<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_02_1344259</id>
	<title>New Chrome Beta Adds Privacy Controls, Translation Option</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1267540740000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>billandad writes <i>"Anyone would think the timing was deliberate; just as Microsoft is forced into giving users the option to switch from IE via the browser ballot screen, so <a href="http://chrome.blogspot.com/2010/03/polyglot-google-chrome-beta-with-new.html">Google introduces a new Chrome beta</a> with <a href="http://www.daniweb.com/news/story264236.html">enhanced privacy features</a> to chisel away at Microsoft's market share. '... you can control how browser cookies, images, JavaScript, plug-ins, and pop-ups are handled on a site-by-site basis. For example, you can set up cookie rules to allow cookies specifically only for sites that you trust, and block cookies from untrusted sites.' The new beta also adds language detection, and will prompt the user to translate a page if it's written in a foreign tongue."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>billandad writes " Anyone would think the timing was deliberate ; just as Microsoft is forced into giving users the option to switch from IE via the browser ballot screen , so Google introduces a new Chrome beta with enhanced privacy features to chisel away at Microsoft 's market share .
'... you can control how browser cookies , images , JavaScript , plug-ins , and pop-ups are handled on a site-by-site basis .
For example , you can set up cookie rules to allow cookies specifically only for sites that you trust , and block cookies from untrusted sites .
' The new beta also adds language detection , and will prompt the user to translate a page if it 's written in a foreign tongue .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>billandad writes "Anyone would think the timing was deliberate; just as Microsoft is forced into giving users the option to switch from IE via the browser ballot screen, so Google introduces a new Chrome beta with enhanced privacy features to chisel away at Microsoft's market share.
'... you can control how browser cookies, images, JavaScript, plug-ins, and pop-ups are handled on a site-by-site basis.
For example, you can set up cookie rules to allow cookies specifically only for sites that you trust, and block cookies from untrusted sites.
' The new beta also adds language detection, and will prompt the user to translate a page if it's written in a foreign tongue.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330144</id>
	<title>Privacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267546800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>... so Google introduces a new Chrome beta with enhanced privacy features to chisel away at Microsoft's market share.</p></div></blockquote><p>I'm guessing that the "enhanced privacy features" doesn't yet extend to being able to turn off the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google\_Chrome#Usage\_tracking" title="wikipedia.org">RLZ identifier</a> [wikipedia.org]?</p><p>(Good job we have <a href="http://www.srware.net/en/software\_srware\_iron.php" title="srware.net">SRWare Iron</a> [srware.net] instead)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... so Google introduces a new Chrome beta with enhanced privacy features to chisel away at Microsoft 's market share.I 'm guessing that the " enhanced privacy features " does n't yet extend to being able to turn off the RLZ identifier [ wikipedia.org ] ?
( Good job we have SRWare Iron [ srware.net ] instead )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... so Google introduces a new Chrome beta with enhanced privacy features to chisel away at Microsoft's market share.I'm guessing that the "enhanced privacy features" doesn't yet extend to being able to turn off the RLZ identifier [wikipedia.org]?
(Good job we have SRWare Iron [srware.net] instead)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330522</id>
	<title>Re:A bright future for the web...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267548480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Too bad Opera won't be part of that since literally no one uses it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Too bad Opera wo n't be part of that since literally no one uses it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too bad Opera won't be part of that since literally no one uses it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31331270</id>
	<title>Re:Translation Option</title>
	<author>pmontra</author>
	<datestamp>1267551840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How annoying that would be? Being a developer 90\%+ of the web sites I browse are in English which is not my native language. Hopefully it will respect the browser language settings (I use an English browser) or it can be switched off.</p><p>Answering to your question, maybe this is what you're looking for <a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/918" title="mozilla.org">https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/918</a> [mozilla.org] </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How annoying that would be ?
Being a developer 90 \ % + of the web sites I browse are in English which is not my native language .
Hopefully it will respect the browser language settings ( I use an English browser ) or it can be switched off.Answering to your question , maybe this is what you 're looking for https : //addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/918 [ mozilla.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How annoying that would be?
Being a developer 90\%+ of the web sites I browse are in English which is not my native language.
Hopefully it will respect the browser language settings (I use an English browser) or it can be switched off.Answering to your question, maybe this is what you're looking for https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/918 [mozilla.org] </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31340026</id>
	<title>Re:Interface</title>
	<author>dbug78</author>
	<datestamp>1267547340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/14284" title="mozilla.org" rel="nofollow">Try this</a> [mozilla.org] if you want to have that sort of layout in Firefox.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Try this [ mozilla.org ] if you want to have that sort of layout in Firefox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try this [mozilla.org] if you want to have that sort of layout in Firefox.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330200</id>
	<title>Re:Will we ever have control over flash cookies?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267546980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just disable plug-ins.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just disable plug-ins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just disable plug-ins.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31331178</id>
	<title>Re:A bright future for the web...</title>
	<author>jee4all</author>
	<datestamp>1267551360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Translate is a work in progress, so not all of the translations will be clean, crisp and accurate. But as with everything else Google does, Translate is an iterative technology that will Google will advance over time.

<a href="http://www.eweekeurope.co.uk/news/new-google-chrome-browser-beta-offers-auto-translation-5605" title="eweekeurope.co.uk" rel="nofollow"> </a> [eweekeurope.co.uk]<a href="http://www.eweekeurope.co.uk/news/new-google-chrome-browser-beta-offers-auto-translation-5605" title="eweekeurope.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.eweekeurope.co.uk/news/new-google-chrome-browser-beta-offers-auto-translation-5605</a> [eweekeurope.co.uk]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Translate is a work in progress , so not all of the translations will be clean , crisp and accurate .
But as with everything else Google does , Translate is an iterative technology that will Google will advance over time .
[ eweekeurope.co.uk ] http : //www.eweekeurope.co.uk/news/new-google-chrome-browser-beta-offers-auto-translation-5605 [ eweekeurope.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Translate is a work in progress, so not all of the translations will be clean, crisp and accurate.
But as with everything else Google does, Translate is an iterative technology that will Google will advance over time.
[eweekeurope.co.uk]http://www.eweekeurope.co.uk/news/new-google-chrome-browser-beta-offers-auto-translation-5605 [eweekeurope.co.uk]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330424</id>
	<title>Re:A bright future for the web...</title>
	<author>buruonbrails</author>
	<datestamp>1267548060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not a valid comparison. Windows is the major cash cow for MS, while IE doesn't generate direct revenue. The main reason why they are spending resources on IE is to promote Bing and a number of other products.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not a valid comparison .
Windows is the major cash cow for MS , while IE does n't generate direct revenue .
The main reason why they are spending resources on IE is to promote Bing and a number of other products .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not a valid comparison.
Windows is the major cash cow for MS, while IE doesn't generate direct revenue.
The main reason why they are spending resources on IE is to promote Bing and a number of other products.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329968</id>
	<title>Re:Google? Privacy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267545900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a bit the same. On technical grounds, I'd like to use Chrome instead of the increasingly bloated Firefox, and given sufficient privacy and security safeguards I could live without the other plug-ins I use.</p><p>But Chrome comes from Google, and releases often with an auto-updating mechanism. Given both Google's form for being wildly off-target on privacy issues (Buzz, etc.) and the openly dismissive/arrogant attitude exhibited by some of their senior executives, I just don't trust them not to pull a fast one and start logging every page I visit, or sneaking in ads at the browser level, or something along those lines.</p><p>Perhaps this could theoretically be avoided by careful checking of the small print before each update, or adjusting certain settings so things don't happen automatically, but I don't want to have to do that sort of thing just to be able to update my web browser safely and make sure no-one's sneaked anything in. I'll just use another browser instead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a bit the same .
On technical grounds , I 'd like to use Chrome instead of the increasingly bloated Firefox , and given sufficient privacy and security safeguards I could live without the other plug-ins I use.But Chrome comes from Google , and releases often with an auto-updating mechanism .
Given both Google 's form for being wildly off-target on privacy issues ( Buzz , etc .
) and the openly dismissive/arrogant attitude exhibited by some of their senior executives , I just do n't trust them not to pull a fast one and start logging every page I visit , or sneaking in ads at the browser level , or something along those lines.Perhaps this could theoretically be avoided by careful checking of the small print before each update , or adjusting certain settings so things do n't happen automatically , but I do n't want to have to do that sort of thing just to be able to update my web browser safely and make sure no-one 's sneaked anything in .
I 'll just use another browser instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a bit the same.
On technical grounds, I'd like to use Chrome instead of the increasingly bloated Firefox, and given sufficient privacy and security safeguards I could live without the other plug-ins I use.But Chrome comes from Google, and releases often with an auto-updating mechanism.
Given both Google's form for being wildly off-target on privacy issues (Buzz, etc.
) and the openly dismissive/arrogant attitude exhibited by some of their senior executives, I just don't trust them not to pull a fast one and start logging every page I visit, or sneaking in ads at the browser level, or something along those lines.Perhaps this could theoretically be avoided by careful checking of the small print before each update, or adjusting certain settings so things don't happen automatically, but I don't want to have to do that sort of thing just to be able to update my web browser safely and make sure no-one's sneaked anything in.
I'll just use another browser instead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330976</id>
	<title>Privacy and translation don't really mix</title>
	<author>somejeff</author>
	<datestamp>1267550460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can imagine me visiting my online banking and every page I hit gets sent to Google to detect my language and offer to translate my transactions and balances.  Does anyone else wonder how much Google knows about my spending habits?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can imagine me visiting my online banking and every page I hit gets sent to Google to detect my language and offer to translate my transactions and balances .
Does anyone else wonder how much Google knows about my spending habits ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can imagine me visiting my online banking and every page I hit gets sent to Google to detect my language and offer to translate my transactions and balances.
Does anyone else wonder how much Google knows about my spending habits?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31336704</id>
	<title>Re:A bright future for the web...</title>
	<author>boarsai</author>
	<datestamp>1267528740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yep, the future of the web is looking good, except for IE that is lagging behind. I wonder, why MS wouldn't just get over it and discontinue the development of its monstrous browser. They've lost the browser war, why wouldn't they put their resources elsewhere?


At least IE8 is better than its predecessors and IE9 looks even better, but still..</p></div><p>Simply because they can set the default search to be bing... which will allow them to potentially reap the advertising revenue and search data for other web related projects.</p><p>They look at google and get giddy at all that money they could be tapping into. </p><p>That and they love the screams web developers make in frustration when dealing with their legacy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep , the future of the web is looking good , except for IE that is lagging behind .
I wonder , why MS would n't just get over it and discontinue the development of its monstrous browser .
They 've lost the browser war , why would n't they put their resources elsewhere ?
At least IE8 is better than its predecessors and IE9 looks even better , but still..Simply because they can set the default search to be bing... which will allow them to potentially reap the advertising revenue and search data for other web related projects.They look at google and get giddy at all that money they could be tapping into .
That and they love the screams web developers make in frustration when dealing with their legacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep, the future of the web is looking good, except for IE that is lagging behind.
I wonder, why MS wouldn't just get over it and discontinue the development of its monstrous browser.
They've lost the browser war, why wouldn't they put their resources elsewhere?
At least IE8 is better than its predecessors and IE9 looks even better, but still..Simply because they can set the default search to be bing... which will allow them to potentially reap the advertising revenue and search data for other web related projects.They look at google and get giddy at all that money they could be tapping into.
That and they love the screams web developers make in frustration when dealing with their legacy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330830</id>
	<title>Master Password</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267549860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about a master password so that all of my passwords aren't stored unencrypted?  Even better, add a timeout option so that it relocks the password database after a specified period of inactivity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about a master password so that all of my passwords are n't stored unencrypted ?
Even better , add a timeout option so that it relocks the password database after a specified period of inactivity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about a master password so that all of my passwords aren't stored unencrypted?
Even better, add a timeout option so that it relocks the password database after a specified period of inactivity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31340374</id>
	<title>Re:Google? Privacy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267550340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why are you trusting anyone with your privacy? Safeguarding your privacy is not something you leave to others, you educate yourself and do something about it, like use Tor and SSL and VPN and and and...</p><p>It's like a million Microsoft shills never stop squealing about Google to keep the bad light off of Microsoft. Enough already, SHUTUP!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are you trusting anyone with your privacy ?
Safeguarding your privacy is not something you leave to others , you educate yourself and do something about it , like use Tor and SSL and VPN and and and...It 's like a million Microsoft shills never stop squealing about Google to keep the bad light off of Microsoft .
Enough already , SHUTUP !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are you trusting anyone with your privacy?
Safeguarding your privacy is not something you leave to others, you educate yourself and do something about it, like use Tor and SSL and VPN and and and...It's like a million Microsoft shills never stop squealing about Google to keep the bad light off of Microsoft.
Enough already, SHUTUP!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330998</id>
	<title>Re:Choices</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1267550520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Certainly Google is going after the low hanging fruit that we know as MS.  For those of us who use MS for serious work, as well as Apple for other serious work, it is unclear why any of this Google paraphernalia matters.  I have looked at Chrome on the PC.  On my machines I can't get java or flash to run reliably.  As far as the Macs, Camino already has all this stuff plus Flash Control.  I don't know why the Google folks are so afraid of Adobe that they won't include the same functionality.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Certainly Google is going after the low hanging fruit that we know as MS. For those of us who use MS for serious work , as well as Apple for other serious work , it is unclear why any of this Google paraphernalia matters .
I have looked at Chrome on the PC .
On my machines I ca n't get java or flash to run reliably .
As far as the Macs , Camino already has all this stuff plus Flash Control .
I do n't know why the Google folks are so afraid of Adobe that they wo n't include the same functionality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Certainly Google is going after the low hanging fruit that we know as MS.  For those of us who use MS for serious work, as well as Apple for other serious work, it is unclear why any of this Google paraphernalia matters.
I have looked at Chrome on the PC.
On my machines I can't get java or flash to run reliably.
As far as the Macs, Camino already has all this stuff plus Flash Control.
I don't know why the Google folks are so afraid of Adobe that they won't include the same functionality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329850</id>
	<title>Will we ever have control over flash cookies?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267545300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems no browser offers the functionality to wipe those out, and yet they can contain malicious code (there was a recent infection at the office).</p><p>*praying for the demise of flash*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems no browser offers the functionality to wipe those out , and yet they can contain malicious code ( there was a recent infection at the office ) .
* praying for the demise of flash *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems no browser offers the functionality to wipe those out, and yet they can contain malicious code (there was a recent infection at the office).
*praying for the demise of flash*</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329886</id>
	<title>Re:Google? Privacy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267545480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>there's <a href="http://www.srware.net/en/software\_srware\_iron.php" title="srware.net" rel="nofollow">Iron</a> [srware.net], a browser that uses the same codebase (chromium) of google chrome but with the anti-privacy features stripped down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>there 's Iron [ srware.net ] , a browser that uses the same codebase ( chromium ) of google chrome but with the anti-privacy features stripped down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there's Iron [srware.net], a browser that uses the same codebase (chromium) of google chrome but with the anti-privacy features stripped down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330782</id>
	<title>The features I want</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267549560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since everyone seems to be listing off what they think Chrome should and should not be doing for new features, here's my list:<br>
<br>
Add an option to make it look like every other window i've got. Maybe some people like the round-cornered title bar-less window, but i find it annoying. Not only is it aesthetically annoying to have it so different from everything else, but i often have trouble finding it amidst all the other windows i've got open because i mentally locate everything by the title bar. I often have to select Chrome from the task bar just to find it when it turns out that the part which should have been the title bar was already visible.<br>
<br>
The folder tab bar needs to be relocatable to the "normal" position just above the pages themselves. They can use whatever structural hierarchy behind the scenes that they want, but when i look at Firefox i visualize a filing cabinet full of files. When look at Chrome i can't help but visualize an entire row of filing cabinets, one cabinet for each individual file folder. In a related usability comment, i often do a google search for a term, open up multiple tabs from that search, and then do a text find on the search term on each of the pages. In Firefox this is easy because the search box is part of the browser so i can just switch pages and hit the "next" button. In Chrome the search box is (of course) part of the tab, so i have to open a new search box every time i switch to a new tab. This is not a helpful feature.<br>
<br>
I do appreciate that unlike with Firefox i can actually reclaim memory by closing old tabs. (Despite repeated claims of memory improvements in every version of Firefox, after a couple days of use it's still sucking up a gig and a half of memory, and closing individual tabs has almost no affect on the usage.) However in the 24 hour trial i did Chrome ended up using 886 megs of private memory to Firefox's 911 megs, which is a pretty even comparison, but \_5275\_ megs of virtual memory to Firefox's 1038 megs!<br>
<br>
They also need to add a drop-down menu to let you jump to a specific tab, like Firefox, and they need to add a minimum width for the tabs, like Firefox, and they need to add a scrollable tab bar, like Firefox. <a href="http://blog.chromium.org/2009/01/tabbed-browsing-in-google-chrome.html" title="chromium.org">The Chrome developers have made a blog post explaining why those are all bad design decisions.</a> [chromium.org] They admit that their current system causes problems, but they don't want to implement a "bad" design choice, and they they don't want to give the user options (because that's another "bad" design choice.)<br>
<br>
Okay guys, you made that post a YEAR ago. You STILL haven't figured out a better way to fix those problems. Perhaps you ought to let us use Firefox's "bad" solutions rather than trying to convince us to continue using an admittedly broken product while you sit around failing to think of the "right" way to do it.<br>
<br>
And i don't care how much you value your opinions as designers or how much you think reducing options "forces you to come up with the right approach," no single system is going to be the "right" one for everyone, and giving the users options to customize software to fit their own needs is not a failure! This is the same mindset that resulted in minimizing the options for privacy in Buzz, because you were so sure you'd come up with the perfect way to handle privacy. It turns out that not everyone thinks the same as you. Of course in that case everyone had the choice between canceling their gmail account or complaining loudly until you fixed things. It's "too bad" for you that in the case of Chrome everyone who disagrees with your design choices can just quietly go back to Firefox or Safari or IE or whatever else they were using before without voicing loud complaints.
<br>
And as a final note, i'm also annoyed by the stupid behaviour of tabs getting opened right after the tab you opened them from. I read their reasons about why they did that in the above post. It doesn't fit my usage. It would have been nice if they'd made</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since everyone seems to be listing off what they think Chrome should and should not be doing for new features , here 's my list : Add an option to make it look like every other window i 've got .
Maybe some people like the round-cornered title bar-less window , but i find it annoying .
Not only is it aesthetically annoying to have it so different from everything else , but i often have trouble finding it amidst all the other windows i 've got open because i mentally locate everything by the title bar .
I often have to select Chrome from the task bar just to find it when it turns out that the part which should have been the title bar was already visible .
The folder tab bar needs to be relocatable to the " normal " position just above the pages themselves .
They can use whatever structural hierarchy behind the scenes that they want , but when i look at Firefox i visualize a filing cabinet full of files .
When look at Chrome i ca n't help but visualize an entire row of filing cabinets , one cabinet for each individual file folder .
In a related usability comment , i often do a google search for a term , open up multiple tabs from that search , and then do a text find on the search term on each of the pages .
In Firefox this is easy because the search box is part of the browser so i can just switch pages and hit the " next " button .
In Chrome the search box is ( of course ) part of the tab , so i have to open a new search box every time i switch to a new tab .
This is not a helpful feature .
I do appreciate that unlike with Firefox i can actually reclaim memory by closing old tabs .
( Despite repeated claims of memory improvements in every version of Firefox , after a couple days of use it 's still sucking up a gig and a half of memory , and closing individual tabs has almost no affect on the usage .
) However in the 24 hour trial i did Chrome ended up using 886 megs of private memory to Firefox 's 911 megs , which is a pretty even comparison , but \ _5275 \ _ megs of virtual memory to Firefox 's 1038 megs !
They also need to add a drop-down menu to let you jump to a specific tab , like Firefox , and they need to add a minimum width for the tabs , like Firefox , and they need to add a scrollable tab bar , like Firefox .
The Chrome developers have made a blog post explaining why those are all bad design decisions .
[ chromium.org ] They admit that their current system causes problems , but they do n't want to implement a " bad " design choice , and they they do n't want to give the user options ( because that 's another " bad " design choice .
) Okay guys , you made that post a YEAR ago .
You STILL have n't figured out a better way to fix those problems .
Perhaps you ought to let us use Firefox 's " bad " solutions rather than trying to convince us to continue using an admittedly broken product while you sit around failing to think of the " right " way to do it .
And i do n't care how much you value your opinions as designers or how much you think reducing options " forces you to come up with the right approach , " no single system is going to be the " right " one for everyone , and giving the users options to customize software to fit their own needs is not a failure !
This is the same mindset that resulted in minimizing the options for privacy in Buzz , because you were so sure you 'd come up with the perfect way to handle privacy .
It turns out that not everyone thinks the same as you .
Of course in that case everyone had the choice between canceling their gmail account or complaining loudly until you fixed things .
It 's " too bad " for you that in the case of Chrome everyone who disagrees with your design choices can just quietly go back to Firefox or Safari or IE or whatever else they were using before without voicing loud complaints .
And as a final note , i 'm also annoyed by the stupid behaviour of tabs getting opened right after the tab you opened them from .
I read their reasons about why they did that in the above post .
It does n't fit my usage .
It would have been nice if they 'd made</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since everyone seems to be listing off what they think Chrome should and should not be doing for new features, here's my list:

Add an option to make it look like every other window i've got.
Maybe some people like the round-cornered title bar-less window, but i find it annoying.
Not only is it aesthetically annoying to have it so different from everything else, but i often have trouble finding it amidst all the other windows i've got open because i mentally locate everything by the title bar.
I often have to select Chrome from the task bar just to find it when it turns out that the part which should have been the title bar was already visible.
The folder tab bar needs to be relocatable to the "normal" position just above the pages themselves.
They can use whatever structural hierarchy behind the scenes that they want, but when i look at Firefox i visualize a filing cabinet full of files.
When look at Chrome i can't help but visualize an entire row of filing cabinets, one cabinet for each individual file folder.
In a related usability comment, i often do a google search for a term, open up multiple tabs from that search, and then do a text find on the search term on each of the pages.
In Firefox this is easy because the search box is part of the browser so i can just switch pages and hit the "next" button.
In Chrome the search box is (of course) part of the tab, so i have to open a new search box every time i switch to a new tab.
This is not a helpful feature.
I do appreciate that unlike with Firefox i can actually reclaim memory by closing old tabs.
(Despite repeated claims of memory improvements in every version of Firefox, after a couple days of use it's still sucking up a gig and a half of memory, and closing individual tabs has almost no affect on the usage.
) However in the 24 hour trial i did Chrome ended up using 886 megs of private memory to Firefox's 911 megs, which is a pretty even comparison, but \_5275\_ megs of virtual memory to Firefox's 1038 megs!
They also need to add a drop-down menu to let you jump to a specific tab, like Firefox, and they need to add a minimum width for the tabs, like Firefox, and they need to add a scrollable tab bar, like Firefox.
The Chrome developers have made a blog post explaining why those are all bad design decisions.
[chromium.org] They admit that their current system causes problems, but they don't want to implement a "bad" design choice, and they they don't want to give the user options (because that's another "bad" design choice.
)

Okay guys, you made that post a YEAR ago.
You STILL haven't figured out a better way to fix those problems.
Perhaps you ought to let us use Firefox's "bad" solutions rather than trying to convince us to continue using an admittedly broken product while you sit around failing to think of the "right" way to do it.
And i don't care how much you value your opinions as designers or how much you think reducing options "forces you to come up with the right approach," no single system is going to be the "right" one for everyone, and giving the users options to customize software to fit their own needs is not a failure!
This is the same mindset that resulted in minimizing the options for privacy in Buzz, because you were so sure you'd come up with the perfect way to handle privacy.
It turns out that not everyone thinks the same as you.
Of course in that case everyone had the choice between canceling their gmail account or complaining loudly until you fixed things.
It's "too bad" for you that in the case of Chrome everyone who disagrees with your design choices can just quietly go back to Firefox or Safari or IE or whatever else they were using before without voicing loud complaints.
And as a final note, i'm also annoyed by the stupid behaviour of tabs getting opened right after the tab you opened them from.
I read their reasons about why they did that in the above post.
It doesn't fit my usage.
It would have been nice if they'd made</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31332934</id>
	<title>Still no master password feature</title>
	<author>GallopingGreen</author>
	<datestamp>1267557840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So can't use this as a serious browser - will stick with FF for now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So ca n't use this as a serious browser - will stick with FF for now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So can't use this as a serious browser - will stick with FF for now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31340784</id>
	<title>Re:Interface</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267554360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Opera 10.5 looks like Windows 7 style UI to me, not a copy of Chrome.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Opera 10.5 looks like Windows 7 style UI to me , not a copy of Chrome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Opera 10.5 looks like Windows 7 style UI to me, not a copy of Chrome.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31331912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31331912</id>
	<title>Re:Interface</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1267554300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The main reason I use Chrome is because of the excellent interface. When maximized, the tabs push right against the screen edge. I've not seen any app that makes such efficient usage of screen real estate. I've tried to configure FireFox, using TinyMenu to reduce the amount of white space. But it's still not as efficient.</p></div><p>Chrome had set a new trend for browser UIs. For example, the just-released Opera 10.50, out of the box, largely <a href="http://images.techtree.com/ttimages/story/109635\_pvt-400.JPG" title="techtree.com">copies Chrome UI</a> [techtree.com] in default configuration, complete with tabs-in-title-bar. I suspect Firefox will follow suit eventually.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The main reason I use Chrome is because of the excellent interface .
When maximized , the tabs push right against the screen edge .
I 've not seen any app that makes such efficient usage of screen real estate .
I 've tried to configure FireFox , using TinyMenu to reduce the amount of white space .
But it 's still not as efficient.Chrome had set a new trend for browser UIs .
For example , the just-released Opera 10.50 , out of the box , largely copies Chrome UI [ techtree.com ] in default configuration , complete with tabs-in-title-bar .
I suspect Firefox will follow suit eventually .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The main reason I use Chrome is because of the excellent interface.
When maximized, the tabs push right against the screen edge.
I've not seen any app that makes such efficient usage of screen real estate.
I've tried to configure FireFox, using TinyMenu to reduce the amount of white space.
But it's still not as efficient.Chrome had set a new trend for browser UIs.
For example, the just-released Opera 10.50, out of the box, largely copies Chrome UI [techtree.com] in default configuration, complete with tabs-in-title-bar.
I suspect Firefox will follow suit eventually.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330422</id>
	<title>Re:Will we ever have control over flash cookies?</title>
	<author>maxwell demon</author>
	<datestamp>1267548000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It seems no browser offers the functionality to wipe those out, and yet they can contain malicious code (there was a recent infection at the office).</p></div><p>You might be interested in the <a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/6623" title="mozilla.org" rel="nofollow">BetterPrivacy plugin</a> [mozilla.org] for Firefox.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems no browser offers the functionality to wipe those out , and yet they can contain malicious code ( there was a recent infection at the office ) .You might be interested in the BetterPrivacy plugin [ mozilla.org ] for Firefox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems no browser offers the functionality to wipe those out, and yet they can contain malicious code (there was a recent infection at the office).You might be interested in the BetterPrivacy plugin [mozilla.org] for Firefox.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329768</id>
	<title>Re:A bright future for the web...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267544940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yep, the future of the web is looking good, except for IE that is lagging behind. I wonder, why MS wouldn't just get over it and discontinue the development of its monstrous browser. They've lost the browser war, why wouldn't they put their resources elsewhere?
<br>
At least IE8 is better than its predecessors and IE9 looks even better, but still..</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep , the future of the web is looking good , except for IE that is lagging behind .
I wonder , why MS would n't just get over it and discontinue the development of its monstrous browser .
They 've lost the browser war , why would n't they put their resources elsewhere ?
At least IE8 is better than its predecessors and IE9 looks even better , but still. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep, the future of the web is looking good, except for IE that is lagging behind.
I wonder, why MS wouldn't just get over it and discontinue the development of its monstrous browser.
They've lost the browser war, why wouldn't they put their resources elsewhere?
At least IE8 is better than its predecessors and IE9 looks even better, but still..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329736</id>
	<title>I Hate Chrome</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267544820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Chrome's file upload looks different than any other web browser.</p><p>Naturally it's impossible to style, and calls on the developer to implement browser-specific hacks.</p><p>Why can't Chrome be more like internet explorer or firefox?</p><p>Doesn't Google ever leave well enough alone??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Chrome 's file upload looks different than any other web browser.Naturally it 's impossible to style , and calls on the developer to implement browser-specific hacks.Why ca n't Chrome be more like internet explorer or firefox ? Does n't Google ever leave well enough alone ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chrome's file upload looks different than any other web browser.Naturally it's impossible to style, and calls on the developer to implement browser-specific hacks.Why can't Chrome be more like internet explorer or firefox?Doesn't Google ever leave well enough alone?
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31333030</id>
	<title>Re:A bright future for the web...</title>
	<author>HerculesMO</author>
	<datestamp>1267558140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Honestly, just looking at Firefox it really is actually not keeping pace with the rest of the browsers. IE9 might be a big step forward, but MS usually bundles big things together and does a version release rather than beta releases like Chrome. We'll see on that I guess.</p><p>As for FF, I'm rather disappointed. It's getting slower and slower in terms of development, and if it weren't for some key extensions I use I'd be using Chrome right now. Some work in Chrome, some aren't there 100\%, but when the extensions in Chrome are equal to or better than FF... there's no need to use FF any more.</p><p>I mean, I like open source but I honestly don't care what I'm using as long as it works best -- open source or not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly , just looking at Firefox it really is actually not keeping pace with the rest of the browsers .
IE9 might be a big step forward , but MS usually bundles big things together and does a version release rather than beta releases like Chrome .
We 'll see on that I guess.As for FF , I 'm rather disappointed .
It 's getting slower and slower in terms of development , and if it were n't for some key extensions I use I 'd be using Chrome right now .
Some work in Chrome , some are n't there 100 \ % , but when the extensions in Chrome are equal to or better than FF... there 's no need to use FF any more.I mean , I like open source but I honestly do n't care what I 'm using as long as it works best -- open source or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly, just looking at Firefox it really is actually not keeping pace with the rest of the browsers.
IE9 might be a big step forward, but MS usually bundles big things together and does a version release rather than beta releases like Chrome.
We'll see on that I guess.As for FF, I'm rather disappointed.
It's getting slower and slower in terms of development, and if it weren't for some key extensions I use I'd be using Chrome right now.
Some work in Chrome, some aren't there 100\%, but when the extensions in Chrome are equal to or better than FF... there's no need to use FF any more.I mean, I like open source but I honestly don't care what I'm using as long as it works best -- open source or not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330308</id>
	<title>Re:Beta products from Google!</title>
	<author>slack\_prad</author>
	<datestamp>1267547580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Soon. This isn't like the usual google product. The beta is 4.1.x.x. The stable version I think is 3.x. And the daily developer version is at 5.x.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Soon .
This is n't like the usual google product .
The beta is 4.1.x.x .
The stable version I think is 3.x .
And the daily developer version is at 5.x .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Soon.
This isn't like the usual google product.
The beta is 4.1.x.x.
The stable version I think is 3.x.
And the daily developer version is at 5.x.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31334864</id>
	<title>Re:The features I want</title>
	<author>Ant P.</author>
	<datestamp>1267521840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're complaining about Chrome having an inconsistent UI? <em>On a <a href="http://www.newgnu.net/vista.png" title="newgnu.net">Microsoft</a> [newgnu.net] OS?</em></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're complaining about Chrome having an inconsistent UI ?
On a Microsoft [ newgnu.net ] OS ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're complaining about Chrome having an inconsistent UI?
On a Microsoft [newgnu.net] OS?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330594</id>
	<title>Katavir&#225;g vir&#225;gbolt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267548720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>will have to bookmark this site. thanks</p><p> <a href="../../undefined/" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">Katavir&#225;g vir&#225;gbolt - vir&#225;g<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,</a> [slashdot.org] <a href="../../undefined/" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow"> vir&#225;gbolt </a> [slashdot.org],  <a href="../../undefined/" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">koszor&#250;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,</a> [slashdot.org] <a href="../../undefined/" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">s&#237;rcsokor<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,</a> [slashdot.org] <a href="../../undefined/" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">vir&#225;g k&#233;pek </a> [slashdot.org],  <a href="../../undefined/" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">vir&#225;gos k&#233;pek<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,</a> [slashdot.org] <a href="../../undefined/" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">megrendel&#233;s<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,</a> [slashdot.org] <a href="../../undefined/" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">fut&#225;r</a> [slashdot.org] </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>will have to bookmark this site .
thanks Katavir   g vir   gbolt - vir   g , [ slashdot.org ] vir   gbolt [ slashdot.org ] , koszor   , [ slashdot.org ] s   rcsokor , [ slashdot.org ] vir   g k   pek [ slashdot.org ] , vir   gos k   pek , [ slashdot.org ] megrendel   s , [ slashdot.org ] fut   r [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>will have to bookmark this site.
thanks Katavirág virágbolt - virág , [slashdot.org]  virágbolt  [slashdot.org],  koszorú , [slashdot.org] sírcsokor , [slashdot.org] virág képek  [slashdot.org],  virágos képek , [slashdot.org] megrendelés , [slashdot.org] futár [slashdot.org] </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31332294</id>
	<title>Between you and me...</title>
	<author>frank\_adrian314159</author>
	<datestamp>1267555680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd rather that they work on some fundamental usability issues - like returning to the same point in a long page when you perform a back action.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd rather that they work on some fundamental usability issues - like returning to the same point in a long page when you perform a back action .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd rather that they work on some fundamental usability issues - like returning to the same point in a long page when you perform a back action.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329640</id>
	<title>A bright future for the web...</title>
	<author>levell</author>
	<datestamp>1267544340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And Opera 10.50 has
<a href="http://www.pcworld.com/article/190533/opera\_updates\_web\_browser\_to\_version\_105.html" title="pcworld.com">just been released</a> [pcworld.com] too,
the first version of Opera with &lt;Video&gt; tag support.</p><p>With Chrome, Safari and Firefox all evolving quickly, the future of the web is looking good. I just wish they
would all support an open, royalty-free codec.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And Opera 10.50 has just been released [ pcworld.com ] too , the first version of Opera with tag support.With Chrome , Safari and Firefox all evolving quickly , the future of the web is looking good .
I just wish they would all support an open , royalty-free codec .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And Opera 10.50 has
just been released [pcworld.com] too,
the first version of Opera with  tag support.With Chrome, Safari and Firefox all evolving quickly, the future of the web is looking good.
I just wish they
would all support an open, royalty-free codec.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330104</id>
	<title>And this is news?</title>
	<author>QuietLagoon</author>
	<datestamp>1267546620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i> [with Chrome] you can control how browser cookies, images, JavaScript, plug-ins, and pop-ups are handled on a site-by-site basis. </i> <p>.</p><p>

Opera has had this ability for years, FireFox nearly as long.</p><p>

The headline should be more along the lines of, "<b> <i>Chrome finally starting to catch up to the competition</i> </b>"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>[ with Chrome ] you can control how browser cookies , images , JavaScript , plug-ins , and pop-ups are handled on a site-by-site basis .
. Opera has had this ability for years , FireFox nearly as long .
The headline should be more along the lines of , " Chrome finally starting to catch up to the competition "</tokentext>
<sentencetext> [with Chrome] you can control how browser cookies, images, JavaScript, plug-ins, and pop-ups are handled on a site-by-site basis.
.

Opera has had this ability for years, FireFox nearly as long.
The headline should be more along the lines of, " Chrome finally starting to catch up to the competition "</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31341154</id>
	<title>Will there ever be a closing multiple tabs warning</title>
	<author>xrayted\_za</author>
	<datestamp>1267557540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One of the earliest issues raised is for Chrome to have a warning when closing multiple tabs (http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=147) but this has been marked as "won't fix". This is because the developers feel having such a dialog will interrupt the flow of the browser. This can be a pain as the keyboard shortcut for close tab (ctrl-w) is right next to close window (ctrl-q) As many posters have pointed out, this could be made optional like other browsers and even off by default. Also the developers say the browser will reopen the closed tabs but again as people have pointed out, this does not always happen with state aware web sites or if you are in privacy mode.

It is something as simple as this that can really frustrate people and is easily fixed (as was the case when they added a similar warning box when there are outstanding downloads)</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the earliest issues raised is for Chrome to have a warning when closing multiple tabs ( http : //code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail ? id = 147 ) but this has been marked as " wo n't fix " .
This is because the developers feel having such a dialog will interrupt the flow of the browser .
This can be a pain as the keyboard shortcut for close tab ( ctrl-w ) is right next to close window ( ctrl-q ) As many posters have pointed out , this could be made optional like other browsers and even off by default .
Also the developers say the browser will reopen the closed tabs but again as people have pointed out , this does not always happen with state aware web sites or if you are in privacy mode .
It is something as simple as this that can really frustrate people and is easily fixed ( as was the case when they added a similar warning box when there are outstanding downloads )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the earliest issues raised is for Chrome to have a warning when closing multiple tabs (http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=147) but this has been marked as "won't fix".
This is because the developers feel having such a dialog will interrupt the flow of the browser.
This can be a pain as the keyboard shortcut for close tab (ctrl-w) is right next to close window (ctrl-q) As many posters have pointed out, this could be made optional like other browsers and even off by default.
Also the developers say the browser will reopen the closed tabs but again as people have pointed out, this does not always happen with state aware web sites or if you are in privacy mode.
It is something as simple as this that can really frustrate people and is easily fixed (as was the case when they added a similar warning box when there are outstanding downloads)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329720</id>
	<title>Translation Option</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267544760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This translation option is particularly interesting to me and begs the question: can anyone recommend a good extension with similar functions (automatic detection, etc) for firefox?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This translation option is particularly interesting to me and begs the question : can anyone recommend a good extension with similar functions ( automatic detection , etc ) for firefox ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This translation option is particularly interesting to me and begs the question: can anyone recommend a good extension with similar functions (automatic detection, etc) for firefox?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329838</id>
	<title>Dear Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267545240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure those are nice and good features, but could you fix http://dl.google.com it basically hungs up my apt-get update everyday and it's quite annoying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure those are nice and good features , but could you fix http : //dl.google.com it basically hungs up my apt-get update everyday and it 's quite annoying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure those are nice and good features, but could you fix http://dl.google.com it basically hungs up my apt-get update everyday and it's quite annoying.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31331640</id>
	<title>Re:Google? Privacy?</title>
	<author>mikechant</author>
	<datestamp>1267553280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>To be fair, Firefox comes with a very aggressive, annoying (IMHO) update mechanism built in and enabled by default.</i></p><p>On Windows (?and Max OS I guess).</p><p>Linux repository versions update in the usual well-behaved manner through your package management tools and Fifefox's own update mechanism turned off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To be fair , Firefox comes with a very aggressive , annoying ( IMHO ) update mechanism built in and enabled by default.On Windows ( ? and Max OS I guess ) .Linux repository versions update in the usual well-behaved manner through your package management tools and Fifefox 's own update mechanism turned off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be fair, Firefox comes with a very aggressive, annoying (IMHO) update mechanism built in and enabled by default.On Windows (?and Max OS I guess).Linux repository versions update in the usual well-behaved manner through your package management tools and Fifefox's own update mechanism turned off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31333244</id>
	<title>They always ignore Flash-Cookies, Super-cookies</title>
	<author>7bit</author>
	<datestamp>1267558980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's easy for them to offer all these privacy features when companies, google's advertising partners, have mostly moved on to Flash-Cookies (LSO's) anyway, which are far more insidious than browser cookies and most people still don't know about them. At least with FireFox I can install a plug-in, "BetterPrivacy" that will give me control over the Flash cookie infestation!</p><p><a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/6623" title="mozilla.org" rel="nofollow">https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/6623</a> [mozilla.org]   Newest version: for 3.5 - 3.6</p><p><a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addons/versions/6623#version-1.38" title="mozilla.org" rel="nofollow">https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addons/versions/6623#version-1.38</a> [mozilla.org]   Older version for 2.0+</p><p>When I first found out about these Flash cookies and installed the BetterPrivacy FireFox Add-on I was blown away by the stuff I found hiding on my computer! Now I knew how amazon and others knew what I had been looking at on the internet even with all of my privacy protections on...</p><p>Also; please remember that the open-source Chromium is not exactly the same thing as the Chrome that everyone downloads. Lot's of stuff is added that you don't have the source code for...<br>All that said, competition is good. I'm glad to see it. But I don't trust Google any more than I trust Microsoft when it comes to privacy, perhaps even less so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's easy for them to offer all these privacy features when companies , google 's advertising partners , have mostly moved on to Flash-Cookies ( LSO 's ) anyway , which are far more insidious than browser cookies and most people still do n't know about them .
At least with FireFox I can install a plug-in , " BetterPrivacy " that will give me control over the Flash cookie infestation ! https : //addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/6623 [ mozilla.org ] Newest version : for 3.5 - 3.6https : //addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addons/versions/6623 # version-1.38 [ mozilla.org ] Older version for 2.0 + When I first found out about these Flash cookies and installed the BetterPrivacy FireFox Add-on I was blown away by the stuff I found hiding on my computer !
Now I knew how amazon and others knew what I had been looking at on the internet even with all of my privacy protections on...Also ; please remember that the open-source Chromium is not exactly the same thing as the Chrome that everyone downloads .
Lot 's of stuff is added that you do n't have the source code for...All that said , competition is good .
I 'm glad to see it .
But I do n't trust Google any more than I trust Microsoft when it comes to privacy , perhaps even less so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's easy for them to offer all these privacy features when companies, google's advertising partners, have mostly moved on to Flash-Cookies (LSO's) anyway, which are far more insidious than browser cookies and most people still don't know about them.
At least with FireFox I can install a plug-in, "BetterPrivacy" that will give me control over the Flash cookie infestation!https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/6623 [mozilla.org]   Newest version: for 3.5 - 3.6https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addons/versions/6623#version-1.38 [mozilla.org]   Older version for 2.0+When I first found out about these Flash cookies and installed the BetterPrivacy FireFox Add-on I was blown away by the stuff I found hiding on my computer!
Now I knew how amazon and others knew what I had been looking at on the internet even with all of my privacy protections on...Also; please remember that the open-source Chromium is not exactly the same thing as the Chrome that everyone downloads.
Lot's of stuff is added that you don't have the source code for...All that said, competition is good.
I'm glad to see it.
But I don't trust Google any more than I trust Microsoft when it comes to privacy, perhaps even less so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330824</id>
	<title>Now if they would just...</title>
	<author>GigG</author>
	<datestamp>1267549740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now if Google Chrome would just either add the functionality of Google's own toolbar's bookmarks I would switch to it full time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now if Google Chrome would just either add the functionality of Google 's own toolbar 's bookmarks I would switch to it full time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now if Google Chrome would just either add the functionality of Google's own toolbar's bookmarks I would switch to it full time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31333902</id>
	<title>Re:Will we ever have control over flash cookies?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267561380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>chmod -R 000<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.macromedia<br>sudo chown -R root<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.macromedia</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>chmod -R 000 .macromediasudo chown -R root .macromedia</tokentext>
<sentencetext>chmod -R 000 .macromediasudo chown -R root .macromedia</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31331968</id>
	<title>rlz demystified</title>
	<author>dkegel</author>
	<datestamp>1267554540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Check out<br><a href="http://www.google.com/intl/en/landing/chrome/google-chrome-privacy-whitepaper.pdf" title="google.com">http://www.google.com/intl/en/landing/chrome/google-chrome-privacy-whitepaper.pdf</a> [google.com]</p><p>It says<br>"Promotional tags and tokens</p><p>Installations of Google Chrome that are obtained from promotional campaigns send information regarding<br>the effectiveness of the campaigns to Google. Installations of Google Chrome obtained by directly visiting<br>www.google.com/chrome do not send this information.<br>This information is required for compliance with contractual obligations where Google must accurately<br>measure the effectiveness of promotional campaigns.<br>This includes a non-unique promotional tag that contains information about how Chrome was obtained<br>(e.g. from an online advertisement, bundled with another software product, etc.) and the week that<br>Chrome was installed. The tag looks similar to: 1T4ADBR\_enUS236US239. This non-unique tag is<br>periodically sent to Google and is also appended to the URL on Google searches that originate from the<br>Omnibox (the tag appears as a parameter beginning with "rlz="). We use this information to help us<br>measure the searches driven by a particular promotion.<br>Installations of Google Chrome obtained via promotional campaigns also send a token when you first<br>launch Chrome and when you first use the Omnibox. The same token will be sent if Chrome is later<br>reinstalled, and is only sent at first launch and at first use of the Omnibox after reinstallation. Rather than<br>store the token on the computer, it is generated when necessary by using built-in system information that<br>is scrambled in an irreversible manner.<br>Again, instances of Google Chrome obtained by directly visiting www.google.com/chrome and not via<br>promotional campaigns do not use these tags or tokens."</p><p>So I think it's already gone, at least if you're downloading from google.com/chrome, and the Wikipedia article needs updating.</p><p>Disclaimer: I'm a chromium developer, and I used to work for Google, but I don't speak for the Chromium team or Google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Check outhttp : //www.google.com/intl/en/landing/chrome/google-chrome-privacy-whitepaper.pdf [ google.com ] It says " Promotional tags and tokensInstallations of Google Chrome that are obtained from promotional campaigns send information regardingthe effectiveness of the campaigns to Google .
Installations of Google Chrome obtained by directly visitingwww.google.com/chrome do not send this information.This information is required for compliance with contractual obligations where Google must accuratelymeasure the effectiveness of promotional campaigns.This includes a non-unique promotional tag that contains information about how Chrome was obtained ( e.g .
from an online advertisement , bundled with another software product , etc .
) and the week thatChrome was installed .
The tag looks similar to : 1T4ADBR \ _enUS236US239 .
This non-unique tag isperiodically sent to Google and is also appended to the URL on Google searches that originate from theOmnibox ( the tag appears as a parameter beginning with " rlz = " ) .
We use this information to help usmeasure the searches driven by a particular promotion.Installations of Google Chrome obtained via promotional campaigns also send a token when you firstlaunch Chrome and when you first use the Omnibox .
The same token will be sent if Chrome is laterreinstalled , and is only sent at first launch and at first use of the Omnibox after reinstallation .
Rather thanstore the token on the computer , it is generated when necessary by using built-in system information thatis scrambled in an irreversible manner.Again , instances of Google Chrome obtained by directly visiting www.google.com/chrome and not viapromotional campaigns do not use these tags or tokens .
" So I think it 's already gone , at least if you 're downloading from google.com/chrome , and the Wikipedia article needs updating.Disclaimer : I 'm a chromium developer , and I used to work for Google , but I do n't speak for the Chromium team or Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Check outhttp://www.google.com/intl/en/landing/chrome/google-chrome-privacy-whitepaper.pdf [google.com]It says"Promotional tags and tokensInstallations of Google Chrome that are obtained from promotional campaigns send information regardingthe effectiveness of the campaigns to Google.
Installations of Google Chrome obtained by directly visitingwww.google.com/chrome do not send this information.This information is required for compliance with contractual obligations where Google must accuratelymeasure the effectiveness of promotional campaigns.This includes a non-unique promotional tag that contains information about how Chrome was obtained(e.g.
from an online advertisement, bundled with another software product, etc.
) and the week thatChrome was installed.
The tag looks similar to: 1T4ADBR\_enUS236US239.
This non-unique tag isperiodically sent to Google and is also appended to the URL on Google searches that originate from theOmnibox (the tag appears as a parameter beginning with "rlz=").
We use this information to help usmeasure the searches driven by a particular promotion.Installations of Google Chrome obtained via promotional campaigns also send a token when you firstlaunch Chrome and when you first use the Omnibox.
The same token will be sent if Chrome is laterreinstalled, and is only sent at first launch and at first use of the Omnibox after reinstallation.
Rather thanstore the token on the computer, it is generated when necessary by using built-in system information thatis scrambled in an irreversible manner.Again, instances of Google Chrome obtained by directly visiting www.google.com/chrome and not viapromotional campaigns do not use these tags or tokens.
"So I think it's already gone, at least if you're downloading from google.com/chrome, and the Wikipedia article needs updating.Disclaimer: I'm a chromium developer, and I used to work for Google, but I don't speak for the Chromium team or Google.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330796</id>
	<title>Re:Google? Privacy?</title>
	<author>jez9999</author>
	<datestamp>1267549620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>But Chrome comes from Google, and releases often with an auto-updating mechanism</i></p><p>To be fair, Firefox comes with a very aggressive, annoying (IMHO) update mechanism built in and enabled by default.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But Chrome comes from Google , and releases often with an auto-updating mechanismTo be fair , Firefox comes with a very aggressive , annoying ( IMHO ) update mechanism built in and enabled by default .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But Chrome comes from Google, and releases often with an auto-updating mechanismTo be fair, Firefox comes with a very aggressive, annoying (IMHO) update mechanism built in and enabled by default.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330148</id>
	<title>Omni web</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267546800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds a lot like Omni Web</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds a lot like Omni Web</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds a lot like Omni Web</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329774</id>
	<title>I'm still looking for another feature..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267545000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>..where some websites have allowed cookies that don't get deleted on browser exit [firefox]<br>I have the clearing history enabled (for cookies and logins only), but every time not only the "untrusted cookies" are deleted, but also the "trusted" ones. Default rule is to store cookies until I close Firefox.</p><p>I searched for extensions, but no luck.</p><p>A whitelist based on some cookies criteria (regexp or such) would be the icing on the cake.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>..where some websites have allowed cookies that do n't get deleted on browser exit [ firefox ] I have the clearing history enabled ( for cookies and logins only ) , but every time not only the " untrusted cookies " are deleted , but also the " trusted " ones .
Default rule is to store cookies until I close Firefox.I searched for extensions , but no luck.A whitelist based on some cookies criteria ( regexp or such ) would be the icing on the cake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..where some websites have allowed cookies that don't get deleted on browser exit [firefox]I have the clearing history enabled (for cookies and logins only), but every time not only the "untrusted cookies" are deleted, but also the "trusted" ones.
Default rule is to store cookies until I close Firefox.I searched for extensions, but no luck.A whitelist based on some cookies criteria (regexp or such) would be the icing on the cake.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330702</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy</title>
	<author>Goaway</author>
	<datestamp>1267549140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Iron was created by a person who's admitted that he's spreading FUD about Google just to drive traffic to his site so he can make money off his ads. Is that the kind of project you want to cheer for?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Iron was created by a person who 's admitted that he 's spreading FUD about Google just to drive traffic to his site so he can make money off his ads .
Is that the kind of project you want to cheer for ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Iron was created by a person who's admitted that he's spreading FUD about Google just to drive traffic to his site so he can make money off his ads.
Is that the kind of project you want to cheer for?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329750</id>
	<title>Choices</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267544940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am glad to see Chrome coming along so well, it's nice having 5 legitimate choices to use (IE, Firefox, Opera, Chrome, Safari). The competition is driving improvements, and it's the users that are benefiting.

There are still some WebApps that I have to use IE or Firefox for, but now that Chrome has extensions (delicious bookmarks, IEtab, etc.) it has been my browser of choice.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am glad to see Chrome coming along so well , it 's nice having 5 legitimate choices to use ( IE , Firefox , Opera , Chrome , Safari ) .
The competition is driving improvements , and it 's the users that are benefiting .
There are still some WebApps that I have to use IE or Firefox for , but now that Chrome has extensions ( delicious bookmarks , IEtab , etc .
) it has been my browser of choice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am glad to see Chrome coming along so well, it's nice having 5 legitimate choices to use (IE, Firefox, Opera, Chrome, Safari).
The competition is driving improvements, and it's the users that are benefiting.
There are still some WebApps that I have to use IE or Firefox for, but now that Chrome has extensions (delicious bookmarks, IEtab, etc.
) it has been my browser of choice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31343298</id>
	<title>Re:Google? Privacy?</title>
	<author>AmiMoJo</author>
	<datestamp>1267619760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The difference is that most Firefox updates are just security fixes, with occasional (=2 per year) feature updates. Aggressive pushing of security fixes is IMHO a good thing.</p><p>Chrome is very much still in beta with major feature updates every few months. Google don't always think these new features through (okay, Mozilla don't either) and so life with Chrome is very much more at the whim of developers. I'm not saying it's necessarily bad, just a different proposition to Firefox which is a bit more stable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference is that most Firefox updates are just security fixes , with occasional ( = 2 per year ) feature updates .
Aggressive pushing of security fixes is IMHO a good thing.Chrome is very much still in beta with major feature updates every few months .
Google do n't always think these new features through ( okay , Mozilla do n't either ) and so life with Chrome is very much more at the whim of developers .
I 'm not saying it 's necessarily bad , just a different proposition to Firefox which is a bit more stable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference is that most Firefox updates are just security fixes, with occasional (=2 per year) feature updates.
Aggressive pushing of security fixes is IMHO a good thing.Chrome is very much still in beta with major feature updates every few months.
Google don't always think these new features through (okay, Mozilla don't either) and so life with Chrome is very much more at the whim of developers.
I'm not saying it's necessarily bad, just a different proposition to Firefox which is a bit more stable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31335406</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267523580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Iron was created by a person who's admitted that he's spreading FUD about Google just to drive traffic to his site so he can make money off his ads. Is that the kind of project you want to cheer for?</p></div><p>If the FUD he is spreading holds ground, then why, of course!</p><p>Maybe you should address the wikipedia link before attacking the guy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Iron was created by a person who 's admitted that he 's spreading FUD about Google just to drive traffic to his site so he can make money off his ads .
Is that the kind of project you want to cheer for ? If the FUD he is spreading holds ground , then why , of course ! Maybe you should address the wikipedia link before attacking the guy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Iron was created by a person who's admitted that he's spreading FUD about Google just to drive traffic to his site so he can make money off his ads.
Is that the kind of project you want to cheer for?If the FUD he is spreading holds ground, then why, of course!Maybe you should address the wikipedia link before attacking the guy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330272</id>
	<title>Security changes won't make me switch</title>
	<author>odin84gk</author>
	<datestamp>1267547460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Security features are nice, but they aren't a selling point. I won't change browsers to prevent tracking cookies. I don't know that much about javascript, and I don't mind most of the ads that I see. Ad block plus has been doing just fine with the pop-ups, and I don't care about those other things.</p><p>Translating foreign pages? That is interesting. I run into a fair amount of Chinese datasheets.</p><p>Just give me the web page as fast as possible, and keep my videos as smooth as possible. After that, I don't really care.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Security features are nice , but they are n't a selling point .
I wo n't change browsers to prevent tracking cookies .
I do n't know that much about javascript , and I do n't mind most of the ads that I see .
Ad block plus has been doing just fine with the pop-ups , and I do n't care about those other things.Translating foreign pages ?
That is interesting .
I run into a fair amount of Chinese datasheets.Just give me the web page as fast as possible , and keep my videos as smooth as possible .
After that , I do n't really care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Security features are nice, but they aren't a selling point.
I won't change browsers to prevent tracking cookies.
I don't know that much about javascript, and I don't mind most of the ads that I see.
Ad block plus has been doing just fine with the pop-ups, and I don't care about those other things.Translating foreign pages?
That is interesting.
I run into a fair amount of Chinese datasheets.Just give me the web page as fast as possible, and keep my videos as smooth as possible.
After that, I don't really care.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330304</id>
	<title>Already possible in IE</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267547580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmm, doesn't IE already have site-specific blocking using trusted and restricted (etc) zones. In the settings you can choose between a lot of options what you want to allow, disallow or prompt. It may not be the best user-interface around, but it does the job. Basically I only use it to restrict google cookies and scripts, so it would be kind of ironic to start using chrome for blocking Google<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm , does n't IE already have site-specific blocking using trusted and restricted ( etc ) zones .
In the settings you can choose between a lot of options what you want to allow , disallow or prompt .
It may not be the best user-interface around , but it does the job .
Basically I only use it to restrict google cookies and scripts , so it would be kind of ironic to start using chrome for blocking Google : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm, doesn't IE already have site-specific blocking using trusted and restricted (etc) zones.
In the settings you can choose between a lot of options what you want to allow, disallow or prompt.
It may not be the best user-interface around, but it does the job.
Basically I only use it to restrict google cookies and scripts, so it would be kind of ironic to start using chrome for blocking Google :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31332694</id>
	<title>Re:A bright future for the web...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267556820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know this is a troll, but I'll answer it for the sake of others who might not know.</p><p>I use Opera exclusively. In fact the very first thing I did this morning was update my 10.50 beta to final. I absolutely love Opera, it has tons of functionality built in, it's small, it's fast, it has a beautiful UI and it's standards compliant.</p><p>The share of Opera PC users isn't as large as the other major browsers, but let's not forget all of the mobile phones, PDAs, Nintendo DS handhelds and Nintendo Wii consoles that use Opera. I'd hardly say that is nobody. I'd also like to remind you that Opera is currently the longest enduring browser on the market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know this is a troll , but I 'll answer it for the sake of others who might not know.I use Opera exclusively .
In fact the very first thing I did this morning was update my 10.50 beta to final .
I absolutely love Opera , it has tons of functionality built in , it 's small , it 's fast , it has a beautiful UI and it 's standards compliant.The share of Opera PC users is n't as large as the other major browsers , but let 's not forget all of the mobile phones , PDAs , Nintendo DS handhelds and Nintendo Wii consoles that use Opera .
I 'd hardly say that is nobody .
I 'd also like to remind you that Opera is currently the longest enduring browser on the market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know this is a troll, but I'll answer it for the sake of others who might not know.I use Opera exclusively.
In fact the very first thing I did this morning was update my 10.50 beta to final.
I absolutely love Opera, it has tons of functionality built in, it's small, it's fast, it has a beautiful UI and it's standards compliant.The share of Opera PC users isn't as large as the other major browsers, but let's not forget all of the mobile phones, PDAs, Nintendo DS handhelds and Nintendo Wii consoles that use Opera.
I'd hardly say that is nobody.
I'd also like to remind you that Opera is currently the longest enduring browser on the market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330860</id>
	<title>Re:And this is news?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267549980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Opera has had this ability for years, FireFox nearly as long.</i></p><p>And IE even longer. See lists of Trusted/Untrusted sites (which can work both as black lists and whitelists) where you can disable just about anything (including scripting). Cookies have been per-site rejectable in IE for years too. But I guess it's not sexy to mention IE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Opera has had this ability for years , FireFox nearly as long.And IE even longer .
See lists of Trusted/Untrusted sites ( which can work both as black lists and whitelists ) where you can disable just about anything ( including scripting ) .
Cookies have been per-site rejectable in IE for years too .
But I guess it 's not sexy to mention IE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Opera has had this ability for years, FireFox nearly as long.And IE even longer.
See lists of Trusted/Untrusted sites (which can work both as black lists and whitelists) where you can disable just about anything (including scripting).
Cookies have been per-site rejectable in IE for years too.
But I guess it's not sexy to mention IE.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330358</id>
	<title>Interface</title>
	<author>cerberusss</author>
	<datestamp>1267547760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The main reason I use Chrome is because of the excellent interface. When maximized, the tabs push right against the screen edge. I've not seen any app that makes such efficient usage of screen real estate. I've tried to configure FireFox, using TinyMenu to reduce the amount of white space. But it's still not as efficient.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The main reason I use Chrome is because of the excellent interface .
When maximized , the tabs push right against the screen edge .
I 've not seen any app that makes such efficient usage of screen real estate .
I 've tried to configure FireFox , using TinyMenu to reduce the amount of white space .
But it 's still not as efficient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The main reason I use Chrome is because of the excellent interface.
When maximized, the tabs push right against the screen edge.
I've not seen any app that makes such efficient usage of screen real estate.
I've tried to configure FireFox, using TinyMenu to reduce the amount of white space.
But it's still not as efficient.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31333046</id>
	<title>Re:Choices</title>
	<author>ap7</author>
	<datestamp>1267558200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nope. This is all hogwash. We need government regulation and oversight to ensure that competition happens, just like in the telecom business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope .
This is all hogwash .
We need government regulation and oversight to ensure that competition happens , just like in the telecom business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope.
This is all hogwash.
We need government regulation and oversight to ensure that competition happens, just like in the telecom business.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31345814</id>
	<title>what about encrypting passwords???</title>
	<author>CPE1704TKS</author>
	<datestamp>1267632960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great work!  I love Chrome, but no strong encryption of passwords (unlike Firefox) is what is keeping me from using this anywhere except my home computer.  I need the security that if my laptop gets stolen or if I'm fired from work suddenly, that people can't get access to my passwords so easily.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great work !
I love Chrome , but no strong encryption of passwords ( unlike Firefox ) is what is keeping me from using this anywhere except my home computer .
I need the security that if my laptop gets stolen or if I 'm fired from work suddenly , that people ca n't get access to my passwords so easily .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great work!
I love Chrome, but no strong encryption of passwords (unlike Firefox) is what is keeping me from using this anywhere except my home computer.
I need the security that if my laptop gets stolen or if I'm fired from work suddenly, that people can't get access to my passwords so easily.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330066</id>
	<title>Re:A bright future for the web...</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1267546440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I wonder, why MS wouldn't just get over it and discontinue the development of its monstrous browser. They've lost the browser war, why wouldn't they put their resources elsewhere?</p><p>At least IE8 is better than its predecessors and IE9 looks even better, but still..</p></div><p>This is like saying:</p><p><i>"I wonder, why MS wouldn't just get over it and discontinue the development of Windows. They've lost the OS war to Linux, why wouldn't they put their resources elsewhere?</i></p><p><i>At least Vista is better than its predecessors and Windows 7 looks even better, but still.."</i></p><p>IE still has 62\% marketshare. Would you really call that a lost war? Besides, if you read slashdot, some of the people working with IE9 have commented here about the standards compliance and bringing IE9 up to bar with other browsers in other areas too. They're at least taking it very seriously and it looks like times have been changing for a few years now. IE8 is still the only browser with sandboxing too, all Firefox, Opera and Chrome are missing that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder , why MS would n't just get over it and discontinue the development of its monstrous browser .
They 've lost the browser war , why would n't they put their resources elsewhere ? At least IE8 is better than its predecessors and IE9 looks even better , but still..This is like saying : " I wonder , why MS would n't just get over it and discontinue the development of Windows .
They 've lost the OS war to Linux , why would n't they put their resources elsewhere ? At least Vista is better than its predecessors and Windows 7 looks even better , but still.. " IE still has 62 \ % marketshare .
Would you really call that a lost war ?
Besides , if you read slashdot , some of the people working with IE9 have commented here about the standards compliance and bringing IE9 up to bar with other browsers in other areas too .
They 're at least taking it very seriously and it looks like times have been changing for a few years now .
IE8 is still the only browser with sandboxing too , all Firefox , Opera and Chrome are missing that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder, why MS wouldn't just get over it and discontinue the development of its monstrous browser.
They've lost the browser war, why wouldn't they put their resources elsewhere?At least IE8 is better than its predecessors and IE9 looks even better, but still..This is like saying:"I wonder, why MS wouldn't just get over it and discontinue the development of Windows.
They've lost the OS war to Linux, why wouldn't they put their resources elsewhere?At least Vista is better than its predecessors and Windows 7 looks even better, but still.."IE still has 62\% marketshare.
Would you really call that a lost war?
Besides, if you read slashdot, some of the people working with IE9 have commented here about the standards compliance and bringing IE9 up to bar with other browsers in other areas too.
They're at least taking it very seriously and it looks like times have been changing for a few years now.
IE8 is still the only browser with sandboxing too, all Firefox, Opera and Chrome are missing that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329924</id>
	<title>Re:Google? Privacy?</title>
	<author>lordandmaker</author>
	<datestamp>1267545660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've gotta say, that was my first reaction. I don't see why Google would provide better genuine security provisions, they seem to make a fair bit of money out of people not having privacy.</p><p>Google's reputation for privacy is fast approaching Microsoft's for business ethics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've got ta say , that was my first reaction .
I do n't see why Google would provide better genuine security provisions , they seem to make a fair bit of money out of people not having privacy.Google 's reputation for privacy is fast approaching Microsoft 's for business ethics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've gotta say, that was my first reaction.
I don't see why Google would provide better genuine security provisions, they seem to make a fair bit of money out of people not having privacy.Google's reputation for privacy is fast approaching Microsoft's for business ethics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329998</id>
	<title>adblock? ADBLOCK!! (enchantments!)</title>
	<author>araczynski</author>
	<datestamp>1267546080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>just saw that there's an Adblock for chrome too! definitely have a reason to try the new browser now...curious to see how it compares to firefox.</htmltext>
<tokenext>just saw that there 's an Adblock for chrome too !
definitely have a reason to try the new browser now...curious to see how it compares to firefox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>just saw that there's an Adblock for chrome too!
definitely have a reason to try the new browser now...curious to see how it compares to firefox.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31335326</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy</title>
	<author>mister\_playboy</author>
	<datestamp>1267523280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The number of times you've posted about Iron in this thread makes me think <i>you</i> are the one spreading FUD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The number of times you 've posted about Iron in this thread makes me think you are the one spreading FUD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The number of times you've posted about Iron in this thread makes me think you are the one spreading FUD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330314</id>
	<title>Re:Beta products from Google!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267547580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>lawl flamebait fail. Troll elsewhere scrub.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>lawl flamebait fail .
Troll elsewhere scrub .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lawl flamebait fail.
Troll elsewhere scrub.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31338440</id>
	<title>Re:Translation Option</title>
	<author>scdeimos</author>
	<datestamp>1267535880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The in-browser translation option interests me, too. I've had Firefox plug-ins in the past that help me translate Japanese pages. From TFA, though:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Wieland Holfelder, Google 's Engineering Director in Munich, said: "... The translate feature will hopefully open up the web for people to discover new, compelling content - no matter what language it's written in".</p></div><p>How will people discover this new content unless some translation is going on in the search engine as well? For example, if I type "red bird" into Google search, will it also find French pages containing "rouge oiseau"?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The in-browser translation option interests me , too .
I 've had Firefox plug-ins in the past that help me translate Japanese pages .
From TFA , though : Wieland Holfelder , Google 's Engineering Director in Munich , said : " ... The translate feature will hopefully open up the web for people to discover new , compelling content - no matter what language it 's written in " .How will people discover this new content unless some translation is going on in the search engine as well ?
For example , if I type " red bird " into Google search , will it also find French pages containing " rouge oiseau " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The in-browser translation option interests me, too.
I've had Firefox plug-ins in the past that help me translate Japanese pages.
From TFA, though:Wieland Holfelder, Google 's Engineering Director in Munich, said: "... The translate feature will hopefully open up the web for people to discover new, compelling content - no matter what language it's written in".How will people discover this new content unless some translation is going on in the search engine as well?
For example, if I type "red bird" into Google search, will it also find French pages containing "rouge oiseau"?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330270</id>
	<title>And still no real adblock support</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1267547460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Once the new chrome beta offers true blocking support - where plugins can prevent undesired material from loading - then I'll give it another try.  (If I can give up my "live bookmarks" in ff, that is.)  Currently, plugins can prevent it from *displaying* - but the material still loads.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Once the new chrome beta offers true blocking support - where plugins can prevent undesired material from loading - then I 'll give it another try .
( If I can give up my " live bookmarks " in ff , that is .
) Currently , plugins can prevent it from * displaying * - but the material still loads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once the new chrome beta offers true blocking support - where plugins can prevent undesired material from loading - then I'll give it another try.
(If I can give up my "live bookmarks" in ff, that is.
)  Currently, plugins can prevent it from *displaying* - but the material still loads.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31331440</id>
	<title>Updates</title>
	<author>gambit3</author>
	<datestamp>1267552500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does it also allow for control over <a href="http://robmensching.com/blog/posts/2008/9/10/Google-Chrome.-updates-without-asking" title="robmensching.com">Auto Updates?</a> [robmensching.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does it also allow for control over Auto Updates ?
[ robmensching.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does it also allow for control over Auto Updates?
[robmensching.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31333798</id>
	<title>Re:And this is news?</title>
	<author>Ant P.</author>
	<datestamp>1267561080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really? The Mozilla bug for a Javascript whitelist is about ten years old now and still unfixed. Why the hell do I need a <b>half-megabyte extension</b> full of extraneous baggage I don't need for such a basic feature?</p><p>Even Internet-fucking-Explorer FOUR can do this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
The Mozilla bug for a Javascript whitelist is about ten years old now and still unfixed .
Why the hell do I need a half-megabyte extension full of extraneous baggage I do n't need for such a basic feature ? Even Internet-fucking-Explorer FOUR can do this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
The Mozilla bug for a Javascript whitelist is about ten years old now and still unfixed.
Why the hell do I need a half-megabyte extension full of extraneous baggage I don't need for such a basic feature?Even Internet-fucking-Explorer FOUR can do this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329726</id>
	<title>Beta products from Google!</title>
	<author>DNS-and-BIND</author>
	<datestamp>1267544760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hooray for another beta product from Google!  I wonder how many years this one will be in production before they call it v1.0.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hooray for another beta product from Google !
I wonder how many years this one will be in production before they call it v1.0 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hooray for another beta product from Google!
I wonder how many years this one will be in production before they call it v1.0.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31331508</id>
	<title>Chrome doesnt have master password</title>
	<author>Trieuvan</author>
	<datestamp>1267552740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We cant expect much privacy from Chrome</htmltext>
<tokenext>We cant expect much privacy from Chrome</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We cant expect much privacy from Chrome</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329702</id>
	<title>Google? Privacy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267544640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really don't trust Google with privacy. I really wouldn't trust their browser for that. That being said, I like Chrome for the way it can applicationize a website. The only thing I use Chrome for is to run slacker radio as an app in linux.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really do n't trust Google with privacy .
I really would n't trust their browser for that .
That being said , I like Chrome for the way it can applicationize a website .
The only thing I use Chrome for is to run slacker radio as an app in linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really don't trust Google with privacy.
I really wouldn't trust their browser for that.
That being said, I like Chrome for the way it can applicationize a website.
The only thing I use Chrome for is to run slacker radio as an app in linux.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1344259_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1344259_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31333030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1344259_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31333902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1344259_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31331270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1344259_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1344259_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1344259_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31340026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1344259_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1344259_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31333046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1344259_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1344259_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31336704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1344259_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31335406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1344259_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31338440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1344259_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31340374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1344259_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31331640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1344259_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31332694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1344259_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1344259_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31331178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1344259_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31335326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1344259_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31333798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1344259_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31331968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1344259_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31334864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1344259_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1344259_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31340784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31331912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1344259_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31343298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1344259_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1344259_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_1344259.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31333046
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_1344259.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330314
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_1344259.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329768
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31336704
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330066
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31333030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330522
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31332694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31331178
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_1344259.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329774
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_1344259.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31340026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31331912
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31340784
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_1344259.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329968
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330796
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31343298
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31331640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31340374
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329886
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329924
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_1344259.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31334864
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_1344259.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329998
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_1344259.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330272
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_1344259.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31331968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330702
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31335406
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31335326
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_1344259.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329736
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_1344259.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329720
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31331270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31338440
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_1344259.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31329850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31333902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330200
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_1344259.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31330860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1344259.31333798
</commentlist>
</conversation>
