anything that I possibly can , which is almost everything apart from CAD/CAM and some 2D graphics software ( but then , I do n't need to edit audio/video , otherwise there 'd be that too ) .
However , when it comes to the OS , making the decision that " Linux will better suit this machine " almost never happens apart from really old computers ( which was n't true during Vista ) .
As Tacvek has addressed in the post above , headless operation is n't really what Win7 is supposed to do , and cron can be handled either with the Scheduler , or an array of free software you can easily find .
From a practical standpoint , MS has done very well with Windows 7 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Still no cron, still no real headless operation, still the same old windows crap.You know, it's somewhat telling that those are the only two points that a linux advocate (I assume) could come up with.
I used to split my computers into Win/Linux, but I find that the expense in time administering the Linux ones is demanding.
I still "believe in" Free Software, and the distros have all made strides, but Windows 7 has made such a significant leap that it's difficult to compete with.
With Vista, you needed a quantum computer to even boot the machine, so the division was simple: Vista on the heavier machines, and Linux on the lighter ones.
Now though, considering that Win7 was pushed out with new computers at a comparatively low price, it's much harder to find a reason to use Linux even on weaker machines (I realize that the price drop came mainly from hardware price drops, but overall you pay a lot less for a full-features laptop, and Windows 7 will run just fine on it, unlike the sluggish Vista).
I still use OSS for anything that I possibly can, which is almost everything apart from CAD/CAM and some 2D graphics software (but then, I don't need to edit audio/video, otherwise there'd be that too).
However, when it comes to the OS, making the decision that "Linux will better suit this machine" almost never happens apart from really old computers (which wasn't true during Vista).
As Tacvek has addressed in the post above, headless operation isn't really what Win7 is supposed to do, and cron can be handled either with the Scheduler, or an array of free software you can easily find.
From a practical standpoint, MS has done very well with Windows 7.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295186</id>
	<title>Re:They'd have to sell XP if it weren't for monopo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267213740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Windows cost &pound;50 at retail I'd happily buy it but the layering into retard and bozo versions, shorter period of upgrade cycle, and stupidly high retail prices for no other reason than Microsoft can maintain its OEM monopoly really make me look favourably on pirate solutions. I still feel burned after Windows 2000 was all but abandoned and the badly designed bling and featureitis that hit Microsoft with Windows XP makes the whole thing look like a wobbling pile of cruft. As a developer I'm fed up with the ever increasing maze of API's, bloated and slow compiler tools, and documentation that's easier to search online via Google.</p><p>I'm really disappointed that Apple doesn't sell OS X for the generic PC platform. As VM technology is improving and graphics card virtualisation is around the corner dumping Windows for OS X is a no-brainer. If Jobs can stitch up deals with the music and movie industry then he sure as hell can stitch up deals with PC vendors and retail. The fact that Apple is doing so well financially and so many people have turned against Apple for its control freak attitude would suggest to any politically savvy businessman that people are happy to support Apple but the impression of greed and nannying is losing them support.</p><p>The only other option I see on the radar is if big manufacturers get behind Haiku and make it succeed where BeOS didn't. With all the quality of Apple design and none of the hairshirt community issues of Linux it could be a real winner. The only thing it lacks is good quality drivers for modern equipment and OEM deals that make it an option on par with Windows at retail. None of this is insurmountable and there's no reason why a good family of native core apps couldn't follow very soon. But, I've learned in life that something can be great, accessible, and free and nobody will buy into it for what amounts to petty egotistical reasons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Windows cost   50 at retail I 'd happily buy it but the layering into retard and bozo versions , shorter period of upgrade cycle , and stupidly high retail prices for no other reason than Microsoft can maintain its OEM monopoly really make me look favourably on pirate solutions .
I still feel burned after Windows 2000 was all but abandoned and the badly designed bling and featureitis that hit Microsoft with Windows XP makes the whole thing look like a wobbling pile of cruft .
As a developer I 'm fed up with the ever increasing maze of API 's , bloated and slow compiler tools , and documentation that 's easier to search online via Google.I 'm really disappointed that Apple does n't sell OS X for the generic PC platform .
As VM technology is improving and graphics card virtualisation is around the corner dumping Windows for OS X is a no-brainer .
If Jobs can stitch up deals with the music and movie industry then he sure as hell can stitch up deals with PC vendors and retail .
The fact that Apple is doing so well financially and so many people have turned against Apple for its control freak attitude would suggest to any politically savvy businessman that people are happy to support Apple but the impression of greed and nannying is losing them support.The only other option I see on the radar is if big manufacturers get behind Haiku and make it succeed where BeOS did n't .
With all the quality of Apple design and none of the hairshirt community issues of Linux it could be a real winner .
The only thing it lacks is good quality drivers for modern equipment and OEM deals that make it an option on par with Windows at retail .
None of this is insurmountable and there 's no reason why a good family of native core apps could n't follow very soon .
But , I 've learned in life that something can be great , accessible , and free and nobody will buy into it for what amounts to petty egotistical reasons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Windows cost £50 at retail I'd happily buy it but the layering into retard and bozo versions, shorter period of upgrade cycle, and stupidly high retail prices for no other reason than Microsoft can maintain its OEM monopoly really make me look favourably on pirate solutions.
I still feel burned after Windows 2000 was all but abandoned and the badly designed bling and featureitis that hit Microsoft with Windows XP makes the whole thing look like a wobbling pile of cruft.
As a developer I'm fed up with the ever increasing maze of API's, bloated and slow compiler tools, and documentation that's easier to search online via Google.I'm really disappointed that Apple doesn't sell OS X for the generic PC platform.
As VM technology is improving and graphics card virtualisation is around the corner dumping Windows for OS X is a no-brainer.
If Jobs can stitch up deals with the music and movie industry then he sure as hell can stitch up deals with PC vendors and retail.
The fact that Apple is doing so well financially and so many people have turned against Apple for its control freak attitude would suggest to any politically savvy businessman that people are happy to support Apple but the impression of greed and nannying is losing them support.The only other option I see on the radar is if big manufacturers get behind Haiku and make it succeed where BeOS didn't.
With all the quality of Apple design and none of the hairshirt community issues of Linux it could be a real winner.
The only thing it lacks is good quality drivers for modern equipment and OEM deals that make it an option on par with Windows at retail.
None of this is insurmountable and there's no reason why a good family of native core apps couldn't follow very soon.
But, I've learned in life that something can be great, accessible, and free and nobody will buy into it for what amounts to petty egotistical reasons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31296470</id>
	<title>Re:How?</title>
	<author>kramerd</author>
	<datestamp>1267283640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are allowed to bundle items for sale so long as they are also sold as individual items.</p><p>Since you can buy a computer without the windows OS, you can also by one with windows. You can even offer a discount for buying both hardware and software.</p><p>Its the exact same concept as fast food restaurants employ. You don't want the fries and the drink with your gyro? Then don't get the combo. You want chicken in your gyro? Yeah, we used to sell a chicken gyro, now you buy a gyro and add chicken for an extra fifty cents. I'm sorry, that coupon is for dine-in only.</p><p>On the other hand, a customer is not compelled to buy a manufactured computer in the first place. Anyone can go out and buy a motherboard, a processor, RAM, etc, and build their own computer. They can do research on all the parts they need, how it works, make a project of it. Let's face it, we all know (or at least should know) someone who had no computer knowledge, read a book, and built a computer in under a weekend.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are allowed to bundle items for sale so long as they are also sold as individual items.Since you can buy a computer without the windows OS , you can also by one with windows .
You can even offer a discount for buying both hardware and software.Its the exact same concept as fast food restaurants employ .
You do n't want the fries and the drink with your gyro ?
Then do n't get the combo .
You want chicken in your gyro ?
Yeah , we used to sell a chicken gyro , now you buy a gyro and add chicken for an extra fifty cents .
I 'm sorry , that coupon is for dine-in only.On the other hand , a customer is not compelled to buy a manufactured computer in the first place .
Anyone can go out and buy a motherboard , a processor , RAM , etc , and build their own computer .
They can do research on all the parts they need , how it works , make a project of it .
Let 's face it , we all know ( or at least should know ) someone who had no computer knowledge , read a book , and built a computer in under a weekend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are allowed to bundle items for sale so long as they are also sold as individual items.Since you can buy a computer without the windows OS, you can also by one with windows.
You can even offer a discount for buying both hardware and software.Its the exact same concept as fast food restaurants employ.
You don't want the fries and the drink with your gyro?
Then don't get the combo.
You want chicken in your gyro?
Yeah, we used to sell a chicken gyro, now you buy a gyro and add chicken for an extra fifty cents.
I'm sorry, that coupon is for dine-in only.On the other hand, a customer is not compelled to buy a manufactured computer in the first place.
Anyone can go out and buy a motherboard, a processor, RAM, etc, and build their own computer.
They can do research on all the parts they need, how it works, make a project of it.
Let's face it, we all know (or at least should know) someone who had no computer knowledge, read a book, and built a computer in under a weekend.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295276</id>
	<title>Re:Benefited? What kind of logic is that?</title>
	<author>Urkki</author>
	<datestamp>1267301520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So if I murder that judge&rsquo;s children, I&rsquo;m good, as long as I don&rsquo;t benefit from it?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>What an idiot.</p></div><p>No, if you want to buy murder of the judge from a hitman, then the hitman can insist that you first buy murder of judge's children, and then downgrade to the murder of their parent, as long as the hitman doesn't benefit from the murder of the children.</p><p>Of course selling or buying murder is still a crime in itself, while selling or buying Windows isn't so much... But that doesn't mean you're "good" in either case<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So if I murder that judge    s children , I    m good , as long as I don    t benefit from it ?
; ) What an idiot.No , if you want to buy murder of the judge from a hitman , then the hitman can insist that you first buy murder of judge 's children , and then downgrade to the murder of their parent , as long as the hitman does n't benefit from the murder of the children.Of course selling or buying murder is still a crime in itself , while selling or buying Windows is n't so much... But that does n't mean you 're " good " in either case ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if I murder that judge’s children, I’m good, as long as I don’t benefit from it?
;)What an idiot.No, if you want to buy murder of the judge from a hitman, then the hitman can insist that you first buy murder of judge's children, and then downgrade to the murder of their parent, as long as the hitman doesn't benefit from the murder of the children.Of course selling or buying murder is still a crime in itself, while selling or buying Windows isn't so much... But that doesn't mean you're "good" in either case ;-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295384</id>
	<title>Re:But Windows OS still sucks.</title>
	<author>RollTRS</author>
	<datestamp>1267303560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>you have to jump through some pretty fiery logic hoops to come up with a good reason that a green plus would shrink a window.</p></div><p>Actually, the yellow minus minimizes something. The green plus enlarges a window. Give it a shot next time.

Not really a stretch.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>you have to jump through some pretty fiery logic hoops to come up with a good reason that a green plus would shrink a window.Actually , the yellow minus minimizes something .
The green plus enlarges a window .
Give it a shot next time .
Not really a stretch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you have to jump through some pretty fiery logic hoops to come up with a good reason that a green plus would shrink a window.Actually, the yellow minus minimizes something.
The green plus enlarges a window.
Give it a shot next time.
Not really a stretch.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294316</id>
	<title>Stupid Judges Ruling our Lives</title>
	<author>Nom du Keyboard</author>
	<datestamp>1267202220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The judge rejected Alvarado's accusations, saying that the plaintiff had not proved Microsoft benefited from the downgrade practices that it created and that OEMs implemented."</p></div></blockquote><p>
Another stupid judge ruling our lives. Don't you think a judge ought to know something about the field he is ruling in before he is allowed to make judgments there? Would be nice, wouldn't it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The judge rejected Alvarado 's accusations , saying that the plaintiff had not proved Microsoft benefited from the downgrade practices that it created and that OEMs implemented .
" Another stupid judge ruling our lives .
Do n't you think a judge ought to know something about the field he is ruling in before he is allowed to make judgments there ?
Would be nice , would n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The judge rejected Alvarado's accusations, saying that the plaintiff had not proved Microsoft benefited from the downgrade practices that it created and that OEMs implemented.
"
Another stupid judge ruling our lives.
Don't you think a judge ought to know something about the field he is ruling in before he is allowed to make judgments there?
Would be nice, wouldn't it?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31297800</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid Lawsuit</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1267296240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"That is subjective and further irrelevant because the question is not whether you wanted Vista on the machine but whether the purchaser wants Vista on the machine. To her and millions of others, Vista was very undesirable."</p><p>Sometimes a harsh response is appropriate:</p><p>Cry me a river. Don't like the terms, don't fucking buy Windows. Windows terms too inconvenient? Don't fucking buy Windows.<br>Refuse to learn a different OS? Refuse to learn how to route around inconvenience? Then tough shit.</p><p>Want XP? Buy a retail copy and run it in a VM. Too lazy to learn? Then you don't actually NEED XP so piss off. Apple wants your business, and Linux is available if you have any initiative at all.</p><p>Windows terms should become ever more onerous and inconvenient, and those who favor Free and Open software should welcome such moves by their enemies.<br>(It is perfectly reasonable to consider MSFT an enemy, despite those who consider it an enemy for illogical reasons.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" That is subjective and further irrelevant because the question is not whether you wanted Vista on the machine but whether the purchaser wants Vista on the machine .
To her and millions of others , Vista was very undesirable .
" Sometimes a harsh response is appropriate : Cry me a river .
Do n't like the terms , do n't fucking buy Windows .
Windows terms too inconvenient ?
Do n't fucking buy Windows.Refuse to learn a different OS ?
Refuse to learn how to route around inconvenience ?
Then tough shit.Want XP ?
Buy a retail copy and run it in a VM .
Too lazy to learn ?
Then you do n't actually NEED XP so piss off .
Apple wants your business , and Linux is available if you have any initiative at all.Windows terms should become ever more onerous and inconvenient , and those who favor Free and Open software should welcome such moves by their enemies .
( It is perfectly reasonable to consider MSFT an enemy , despite those who consider it an enemy for illogical reasons .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"That is subjective and further irrelevant because the question is not whether you wanted Vista on the machine but whether the purchaser wants Vista on the machine.
To her and millions of others, Vista was very undesirable.
"Sometimes a harsh response is appropriate:Cry me a river.
Don't like the terms, don't fucking buy Windows.
Windows terms too inconvenient?
Don't fucking buy Windows.Refuse to learn a different OS?
Refuse to learn how to route around inconvenience?
Then tough shit.Want XP?
Buy a retail copy and run it in a VM.
Too lazy to learn?
Then you don't actually NEED XP so piss off.
Apple wants your business, and Linux is available if you have any initiative at all.Windows terms should become ever more onerous and inconvenient, and those who favor Free and Open software should welcome such moves by their enemies.
(It is perfectly reasonable to consider MSFT an enemy, despite those who consider it an enemy for illogical reasons.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294328</id>
	<title>Why did this have to go to trial?</title>
	<author>schwit1</author>
	<datestamp>1267202340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why can't the system have a panel of retired judges look at civil cases before a full trial to ensure it is warranted? If the plaintiff wants to move anyway when told there is not case, so be it. But the loser and the loser's lawyer should have to pay something to the winner. There has to be some meaningful consequence for the losers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ca n't the system have a panel of retired judges look at civil cases before a full trial to ensure it is warranted ?
If the plaintiff wants to move anyway when told there is not case , so be it .
But the loser and the loser 's lawyer should have to pay something to the winner .
There has to be some meaningful consequence for the losers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why can't the system have a panel of retired judges look at civil cases before a full trial to ensure it is warranted?
If the plaintiff wants to move anyway when told there is not case, so be it.
But the loser and the loser's lawyer should have to pay something to the winner.
There has to be some meaningful consequence for the losers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31298440</id>
	<title>Re:They'd have to sell XP if it weren't for monopo</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1267299720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>72.54\% of Windows users continue to use XP, so it is abundantly clear that the the market prefers XP to 7/Vista.</i></p><p>Wow, giant fallacy in your first sentence.</p><p>If you said, 72.54\% of *new computer purchases in 2010* have XP installed, then you'd have a point. You'd also have a point if the upgrade to Windows 7 was free and trivially-easy.</p><p>As-is, though, you're just spouting nonsense. Do you think this site is full of jellybrains? Did you think we'd fall for that trick?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>72.54 \ % of Windows users continue to use XP , so it is abundantly clear that the the market prefers XP to 7/Vista.Wow , giant fallacy in your first sentence.If you said , 72.54 \ % of * new computer purchases in 2010 * have XP installed , then you 'd have a point .
You 'd also have a point if the upgrade to Windows 7 was free and trivially-easy.As-is , though , you 're just spouting nonsense .
Do you think this site is full of jellybrains ?
Did you think we 'd fall for that trick ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>72.54\% of Windows users continue to use XP, so it is abundantly clear that the the market prefers XP to 7/Vista.Wow, giant fallacy in your first sentence.If you said, 72.54\% of *new computer purchases in 2010* have XP installed, then you'd have a point.
You'd also have a point if the upgrade to Windows 7 was free and trivially-easy.As-is, though, you're just spouting nonsense.
Do you think this site is full of jellybrains?
Did you think we'd fall for that trick?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294318</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid Lawsuit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267202280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So this lady was suing because of what? Being slightly inconvenienced?</p></div></blockquote><p> In addition to tying the purchase of Vista to these machines, MS/OEMs charged a significant amount of money to replace Vista with the desired OS (Windows XP) which she claimed raised prices relative to a competitive marketplace which is certainly true.</p><blockquote><div><p>And Vista wasn't bad at all. Especially with a new machine that had the proper drivers.</p></div></blockquote><p>  That is subjective and further irrelevant because the question is not whether you wanted Vista on the machine but whether the purchaser wants Vista on the machine.  To her and millions of others, Vista was very undesirable.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So this lady was suing because of what ?
Being slightly inconvenienced ?
In addition to tying the purchase of Vista to these machines , MS/OEMs charged a significant amount of money to replace Vista with the desired OS ( Windows XP ) which she claimed raised prices relative to a competitive marketplace which is certainly true.And Vista was n't bad at all .
Especially with a new machine that had the proper drivers .
That is subjective and further irrelevant because the question is not whether you wanted Vista on the machine but whether the purchaser wants Vista on the machine .
To her and millions of others , Vista was very undesirable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So this lady was suing because of what?
Being slightly inconvenienced?
In addition to tying the purchase of Vista to these machines, MS/OEMs charged a significant amount of money to replace Vista with the desired OS (Windows XP) which she claimed raised prices relative to a competitive marketplace which is certainly true.And Vista wasn't bad at all.
Especially with a new machine that had the proper drivers.
That is subjective and further irrelevant because the question is not whether you wanted Vista on the machine but whether the purchaser wants Vista on the machine.
To her and millions of others, Vista was very undesirable.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294954</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid Lawsuit</title>
	<author>Tacvek</author>
	<datestamp>1267210320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You want headless you should be running Windows Server rather than regular Windows. You may have to jump through hoops to change from the server scheduler back to the regular scheduler if you feel that is important, and to turn off the aditional security features intended to prevent things like browsing the internet on the server, but once you do so, you basically have Windows Ultimate++.</p><p>Oh and Windows 7's Task Scheduler is equivalent to cron. It cannot be fully configured from the command line, and does not use the crontab format, but it otherwise has a super-set of the functionality of cron.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You want headless you should be running Windows Server rather than regular Windows .
You may have to jump through hoops to change from the server scheduler back to the regular scheduler if you feel that is important , and to turn off the aditional security features intended to prevent things like browsing the internet on the server , but once you do so , you basically have Windows Ultimate + + .Oh and Windows 7 's Task Scheduler is equivalent to cron .
It can not be fully configured from the command line , and does not use the crontab format , but it otherwise has a super-set of the functionality of cron .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You want headless you should be running Windows Server rather than regular Windows.
You may have to jump through hoops to change from the server scheduler back to the regular scheduler if you feel that is important, and to turn off the aditional security features intended to prevent things like browsing the internet on the server, but once you do so, you basically have Windows Ultimate++.Oh and Windows 7's Task Scheduler is equivalent to cron.
It cannot be fully configured from the command line, and does not use the crontab format, but it otherwise has a super-set of the functionality of cron.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294880</id>
	<title>Ridiculous lawsuit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267209000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft doesn't sell XP alone anymore. They are not required by law to, nor would there be any reasons they would be required by law to, sell XP. Allowing people to downgrade to XP is both not in Microsoft's best interests (as they want people in either Vista or 7) and entirely for the benefit of the customers that really really want it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft does n't sell XP alone anymore .
They are not required by law to , nor would there be any reasons they would be required by law to , sell XP .
Allowing people to downgrade to XP is both not in Microsoft 's best interests ( as they want people in either Vista or 7 ) and entirely for the benefit of the customers that really really want it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft doesn't sell XP alone anymore.
They are not required by law to, nor would there be any reasons they would be required by law to, sell XP.
Allowing people to downgrade to XP is both not in Microsoft's best interests (as they want people in either Vista or 7) and entirely for the benefit of the customers that really really want it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294440</id>
	<title>Benefited? What kind of logic is that?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1267203720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So if I murder that judge&rsquo;s children, I&rsquo;m good, as long as I don&rsquo;t benefit from it?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>What an idiot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So if I murder that judge    s children , I    m good , as long as I don    t benefit from it ?
; ) What an idiot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if I murder that judge’s children, I’m good, as long as I don’t benefit from it?
;)What an idiot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294302</id>
	<title>Re:How?</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1267202100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How did they benefit?  It's a lot easier to make the case that the end user benefits for actually recieving two (non-concurrent) licenses for the price of a single license, given that the old software has been discontinued.  I don't think the OEM price for Vista or Win7 is any different from XP, and the new versions are the replacements for the old - frankly they weren't required to offer an XP option at all (except by the oft-derided free market pressure that was upon them, of course - nothing bad to say about free markets when they help you out eh?), or any form of downgrade.  You don't see Apple offering a free downgrade option from Leopard to Tiger, do you?  Of course not, ordinarily the idea is absurd.  The only difference is that this upgrade was not well-received, and it was offer a downgrade or lose customers.</p><p>Since they weren't even required to continue selling XP at all, how the hell can you argue that selling a license that includes a free license for XP is anything but a value-add for the customer?</p><p>I have a hard time wrapping idea around the concept of <b>forcing</b> someone to sell something they don't want to sell.  The idea is absurd.  It's very mafia-ish at the very least.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How did they benefit ?
It 's a lot easier to make the case that the end user benefits for actually recieving two ( non-concurrent ) licenses for the price of a single license , given that the old software has been discontinued .
I do n't think the OEM price for Vista or Win7 is any different from XP , and the new versions are the replacements for the old - frankly they were n't required to offer an XP option at all ( except by the oft-derided free market pressure that was upon them , of course - nothing bad to say about free markets when they help you out eh ?
) , or any form of downgrade .
You do n't see Apple offering a free downgrade option from Leopard to Tiger , do you ?
Of course not , ordinarily the idea is absurd .
The only difference is that this upgrade was not well-received , and it was offer a downgrade or lose customers.Since they were n't even required to continue selling XP at all , how the hell can you argue that selling a license that includes a free license for XP is anything but a value-add for the customer ? I have a hard time wrapping idea around the concept of forcing someone to sell something they do n't want to sell .
The idea is absurd .
It 's very mafia-ish at the very least .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How did they benefit?
It's a lot easier to make the case that the end user benefits for actually recieving two (non-concurrent) licenses for the price of a single license, given that the old software has been discontinued.
I don't think the OEM price for Vista or Win7 is any different from XP, and the new versions are the replacements for the old - frankly they weren't required to offer an XP option at all (except by the oft-derided free market pressure that was upon them, of course - nothing bad to say about free markets when they help you out eh?
), or any form of downgrade.
You don't see Apple offering a free downgrade option from Leopard to Tiger, do you?
Of course not, ordinarily the idea is absurd.
The only difference is that this upgrade was not well-received, and it was offer a downgrade or lose customers.Since they weren't even required to continue selling XP at all, how the hell can you argue that selling a license that includes a free license for XP is anything but a value-add for the customer?I have a hard time wrapping idea around the concept of forcing someone to sell something they don't want to sell.
The idea is absurd.
It's very mafia-ish at the very least.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31311818</id>
	<title>Re:It's their copyright and they can do as they wa</title>
	<author>exomondo</author>
	<datestamp>1267376940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As long as Microsoft wants to enjoy the lucrative benefits of being a singular part of society's information infrastructure, society ought to have a say in how Microsoft is run.</p></div><p>Society does! And they vote with their wallets. You don't have to buy microsoft, there are plenty of other options but the reality is most people don't care! Just like with the browser issue, MS wasn't stopping anyone from running a different browser, other options either didn't offer compelling reasons to change or weren't marketed well enough so since there was no problem with the microsoft offering they just used it. I prefer Chrome to IE so i go and download that, i prefer Linux to Windows so - wherever possible - i use it instead, no one at MS is stopping me.</p><p>if they were actually preventing the use of an alternative then that would be a different story, but only because they are a monopoly, of course companies like Apple can do this without a problem.</p><p>Perhaps the reason for MS' occasional product downfalls is this consistent bullshit they are constantly having to deal with.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as Microsoft wants to enjoy the lucrative benefits of being a singular part of society 's information infrastructure , society ought to have a say in how Microsoft is run.Society does !
And they vote with their wallets .
You do n't have to buy microsoft , there are plenty of other options but the reality is most people do n't care !
Just like with the browser issue , MS was n't stopping anyone from running a different browser , other options either did n't offer compelling reasons to change or were n't marketed well enough so since there was no problem with the microsoft offering they just used it .
I prefer Chrome to IE so i go and download that , i prefer Linux to Windows so - wherever possible - i use it instead , no one at MS is stopping me.if they were actually preventing the use of an alternative then that would be a different story , but only because they are a monopoly , of course companies like Apple can do this without a problem.Perhaps the reason for MS ' occasional product downfalls is this consistent bullshit they are constantly having to deal with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as Microsoft wants to enjoy the lucrative benefits of being a singular part of society's information infrastructure, society ought to have a say in how Microsoft is run.Society does!
And they vote with their wallets.
You don't have to buy microsoft, there are plenty of other options but the reality is most people don't care!
Just like with the browser issue, MS wasn't stopping anyone from running a different browser, other options either didn't offer compelling reasons to change or weren't marketed well enough so since there was no problem with the microsoft offering they just used it.
I prefer Chrome to IE so i go and download that, i prefer Linux to Windows so - wherever possible - i use it instead, no one at MS is stopping me.if they were actually preventing the use of an alternative then that would be a different story, but only because they are a monopoly, of course companies like Apple can do this without a problem.Perhaps the reason for MS' occasional product downfalls is this consistent bullshit they are constantly having to deal with.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294184</id>
	<title>Microsoft?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267201080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did they write some adventure game once?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did they write some adventure game once ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did they write some adventure game once?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295170</id>
	<title>idiot 1st poster</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267213620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>um i dunno price maybe<br>and then you get marketing stats saying OH GEE look how good our OS is over others, when in fact it sucks ass.</p><p>Seriously im so pissed at some upgrades microsoft has done im not going to bother no more and 100\% to pirating it cracked, im sick a spyware and bs.</p><p>and they can enjoy one less "customer"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>um i dunno price maybeand then you get marketing stats saying OH GEE look how good our OS is over others , when in fact it sucks ass.Seriously im so pissed at some upgrades microsoft has done im not going to bother no more and 100 \ % to pirating it cracked , im sick a spyware and bs.and they can enjoy one less " customer "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>um i dunno price maybeand then you get marketing stats saying OH GEE look how good our OS is over others, when in fact it sucks ass.Seriously im so pissed at some upgrades microsoft has done im not going to bother no more and 100\% to pirating it cracked, im sick a spyware and bs.and they can enjoy one less "customer"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295102</id>
	<title>Re:How?</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1267212660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>A computer should be separate from the software; as such a customer should never be compelled to buy a computer conditional on also buying the software on the device.</i> </p><p>Bare bones sells to the enthusiast and the IT pro.</p><p>To everyone else a PC is purchased as an appliance like a stove or a refrigerator - and costs about the same.</p><p>It arrives as a properly configured and fully functional bundle of hardware and software or it is returned for refund or exchange under warranty.</p><p>Heathkit is thirty years dead.</p><p>You can't sell tech as a kit of parts and make it mass market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A computer should be separate from the software ; as such a customer should never be compelled to buy a computer conditional on also buying the software on the device .
Bare bones sells to the enthusiast and the IT pro.To everyone else a PC is purchased as an appliance like a stove or a refrigerator - and costs about the same.It arrives as a properly configured and fully functional bundle of hardware and software or it is returned for refund or exchange under warranty.Heathkit is thirty years dead.You ca n't sell tech as a kit of parts and make it mass market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A computer should be separate from the software; as such a customer should never be compelled to buy a computer conditional on also buying the software on the device.
Bare bones sells to the enthusiast and the IT pro.To everyone else a PC is purchased as an appliance like a stove or a refrigerator - and costs about the same.It arrives as a properly configured and fully functional bundle of hardware and software or it is returned for refund or exchange under warranty.Heathkit is thirty years dead.You can't sell tech as a kit of parts and make it mass market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295238</id>
	<title>Re:How?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267300860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It arrives as a properly configured and fully functional bundle of hardware and software or it is returned for refund or exchange under warranty.</p></div></blockquote><p> bwa ha ha ha ha...  Good one!  Properly configured Windows... That's a joke.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It arrives as a properly configured and fully functional bundle of hardware and software or it is returned for refund or exchange under warranty .
bwa ha ha ha ha... Good one !
Properly configured Windows... That 's a joke .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It arrives as a properly configured and fully functional bundle of hardware and software or it is returned for refund or exchange under warranty.
bwa ha ha ha ha...  Good one!
Properly configured Windows... That's a joke.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295668</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid Lawsuit</title>
	<author>Gadget\_Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1267266300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Even Microsoft admitted Vista was bad and worked hard on 7 to get it to market fast before Vista irrevocably harmed their image.</p></div><p>Actually, there was 3 years between the launch of Vista and Windows 7. Rather than being rushed out, that is actually longer than average for a Windows release. The major Windows NT releases have taken 1 year, 2 years, 3.5 years, 1.75 years, 5 years, and 3 years respectively. </p><p>The releases that took longer involved major upgrades to the code: 3.5 years for NT4 to 2000 and 5 years for XP to Vista. It seems that the Microsoft are aiming for 3 years between releases now (Windows 8 should be out in 2012).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even Microsoft admitted Vista was bad and worked hard on 7 to get it to market fast before Vista irrevocably harmed their image.Actually , there was 3 years between the launch of Vista and Windows 7 .
Rather than being rushed out , that is actually longer than average for a Windows release .
The major Windows NT releases have taken 1 year , 2 years , 3.5 years , 1.75 years , 5 years , and 3 years respectively .
The releases that took longer involved major upgrades to the code : 3.5 years for NT4 to 2000 and 5 years for XP to Vista .
It seems that the Microsoft are aiming for 3 years between releases now ( Windows 8 should be out in 2012 ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even Microsoft admitted Vista was bad and worked hard on 7 to get it to market fast before Vista irrevocably harmed their image.Actually, there was 3 years between the launch of Vista and Windows 7.
Rather than being rushed out, that is actually longer than average for a Windows release.
The major Windows NT releases have taken 1 year, 2 years, 3.5 years, 1.75 years, 5 years, and 3 years respectively.
The releases that took longer involved major upgrades to the code: 3.5 years for NT4 to 2000 and 5 years for XP to Vista.
It seems that the Microsoft are aiming for 3 years between releases now (Windows 8 should be out in 2012).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295082</id>
	<title>Re:But Windows OS still sucks.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267212360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Remember, you're speaking of the OS where people think it's more efficient/logical/elegant to hold the mouse down for seconds instead of adding a right-click button.<br>
<br>
Hint: They're not like us.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember , you 're speaking of the OS where people think it 's more efficient/logical/elegant to hold the mouse down for seconds instead of adding a right-click button .
Hint : They 're not like us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember, you're speaking of the OS where people think it's more efficient/logical/elegant to hold the mouse down for seconds instead of adding a right-click button.
Hint: They're not like us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294822</id>
	<title>They'd have to sell XP if it weren't for monopoly</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267208340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>72.54\% of Windows users continue to use XP, so it is abundantly clear that the the market prefers XP to 7/Vista.  If Microsoft had any competitors they would be forced to continue selling XP in order to avoid losing market share, however their monopoly means they do not have to worry about this since there literally aren't any competitors*.  They are therefore abusing their monopoly by forcing 7/Vista onto a market that does not want it.  What the judge says is true and Microsoft really aren't benefiting from this since they get a sale whether it's XP or 7, but that doesn't change the fact that this is a clear case of severe monopoly abuse.  I certainly feel abused because I want to buy a laptop with Windows XP but all the options in my price range come with Windows 7 Home Premium.  How can the judge conclude this isn't monopoly abuse?  Somebody get the EU!</p><p>*Mac OS is not a direct competitor to Windows since I can't legitimately install Mac OS on my PC.  Alternatives like Linux aren't quite ready for the mainstream desktop user yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>72.54 \ % of Windows users continue to use XP , so it is abundantly clear that the the market prefers XP to 7/Vista .
If Microsoft had any competitors they would be forced to continue selling XP in order to avoid losing market share , however their monopoly means they do not have to worry about this since there literally are n't any competitors * .
They are therefore abusing their monopoly by forcing 7/Vista onto a market that does not want it .
What the judge says is true and Microsoft really are n't benefiting from this since they get a sale whether it 's XP or 7 , but that does n't change the fact that this is a clear case of severe monopoly abuse .
I certainly feel abused because I want to buy a laptop with Windows XP but all the options in my price range come with Windows 7 Home Premium .
How can the judge conclude this is n't monopoly abuse ?
Somebody get the EU !
* Mac OS is not a direct competitor to Windows since I ca n't legitimately install Mac OS on my PC .
Alternatives like Linux are n't quite ready for the mainstream desktop user yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>72.54\% of Windows users continue to use XP, so it is abundantly clear that the the market prefers XP to 7/Vista.
If Microsoft had any competitors they would be forced to continue selling XP in order to avoid losing market share, however their monopoly means they do not have to worry about this since there literally aren't any competitors*.
They are therefore abusing their monopoly by forcing 7/Vista onto a market that does not want it.
What the judge says is true and Microsoft really aren't benefiting from this since they get a sale whether it's XP or 7, but that doesn't change the fact that this is a clear case of severe monopoly abuse.
I certainly feel abused because I want to buy a laptop with Windows XP but all the options in my price range come with Windows 7 Home Premium.
How can the judge conclude this isn't monopoly abuse?
Somebody get the EU!
*Mac OS is not a direct competitor to Windows since I can't legitimately install Mac OS on my PC.
Alternatives like Linux aren't quite ready for the mainstream desktop user yet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294216</id>
	<title>It's their copyright and they can do as they want!</title>
	<author>LostCluster</author>
	<datestamp>1267201380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft is under no obligation to give you a license for Windows XP if it doesn't want to. They've removed it from the general marketplace, but have left even Windows 3.1 in the MSDN subscription packages, even if those are a high price to pay for an old operating system, it's still the going rate.</p><p>What a waste of resources. This lawsuit had no hope, and the money spent would have been better off asking Congress to lower the copyright expiration standard for software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft is under no obligation to give you a license for Windows XP if it does n't want to .
They 've removed it from the general marketplace , but have left even Windows 3.1 in the MSDN subscription packages , even if those are a high price to pay for an old operating system , it 's still the going rate.What a waste of resources .
This lawsuit had no hope , and the money spent would have been better off asking Congress to lower the copyright expiration standard for software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft is under no obligation to give you a license for Windows XP if it doesn't want to.
They've removed it from the general marketplace, but have left even Windows 3.1 in the MSDN subscription packages, even if those are a high price to pay for an old operating system, it's still the going rate.What a waste of resources.
This lawsuit had no hope, and the money spent would have been better off asking Congress to lower the copyright expiration standard for software.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31296224</id>
	<title>Classic Theme?</title>
	<author>Kneo24</author>
	<datestamp>1267279080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're kidding, right? The classic theme looks monumentally different in just the colors alone. The feel and the navigation are the same, but color scheme is way off. There is a noticeable difference.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're kidding , right ?
The classic theme looks monumentally different in just the colors alone .
The feel and the navigation are the same , but color scheme is way off .
There is a noticeable difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're kidding, right?
The classic theme looks monumentally different in just the colors alone.
The feel and the navigation are the same, but color scheme is way off.
There is a noticeable difference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295470</id>
	<title>Re:But Windows OS still sucks.</title>
	<author>drsmithy</author>
	<datestamp>1267261680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>For what it's worth, when you click the maximize button on Windows on a window that is already maximizes, it too shrinks back--the button symbol doesn't reflect this, either. I can't really see a meaningful difference.</i>
</p><p>Actually, when you maximise a window in Windows, the button icon changes to reflect a different action will occur when you click it again.  This has been true since at least Windows 3.0.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For what it 's worth , when you click the maximize button on Windows on a window that is already maximizes , it too shrinks back--the button symbol does n't reflect this , either .
I ca n't really see a meaningful difference .
Actually , when you maximise a window in Windows , the button icon changes to reflect a different action will occur when you click it again .
This has been true since at least Windows 3.0 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> For what it's worth, when you click the maximize button on Windows on a window that is already maximizes, it too shrinks back--the button symbol doesn't reflect this, either.
I can't really see a meaningful difference.
Actually, when you maximise a window in Windows, the button icon changes to reflect a different action will occur when you click it again.
This has been true since at least Windows 3.0.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294928</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid Lawsuit</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1267209900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In addition to tying the purchase of Vista to these machines, <b>OEMs</b> charged a significant amount of money to replace Vista with the desired OS (Windows XP)</p> </div><p>Fixed that for you. It was strictly an OEM charge.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In addition to tying the purchase of Vista to these machines , OEMs charged a significant amount of money to replace Vista with the desired OS ( Windows XP ) Fixed that for you .
It was strictly an OEM charge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In addition to tying the purchase of Vista to these machines, OEMs charged a significant amount of money to replace Vista with the desired OS (Windows XP) Fixed that for you.
It was strictly an OEM charge.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294806</id>
	<title>what i think</title>
	<author>Sam36</author>
	<datestamp>1267208040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>

Slashdot, downstairs in my house has a major ant problem. Luckily I reside upstairs. Nevertheless, once every 5 minutes or so an ant comes trotting along my desk. First I place a coin or another object in its path. This confuses the ant, causing it to run off in a different direction, but my finger is waiting. I block its path with my finger. It runs in the opposite direction, but I anticipate this. Soon the ant is encircled by pens and other barriers, and if it attempts to climb them, swift punishment is issued. The ant remains in my arena. Then I take my knife, and nimbly place the tip onto one of its legs, holding it in place, then I press down hard and chop the leg off. The ant does not run, it merely enters a craze moving all around wildly. I allow it to suffer like this for a minute or so, chopping off another leg if it appears not to be in pain. Then comes a decision. Sometimes I will wait for another ant, and place it in the arena to see what it does. Occasionally it will pick up its comrade, and run off, but this is an offense punishable by death. Other times, I will merely watch the ant until it gives up. It will stop moving all but one leg. At this point I give in and slice the ant in two, putting it out of its misery. I save the corpses in a small pile, and once I have a considerable stack, I scatter them in my arena. This is where the real fun begins.<br> <br>

I venture outside to my back yard and find a red ant. This is my gladiator. I return to my room and place him in among the corpses. He wanders, confused. I do not let him leave. I pound the desk near him with my fingers, scaring him. I toughen my gladiator up until another ant comes along. I place the intruder into the arena. The red ant will go after the black ant, and they engage in mortal combat. If the red ant wins, another corpse decorates my arena. If the black ant vanquishes his foe, he wins the prize of life. I carry him in my hands and bring him downstairs and place him among his comrades. If he put up a good fight, I give him a warriors welcome and feed his colony with bread. If he barely defeated the red ant, he receives no food, only the gift of life. This is how i spent my afternoons.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot , downstairs in my house has a major ant problem .
Luckily I reside upstairs .
Nevertheless , once every 5 minutes or so an ant comes trotting along my desk .
First I place a coin or another object in its path .
This confuses the ant , causing it to run off in a different direction , but my finger is waiting .
I block its path with my finger .
It runs in the opposite direction , but I anticipate this .
Soon the ant is encircled by pens and other barriers , and if it attempts to climb them , swift punishment is issued .
The ant remains in my arena .
Then I take my knife , and nimbly place the tip onto one of its legs , holding it in place , then I press down hard and chop the leg off .
The ant does not run , it merely enters a craze moving all around wildly .
I allow it to suffer like this for a minute or so , chopping off another leg if it appears not to be in pain .
Then comes a decision .
Sometimes I will wait for another ant , and place it in the arena to see what it does .
Occasionally it will pick up its comrade , and run off , but this is an offense punishable by death .
Other times , I will merely watch the ant until it gives up .
It will stop moving all but one leg .
At this point I give in and slice the ant in two , putting it out of its misery .
I save the corpses in a small pile , and once I have a considerable stack , I scatter them in my arena .
This is where the real fun begins .
I venture outside to my back yard and find a red ant .
This is my gladiator .
I return to my room and place him in among the corpses .
He wanders , confused .
I do not let him leave .
I pound the desk near him with my fingers , scaring him .
I toughen my gladiator up until another ant comes along .
I place the intruder into the arena .
The red ant will go after the black ant , and they engage in mortal combat .
If the red ant wins , another corpse decorates my arena .
If the black ant vanquishes his foe , he wins the prize of life .
I carry him in my hands and bring him downstairs and place him among his comrades .
If he put up a good fight , I give him a warriors welcome and feed his colony with bread .
If he barely defeated the red ant , he receives no food , only the gift of life .
This is how i spent my afternoons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

Slashdot, downstairs in my house has a major ant problem.
Luckily I reside upstairs.
Nevertheless, once every 5 minutes or so an ant comes trotting along my desk.
First I place a coin or another object in its path.
This confuses the ant, causing it to run off in a different direction, but my finger is waiting.
I block its path with my finger.
It runs in the opposite direction, but I anticipate this.
Soon the ant is encircled by pens and other barriers, and if it attempts to climb them, swift punishment is issued.
The ant remains in my arena.
Then I take my knife, and nimbly place the tip onto one of its legs, holding it in place, then I press down hard and chop the leg off.
The ant does not run, it merely enters a craze moving all around wildly.
I allow it to suffer like this for a minute or so, chopping off another leg if it appears not to be in pain.
Then comes a decision.
Sometimes I will wait for another ant, and place it in the arena to see what it does.
Occasionally it will pick up its comrade, and run off, but this is an offense punishable by death.
Other times, I will merely watch the ant until it gives up.
It will stop moving all but one leg.
At this point I give in and slice the ant in two, putting it out of its misery.
I save the corpses in a small pile, and once I have a considerable stack, I scatter them in my arena.
This is where the real fun begins.
I venture outside to my back yard and find a red ant.
This is my gladiator.
I return to my room and place him in among the corpses.
He wanders, confused.
I do not let him leave.
I pound the desk near him with my fingers, scaring him.
I toughen my gladiator up until another ant comes along.
I place the intruder into the arena.
The red ant will go after the black ant, and they engage in mortal combat.
If the red ant wins, another corpse decorates my arena.
If the black ant vanquishes his foe, he wins the prize of life.
I carry him in my hands and bring him downstairs and place him among his comrades.
If he put up a good fight, I give him a warriors welcome and feed his colony with bread.
If he barely defeated the red ant, he receives no food, only the gift of life.
This is how i spent my afternoons.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294534</id>
	<title>Re:Why did this have to go to trial?</title>
	<author>avilliers</author>
	<datestamp>1267204680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As far as I can tell, anyway, this didn't go to trial.  Basically exactly what you wanted to happen, happened.  Except instead of "a panel of retired judges," it was one non-retired judge who's actually paid to make these decisions.
</p><p>
In terms of ending discovery or other interminable (and expensive) pre-trial research &amp; investigation--if you could make a suggestion that would do that without granting a virtual 'shield law' to civil fraudsters who don't want to be forced to cough up evidence they've committed fraud, I'd listen.  I occasionally wonder if a system with much more active &amp; stronger regulation and much less litigation would be a worthwhile trade-off.  I don't know, but I haven't thought of any others.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As far as I can tell , anyway , this did n't go to trial .
Basically exactly what you wanted to happen , happened .
Except instead of " a panel of retired judges , " it was one non-retired judge who 's actually paid to make these decisions .
In terms of ending discovery or other interminable ( and expensive ) pre-trial research &amp; investigation--if you could make a suggestion that would do that without granting a virtual 'shield law ' to civil fraudsters who do n't want to be forced to cough up evidence they 've committed fraud , I 'd listen .
I occasionally wonder if a system with much more active &amp; stronger regulation and much less litigation would be a worthwhile trade-off .
I do n't know , but I have n't thought of any others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As far as I can tell, anyway, this didn't go to trial.
Basically exactly what you wanted to happen, happened.
Except instead of "a panel of retired judges," it was one non-retired judge who's actually paid to make these decisions.
In terms of ending discovery or other interminable (and expensive) pre-trial research &amp; investigation--if you could make a suggestion that would do that without granting a virtual 'shield law' to civil fraudsters who don't want to be forced to cough up evidence they've committed fraud, I'd listen.
I occasionally wonder if a system with much more active &amp; stronger regulation and much less litigation would be a worthwhile trade-off.
I don't know, but I haven't thought of any others.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294328</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0045226_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31301792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0045226_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0045226_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0045226_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0045226_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31301810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0045226_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31296882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0045226_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31296834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0045226_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31303810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0045226_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31297160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0045226_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0045226_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0045226_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0045226_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0045226_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0045226_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0045226_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0045226_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31296104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0045226_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31311818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0045226_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31296304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0045226_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31297800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0045226_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31296002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0045226_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0045226_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31300576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0045226_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31297342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0045226_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0045226_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0045226_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0045226_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0045226_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0045226_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0045226_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0045226_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0045226_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0045226_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0045226_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0045226_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31296470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0045226_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31296368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0045226_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31298440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0045226_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31296224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0045226_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0045226_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0045226_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0045226_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0045226_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0045226_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31297420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0045226_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0045226_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31296220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0045226_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31296164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0045226_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0045226_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31312548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0045226_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31298158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0045226_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_0045226_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_0045226.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31296834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294814
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_0045226.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294822
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31298440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295186
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31296368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31297420
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_0045226.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294182
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294302
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31296304
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294924
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294586
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295102
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295238
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31296164
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31296470
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294638
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31296104
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31303810
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294258
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_0045226.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295240
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_0045226.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295618
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_0045226.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294900
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31298158
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31296882
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31311818
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295678
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295840
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_0045226.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31296224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294318
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31296220
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31297800
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294888
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294388
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295104
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294476
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295668
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_0045226.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294726
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_0045226.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294880
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_0045226.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294560
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294938
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295676
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295100
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295470
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31301792
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31300576
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31297342
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31297160
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31296002
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295384
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31301810
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295082
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294950
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_0045226.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31295276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31312548
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_0045226.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_0045226.31294330
</commentlist>
</conversation>
