<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_04_1351211</id>
	<title>3D Graphics For Firefox, Webkit</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1267713420000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.goodgearguide.com.au/" rel="nofollow">angry tapir</a> writes <i>"A group of researchers plans to release a version of the Firefox browser that includes the built-in ability to view 3D graphics. They've <a href="http://www.goodgearguide.com.au/article/338261/researchers\_develop\_3d\_graphics\_capability\_firefox/">integrated real-time ray tracing technology, called RT Fact</a>, into Firefox and Webkit. Images are described using <a href="http://www.xml3d.com/">XML3D</a>, and the browser can natively render the 3D scene."</i> The browser will be released within a few weeks, the researchers say, and they are checking with the Mozilla Foundation about whether they can call it Firefox.</htmltext>
<tokenext>angry tapir writes " A group of researchers plans to release a version of the Firefox browser that includes the built-in ability to view 3D graphics .
They 've integrated real-time ray tracing technology , called RT Fact , into Firefox and Webkit .
Images are described using XML3D , and the browser can natively render the 3D scene .
" The browser will be released within a few weeks , the researchers say , and they are checking with the Mozilla Foundation about whether they can call it Firefox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>angry tapir writes "A group of researchers plans to release a version of the Firefox browser that includes the built-in ability to view 3D graphics.
They've integrated real-time ray tracing technology, called RT Fact, into Firefox and Webkit.
Images are described using XML3D, and the browser can natively render the 3D scene.
" The browser will be released within a few weeks, the researchers say, and they are checking with the Mozilla Foundation about whether they can call it Firefox.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31359474</id>
	<title>No love for 3D.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267725600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Just like Second Life, the 3D web is not something people actually want, but more something which makes sense to old fashioned journalists who write for old fashioned media."</p><p>I disagree but then I've seen what things like <a href="http://curl.com/index.php" title="curl.com" rel="nofollow">Curl</a> [curl.com] and  <a href="http://www.cortona3d.com/Products/Cortona-3D-Viewer.aspx" title="cortona3d.com" rel="nofollow">Contona3D</a> [cortona3d.com] can do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Just like Second Life , the 3D web is not something people actually want , but more something which makes sense to old fashioned journalists who write for old fashioned media .
" I disagree but then I 've seen what things like Curl [ curl.com ] and Contona3D [ cortona3d.com ] can do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Just like Second Life, the 3D web is not something people actually want, but more something which makes sense to old fashioned journalists who write for old fashioned media.
"I disagree but then I've seen what things like Curl [curl.com] and  Contona3D [cortona3d.com] can do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358252</id>
	<title>Re:No love for VRML</title>
	<author>PhilHibbs</author>
	<datestamp>1267720140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's like saying "Why do we need XML when we already have HTML?" - better to ask "why not use the official successor to VRML, i.e. X3D?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's like saying " Why do we need XML when we already have HTML ?
" - better to ask " why not use the official successor to VRML , i.e .
X3D ? "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's like saying "Why do we need XML when we already have HTML?
" - better to ask "why not use the official successor to VRML, i.e.
X3D?"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31360442</id>
	<title>Interesting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267729980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This could take internet porn to a whole new level...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This could take internet porn to a whole new level.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This could take internet porn to a whole new level...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358340</id>
	<title>Re:CPU hungry</title>
	<author>PerfectionLost</author>
	<datestamp>1267720620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My CPU already overloads from browsing the web.  I'm begining to think I need to ditch firefox anyways...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My CPU already overloads from browsing the web .
I 'm begining to think I need to ditch firefox anyways.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My CPU already overloads from browsing the web.
I'm begining to think I need to ditch firefox anyways...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358134</id>
	<title>mtod doWn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267719420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>give BSD Cred]it</htmltext>
<tokenext>give BSD Cred ] it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>give BSD Cred]it</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31360110</id>
	<title>Re:Clarification</title>
	<author>the8thbit</author>
	<datestamp>1267728060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Gaming would require, amongst other things, browser-support for raw input devices</p></div><p>Fun fact: HTML6 (or what will essentially be HTML6) will have a [device] tag, that will be able to, in theory, comunicate with ANY device. (Controller, flightstick, camera, mic, HDD/SSD, rom drive, etc...)<br> <br>

(Replace the brackets with less than/greater than signs.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Gaming would require , amongst other things , browser-support for raw input devicesFun fact : HTML6 ( or what will essentially be HTML6 ) will have a [ device ] tag , that will be able to , in theory , comunicate with ANY device .
( Controller , flightstick , camera , mic , HDD/SSD , rom drive , etc... ) ( Replace the brackets with less than/greater than signs .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gaming would require, amongst other things, browser-support for raw input devicesFun fact: HTML6 (or what will essentially be HTML6) will have a [device] tag, that will be able to, in theory, comunicate with ANY device.
(Controller, flightstick, camera, mic, HDD/SSD, rom drive, etc...) 

(Replace the brackets with less than/greater than signs.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358654</id>
	<title>Re:No love for VRML</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267722300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Two words:</p><p>pr0n!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Two words : pr0n !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two words:pr0n!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358514</id>
	<title>I hope you can disable this.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267721520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hope there's an option to disable this in the browser.<br>I can already imagine that the only place where this tech will get used will be in advertising banners etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope there 's an option to disable this in the browser.I can already imagine that the only place where this tech will get used will be in advertising banners etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope there's an option to disable this in the browser.I can already imagine that the only place where this tech will get used will be in advertising banners etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357878</id>
	<title>Calling it Firefox</title>
	<author>rwv</author>
	<datestamp>1267717800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
<p>The name of the Debian version of Firefox is Iceweasel.  Based on that, I'm assuming that the Mozilla Corporation is going to exercise their trademark and kindly request that these researchers think of a better name for their fork of Firefox that incorporates XML3D.

</p><p>If successful, it wouldn't surprise me to see the Mozilla folks include this feature in a future release of Firefox.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The name of the Debian version of Firefox is Iceweasel .
Based on that , I 'm assuming that the Mozilla Corporation is going to exercise their trademark and kindly request that these researchers think of a better name for their fork of Firefox that incorporates XML3D .
If successful , it would n't surprise me to see the Mozilla folks include this feature in a future release of Firefox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The name of the Debian version of Firefox is Iceweasel.
Based on that, I'm assuming that the Mozilla Corporation is going to exercise their trademark and kindly request that these researchers think of a better name for their fork of Firefox that incorporates XML3D.
If successful, it wouldn't surprise me to see the Mozilla folks include this feature in a future release of Firefox.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31360246</id>
	<title>Why not use standards?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267728780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This will never take off. Has anybody ever heard of XML3D? Where's the spec? Will this ever become a standard when there are already zillions of 3D markup formats around?<br>And it needs a custom browser build. Remember how 3D that required browser plugins failed back in the 90s? Now it's not even a plugin, they want you to install their browser. To view nonexistant content in a format nobody has ever heard of.<br>What's wrong with existing standards? WebGL, X3D. <a href="http://www.web3d.org/x3d/wiki/index.php/X3D\_and\_HTML5" title="web3d.org" rel="nofollow">Inline X3D</a> [web3d.org] is the way to go according to the HTML5 spec. It <a href="http://x3dom.org/" title="x3dom.org" rel="nofollow">already works</a> [x3dom.org] in all WebGL-enabled browsers (alpha builds of Firefox, Webkit and Chrome). The difference is that this approach is entirely standards-based, X3D is an established standard, and WebGL is being implemented in most browsers right now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This will never take off .
Has anybody ever heard of XML3D ?
Where 's the spec ?
Will this ever become a standard when there are already zillions of 3D markup formats around ? And it needs a custom browser build .
Remember how 3D that required browser plugins failed back in the 90s ?
Now it 's not even a plugin , they want you to install their browser .
To view nonexistant content in a format nobody has ever heard of.What 's wrong with existing standards ?
WebGL , X3D .
Inline X3D [ web3d.org ] is the way to go according to the HTML5 spec .
It already works [ x3dom.org ] in all WebGL-enabled browsers ( alpha builds of Firefox , Webkit and Chrome ) .
The difference is that this approach is entirely standards-based , X3D is an established standard , and WebGL is being implemented in most browsers right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will never take off.
Has anybody ever heard of XML3D?
Where's the spec?
Will this ever become a standard when there are already zillions of 3D markup formats around?And it needs a custom browser build.
Remember how 3D that required browser plugins failed back in the 90s?
Now it's not even a plugin, they want you to install their browser.
To view nonexistant content in a format nobody has ever heard of.What's wrong with existing standards?
WebGL, X3D.
Inline X3D [web3d.org] is the way to go according to the HTML5 spec.
It already works [x3dom.org] in all WebGL-enabled browsers (alpha builds of Firefox, Webkit and Chrome).
The difference is that this approach is entirely standards-based, X3D is an established standard, and WebGL is being implemented in most browsers right now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357808</id>
	<title>oh great.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267717320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>so this means that in the near future ill have to have quad sli pci-e cards with 1tb of ram and a few extra powersupplies to render all of the popup/under/over/through ads.</p><p>but really, someone educate me... why would anyone find 3d rendering in a browser useful? its almost certainly not going to be able to compete, quality wise, with any recent high end graphics renderings (lightwave/maya, etc)--- and with modern compression schemes and encoding formats and everyone having broadband, why wouldnt someone just embed a higher quality video into their site instead of rendering 3d inside of the browser?</p><p>i cant just imagine firefox now, instead of consuming 500mb of ram playing some simple facebook games consuming 2gb loading 3d models instead of 2d sprites.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>so this means that in the near future ill have to have quad sli pci-e cards with 1tb of ram and a few extra powersupplies to render all of the popup/under/over/through ads.but really , someone educate me... why would anyone find 3d rendering in a browser useful ?
its almost certainly not going to be able to compete , quality wise , with any recent high end graphics renderings ( lightwave/maya , etc ) --- and with modern compression schemes and encoding formats and everyone having broadband , why wouldnt someone just embed a higher quality video into their site instead of rendering 3d inside of the browser ? i cant just imagine firefox now , instead of consuming 500mb of ram playing some simple facebook games consuming 2gb loading 3d models instead of 2d sprites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so this means that in the near future ill have to have quad sli pci-e cards with 1tb of ram and a few extra powersupplies to render all of the popup/under/over/through ads.but really, someone educate me... why would anyone find 3d rendering in a browser useful?
its almost certainly not going to be able to compete, quality wise, with any recent high end graphics renderings (lightwave/maya, etc)--- and with modern compression schemes and encoding formats and everyone having broadband, why wouldnt someone just embed a higher quality video into their site instead of rendering 3d inside of the browser?i cant just imagine firefox now, instead of consuming 500mb of ram playing some simple facebook games consuming 2gb loading 3d models instead of 2d sprites.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358240</id>
	<title>Re:No love for VRML</title>
	<author>Conspiracy\_Of\_Doves</author>
	<datestamp>1267720080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think that the point of 3D graphics in a browser is to build entire websites as 3D environments, but rather to have specialized sections of websites where they are applicable. For instance, fully rotatable views of items that you might purchase. Aside from being cumbersome to program, VRML wasn't nearly good enough to do something like that. This might be, however. I think that this technology, especially combined with the canvas tag, has the potential to do a lot of good for the web.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think that the point of 3D graphics in a browser is to build entire websites as 3D environments , but rather to have specialized sections of websites where they are applicable .
For instance , fully rotatable views of items that you might purchase .
Aside from being cumbersome to program , VRML was n't nearly good enough to do something like that .
This might be , however .
I think that this technology , especially combined with the canvas tag , has the potential to do a lot of good for the web .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think that the point of 3D graphics in a browser is to build entire websites as 3D environments, but rather to have specialized sections of websites where they are applicable.
For instance, fully rotatable views of items that you might purchase.
Aside from being cumbersome to program, VRML wasn't nearly good enough to do something like that.
This might be, however.
I think that this technology, especially combined with the canvas tag, has the potential to do a lot of good for the web.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31366684</id>
	<title>Re:No love for VRML</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267720020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The 50K people logged in [secondlife.com] right now would seem to disagree.</p></div><p>Nah, the real humans amongst that number are too busy engaged in "adult" activities to disagree right now. The rest are bots.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The 50K people logged in [ secondlife.com ] right now would seem to disagree.Nah , the real humans amongst that number are too busy engaged in " adult " activities to disagree right now .
The rest are bots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 50K people logged in [secondlife.com] right now would seem to disagree.Nah, the real humans amongst that number are too busy engaged in "adult" activities to disagree right now.
The rest are bots.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357860</id>
	<title>Re:Clarification</title>
	<author>BhaKi</author>
	<datestamp>1267717680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Does this mean this technology will be used strictly for 3D images/scenes, or when they say 3D are they referring to gaming?</p></div><p>Obviously and according to TFA, they're referring to 3D images/scenes. Gaming would require, amongst other things, browser-support for raw input devices, (at-least partial) server-side magic for processing interactive events. While these are definitely possible, they're not what this is about.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this mean this technology will be used strictly for 3D images/scenes , or when they say 3D are they referring to gaming ? Obviously and according to TFA , they 're referring to 3D images/scenes .
Gaming would require , amongst other things , browser-support for raw input devices , ( at-least partial ) server-side magic for processing interactive events .
While these are definitely possible , they 're not what this is about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this mean this technology will be used strictly for 3D images/scenes, or when they say 3D are they referring to gaming?Obviously and according to TFA, they're referring to 3D images/scenes.
Gaming would require, amongst other things, browser-support for raw input devices, (at-least partial) server-side magic for processing interactive events.
While these are definitely possible, they're not what this is about.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31359778</id>
	<title>Re:I hope you can disable this.</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1267726740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, I&rsquo;m sure.</p><p>Actually you can already disable it, and they haven&rsquo;t even finished developing it yet: <tt>##canvas</tt></p><p>(It&rsquo;s an Adblock Plus filter, in case you didn&rsquo;t figure that out.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , I    m sure.Actually you can already disable it , and they haven    t even finished developing it yet : # # canvas ( It    s an Adblock Plus filter , in case you didn    t figure that out .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, I’m sure.Actually you can already disable it, and they haven’t even finished developing it yet: ##canvas(It’s an Adblock Plus filter, in case you didn’t figure that out.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31359088</id>
	<title>Re:Tech for the future</title>
	<author>bcmm</author>
	<datestamp>1267724040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Maybe this tech will be big when 3d monitors are out... just imagine the pop ups really poping out of your screen<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div></blockquote><p>Just imagine the Goatse...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe this tech will be big when 3d monitors are out... just imagine the pop ups really poping out of your screen : ) Just imagine the Goatse.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe this tech will be big when 3d monitors are out... just imagine the pop ups really poping out of your screen :)Just imagine the Goatse...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358400</id>
	<title>Re:oh great.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267720860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Simple,If one look at the history of gaming industry in digital media it goes like this. They started with text-based(60s) followed by 2D games uses 2D sprites, then few isometric view games/ 3D perspective view(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video\_games\_with\_isometric\_graphics), then we had full 3d games. And in full 3d games also, the trend is at first 3D models has very less detail ( basic contours ) later 3D models with textures, then 3D games with Non photorealistic rendering (NPR), then now the games we are playing are photorealisitic rendering, in future we going to have real time photorealistic rendering .</p><p>Now, browser based games the history goes like this, they started with text-based followed by 2d games, then few isometric view games (farmville).. Following April 2010, with 3D graphics in browsers, we can except to have Non Photorealisitc rendering games.</p><p>Dont you get it ? We are re-writing an operating system to fit into a browser.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Simple,If one look at the history of gaming industry in digital media it goes like this .
They started with text-based ( 60s ) followed by 2D games uses 2D sprites , then few isometric view games/ 3D perspective view ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video \ _games \ _with \ _isometric \ _graphics ) , then we had full 3d games .
And in full 3d games also , the trend is at first 3D models has very less detail ( basic contours ) later 3D models with textures , then 3D games with Non photorealistic rendering ( NPR ) , then now the games we are playing are photorealisitic rendering , in future we going to have real time photorealistic rendering .Now , browser based games the history goes like this , they started with text-based followed by 2d games , then few isometric view games ( farmville ) .. Following April 2010 , with 3D graphics in browsers , we can except to have Non Photorealisitc rendering games.Dont you get it ?
We are re-writing an operating system to fit into a browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simple,If one look at the history of gaming industry in digital media it goes like this.
They started with text-based(60s) followed by 2D games uses 2D sprites, then few isometric view games/ 3D perspective view(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video\_games\_with\_isometric\_graphics), then we had full 3d games.
And in full 3d games also, the trend is at first 3D models has very less detail ( basic contours ) later 3D models with textures, then 3D games with Non photorealistic rendering (NPR), then now the games we are playing are photorealisitic rendering, in future we going to have real time photorealistic rendering .Now, browser based games the history goes like this, they started with text-based followed by 2d games, then few isometric view games (farmville).. Following April 2010, with 3D graphics in browsers, we can except to have Non Photorealisitc rendering games.Dont you get it ?
We are re-writing an operating system to fit into a browser.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358482</id>
	<title>Re:No love for VRML</title>
	<author>twoshortplanks</author>
	<datestamp>1267721280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google Earth in your browser</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google Earth in your browser</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google Earth in your browser</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31359968</id>
	<title>The Most Obvious Use</title>
	<author>Foolomon</author>
	<datestamp>1267727400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great!  Now we can see the Fail Whale in 3D!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great !
Now we can see the Fail Whale in 3D !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great!
Now we can see the Fail Whale in 3D!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358068</id>
	<title>Ray tracing vs. Rasterization</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267719000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why would they choose real time ray tracing over rasterization methods? Rasterization is still much faster and you can achieve all kinds of ray tracing like effects if you want to.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would they choose real time ray tracing over rasterization methods ?
Rasterization is still much faster and you can achieve all kinds of ray tracing like effects if you want to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would they choose real time ray tracing over rasterization methods?
Rasterization is still much faster and you can achieve all kinds of ray tracing like effects if you want to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357976</id>
	<title>Re:oh great.</title>
	<author>Joce640k</author>
	<datestamp>1267718520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It could be interactive, respond to mouse clicks....etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It could be interactive , respond to mouse clicks....etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It could be interactive, respond to mouse clicks....etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358166</id>
	<title>Re:oh great.</title>
	<author>b4dc0d3r</author>
	<datestamp>1267719600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a nice operating system, with serious hardware requirements, it just needs a web browser.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a nice operating system , with serious hardware requirements , it just needs a web browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a nice operating system, with serious hardware requirements, it just needs a web browser.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31360414</id>
	<title>Working right now in Shockwave</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1267729800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Shockwave already has full 3D capabilities.  Here's s <a href="http://www.3drt.com/savers/dark\_mansion/Dark-forest-mansion.htm" title="3drt.com">reasonably good 3D scene, a haunted house.</a> [3drt.com]
Shockwave in current use; both Disney and Dreamworks have 3D promotional games for upcoming movies, and Porsche has a car configurator.   It's possible to do a reasonably decent game in Shockwave.
Unfortunately, Shockwave seems to be associated with crap sites full of ad-heavy low-end games that keep trying to download additional plugins.
</p><p>
A big downside of Shockwave is that, unlike Flash, the whole file has to load before it starts.  It lacks instant gratification.  Did the XML 3D crowd deal with that issue?
</p><p>
Incidentally, this is not the only XML-based 3D system.  There's Web3D, which is simply VRML 97 with XML delimiters.  VRML itself works quite well today. When it came out in 1997, few people had enough graphics power to run it, and it got a bad reputation.  Now, everybody does.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Shockwave already has full 3D capabilities .
Here 's s reasonably good 3D scene , a haunted house .
[ 3drt.com ] Shockwave in current use ; both Disney and Dreamworks have 3D promotional games for upcoming movies , and Porsche has a car configurator .
It 's possible to do a reasonably decent game in Shockwave .
Unfortunately , Shockwave seems to be associated with crap sites full of ad-heavy low-end games that keep trying to download additional plugins .
A big downside of Shockwave is that , unlike Flash , the whole file has to load before it starts .
It lacks instant gratification .
Did the XML 3D crowd deal with that issue ?
Incidentally , this is not the only XML-based 3D system .
There 's Web3D , which is simply VRML 97 with XML delimiters .
VRML itself works quite well today .
When it came out in 1997 , few people had enough graphics power to run it , and it got a bad reputation .
Now , everybody does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Shockwave already has full 3D capabilities.
Here's s reasonably good 3D scene, a haunted house.
[3drt.com]
Shockwave in current use; both Disney and Dreamworks have 3D promotional games for upcoming movies, and Porsche has a car configurator.
It's possible to do a reasonably decent game in Shockwave.
Unfortunately, Shockwave seems to be associated with crap sites full of ad-heavy low-end games that keep trying to download additional plugins.
A big downside of Shockwave is that, unlike Flash, the whole file has to load before it starts.
It lacks instant gratification.
Did the XML 3D crowd deal with that issue?
Incidentally, this is not the only XML-based 3D system.
There's Web3D, which is simply VRML 97 with XML delimiters.
VRML itself works quite well today.
When it came out in 1997, few people had enough graphics power to run it, and it got a bad reputation.
Now, everybody does.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357798</id>
	<title>Clarification</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267717260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Images are described using XML3D, and the browser can natively render the 3D scene.</p></div><p>Does this mean this technology will be used strictly for 3D images/scenes, or when they say 3D are they referring to gaming?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Images are described using XML3D , and the browser can natively render the 3D scene.Does this mean this technology will be used strictly for 3D images/scenes , or when they say 3D are they referring to gaming ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Images are described using XML3D, and the browser can natively render the 3D scene.Does this mean this technology will be used strictly for 3D images/scenes, or when they say 3D are they referring to gaming?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358716</id>
	<title>Re:oh great.</title>
	<author>berashith</author>
	<datestamp>1267722720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>but really, someone educate me... why would anyone find 3d rendering in a browser useful?</p></div><p>porn</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but really , someone educate me... why would anyone find 3d rendering in a browser useful ? porn</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but really, someone educate me... why would anyone find 3d rendering in a browser useful?porn
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357952</id>
	<title>Re:No love for VRML</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267718400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just like Second Life, the 3D web is not something people actually want, but more something which makes sense to old fashioned journalists who write for old fashioned media.</p><p>They think it sounds great. Looking at pretty things instead of reading boring stuff is in their eyes the ultimate evolution of computing. That's why you keep reading this sort of stuff all the time. But it will never stick, because in reality, it's just not very useful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just like Second Life , the 3D web is not something people actually want , but more something which makes sense to old fashioned journalists who write for old fashioned media.They think it sounds great .
Looking at pretty things instead of reading boring stuff is in their eyes the ultimate evolution of computing .
That 's why you keep reading this sort of stuff all the time .
But it will never stick , because in reality , it 's just not very useful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just like Second Life, the 3D web is not something people actually want, but more something which makes sense to old fashioned journalists who write for old fashioned media.They think it sounds great.
Looking at pretty things instead of reading boring stuff is in their eyes the ultimate evolution of computing.
That's why you keep reading this sort of stuff all the time.
But it will never stick, because in reality, it's just not very useful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358020</id>
	<title>Gallery?</title>
	<author>master\_p</author>
	<datestamp>1267718760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've searched the web but I can't find any picture of an image rendered with RT Fact. The news are repeated in various news sites, as always, but none of them has a single image of the 3d engine output.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've searched the web but I ca n't find any picture of an image rendered with RT Fact .
The news are repeated in various news sites , as always , but none of them has a single image of the 3d engine output .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've searched the web but I can't find any picture of an image rendered with RT Fact.
The news are repeated in various news sites, as always, but none of them has a single image of the 3d engine output.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358316</id>
	<title>Re:No love for VRML</title>
	<author>vadim\_t</author>
	<datestamp>1267720500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Just like Second Life, the 3D web is not something people actually want</p></div></blockquote><p>The <a href="http://secondlife.com/app/login/" title="secondlife.com">50K people logged in</a> [secondlife.com] right now would seem to disagree. Right now it's a fairly low activity time, should go up later. And from the inside it seems to be still getting larger.</p><blockquote><div><p>They think it sounds great. Looking at pretty things instead of reading boring stuff is in their eyes the ultimate evolution of computing. That's why you keep reading this sort of stuff all the time. But it will never stick, because in reality, it's just not very useful.</p></div></blockquote><p>I see it in a different way. Not everything has to be a revolution. Back when there was a lot of news about SL there was a lot of hype for sure, but there must be some use to it, since it didn't die when it stopped getting talked about so much. Some people see no point in SL, that's perfectly fine. I see no point WoW either, but that doesn't make it a failure just because it fails to appeal to every person on the planet.</p><p>I think this will be in the same way. Uses will be found for it. It won't be a revolution that will change every website everywhere. Not everybody has an espresso machine, and not everybody is going to have 3D on their website, but that doesn't mean those aren't useful things.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just like Second Life , the 3D web is not something people actually wantThe 50K people logged in [ secondlife.com ] right now would seem to disagree .
Right now it 's a fairly low activity time , should go up later .
And from the inside it seems to be still getting larger.They think it sounds great .
Looking at pretty things instead of reading boring stuff is in their eyes the ultimate evolution of computing .
That 's why you keep reading this sort of stuff all the time .
But it will never stick , because in reality , it 's just not very useful.I see it in a different way .
Not everything has to be a revolution .
Back when there was a lot of news about SL there was a lot of hype for sure , but there must be some use to it , since it did n't die when it stopped getting talked about so much .
Some people see no point in SL , that 's perfectly fine .
I see no point WoW either , but that does n't make it a failure just because it fails to appeal to every person on the planet.I think this will be in the same way .
Uses will be found for it .
It wo n't be a revolution that will change every website everywhere .
Not everybody has an espresso machine , and not everybody is going to have 3D on their website , but that does n't mean those are n't useful things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just like Second Life, the 3D web is not something people actually wantThe 50K people logged in [secondlife.com] right now would seem to disagree.
Right now it's a fairly low activity time, should go up later.
And from the inside it seems to be still getting larger.They think it sounds great.
Looking at pretty things instead of reading boring stuff is in their eyes the ultimate evolution of computing.
That's why you keep reading this sort of stuff all the time.
But it will never stick, because in reality, it's just not very useful.I see it in a different way.
Not everything has to be a revolution.
Back when there was a lot of news about SL there was a lot of hype for sure, but there must be some use to it, since it didn't die when it stopped getting talked about so much.
Some people see no point in SL, that's perfectly fine.
I see no point WoW either, but that doesn't make it a failure just because it fails to appeal to every person on the planet.I think this will be in the same way.
Uses will be found for it.
It won't be a revolution that will change every website everywhere.
Not everybody has an espresso machine, and not everybody is going to have 3D on their website, but that doesn't mean those aren't useful things.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357966</id>
	<title>Re:Calling it Firefox</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267718460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If successful, it wouldn't surprise me to see the Mozilla folks include this feature in a future release of Firefox.</i></p><p>Heaven forbid, please no!</p><p>We don't need a rendering engine for every arcane formalt ever developed incorparated into a browser that's deployed on millions of desktops. Just remember, each supported protocol adds new complexety, new errors and with this new secutiry-issues that'll lead to exploits, bad press, compromised machines and painful bugfixing.</p><p>Stuff like this should never be part of the browser, it should be an addon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If successful , it would n't surprise me to see the Mozilla folks include this feature in a future release of Firefox.Heaven forbid , please no ! We do n't need a rendering engine for every arcane formalt ever developed incorparated into a browser that 's deployed on millions of desktops .
Just remember , each supported protocol adds new complexety , new errors and with this new secutiry-issues that 'll lead to exploits , bad press , compromised machines and painful bugfixing.Stuff like this should never be part of the browser , it should be an addon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If successful, it wouldn't surprise me to see the Mozilla folks include this feature in a future release of Firefox.Heaven forbid, please no!We don't need a rendering engine for every arcane formalt ever developed incorparated into a browser that's deployed on millions of desktops.
Just remember, each supported protocol adds new complexety, new errors and with this new secutiry-issues that'll lead to exploits, bad press, compromised machines and painful bugfixing.Stuff like this should never be part of the browser, it should be an addon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358192</id>
	<title>Re:No love for VRML</title>
	<author>Junta</author>
	<datestamp>1267719780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see this as a technology to dominate the web experience, but rather to enable things like running a first-person-shooter or other games, or perhaps other special-purpose applications, but games would be the broader case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see this as a technology to dominate the web experience , but rather to enable things like running a first-person-shooter or other games , or perhaps other special-purpose applications , but games would be the broader case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see this as a technology to dominate the web experience, but rather to enable things like running a first-person-shooter or other games, or perhaps other special-purpose applications, but games would be the broader case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31359082</id>
	<title>Secondlife is a Platform</title>
	<author>RobertLTux</author>
	<datestamp>1267724040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>as the tool chains improve and more stuff becomes stable the uses of SL will become more and more common</p><p>Linden Labs just released a public beta of the new SL 2.0 and i has a "Shared Media" feature that very much blurs the lines between Real Life and SecondLife.</p><p>You want to show a presentation inworld?? rez up a screen and go for it</p><p>(note for SL residents before you login using 2.0 grab the tweaks and have them applied)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>as the tool chains improve and more stuff becomes stable the uses of SL will become more and more commonLinden Labs just released a public beta of the new SL 2.0 and i has a " Shared Media " feature that very much blurs the lines between Real Life and SecondLife.You want to show a presentation inworld ? ?
rez up a screen and go for it ( note for SL residents before you login using 2.0 grab the tweaks and have them applied )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>as the tool chains improve and more stuff becomes stable the uses of SL will become more and more commonLinden Labs just released a public beta of the new SL 2.0 and i has a "Shared Media" feature that very much blurs the lines between Real Life and SecondLife.You want to show a presentation inworld??
rez up a screen and go for it(note for SL residents before you login using 2.0 grab the tweaks and have them applied)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358738</id>
	<title>Re:No love for VRML</title>
	<author>PitaBred</author>
	<datestamp>1267722780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why does the whole web have to be 3D or not? Why can't we just make the parts of it 3D that make sense to make 3D? It's not a hard damn concept.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does the whole web have to be 3D or not ?
Why ca n't we just make the parts of it 3D that make sense to make 3D ?
It 's not a hard damn concept .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does the whole web have to be 3D or not?
Why can't we just make the parts of it 3D that make sense to make 3D?
It's not a hard damn concept.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358042</id>
	<title>Tech for the future</title>
	<author>muyla</author>
	<datestamp>1267718820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe this tech will be big when 3d monitors are out... just imagine the pop ups really poping out of your screen<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe this tech will be big when 3d monitors are out... just imagine the pop ups really poping out of your screen : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe this tech will be big when 3d monitors are out... just imagine the pop ups really poping out of your screen :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357828</id>
	<title>Short answer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267717440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The browser will be released within a few weeks, the researchers say, and they are checking with the Mozilla Foundation about whether they can call it Firefox.</p></div></blockquote><p>No.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The browser will be released within a few weeks , the researchers say , and they are checking with the Mozilla Foundation about whether they can call it Firefox.No .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The browser will be released within a few weeks, the researchers say, and they are checking with the Mozilla Foundation about whether they can call it Firefox.No.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31364676</id>
	<title>Re:Calling it Firefox</title>
	<author>Muerte2</author>
	<datestamp>1267705860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>2001 called, they want their opinion back! People said the same thing about audio/video back in the day, now look at HTML5.</p><p>I'm *NOT* advocating that we just add every format into a browser, but should a good format emerge I don't see any reason not to add it to a browser. Better in the core browser than in an addon: speed and reliability are always better in the core browser.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>2001 called , they want their opinion back !
People said the same thing about audio/video back in the day , now look at HTML5.I 'm * NOT * advocating that we just add every format into a browser , but should a good format emerge I do n't see any reason not to add it to a browser .
Better in the core browser than in an addon : speed and reliability are always better in the core browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2001 called, they want their opinion back!
People said the same thing about audio/video back in the day, now look at HTML5.I'm *NOT* advocating that we just add every format into a browser, but should a good format emerge I don't see any reason not to add it to a browser.
Better in the core browser than in an addon: speed and reliability are always better in the core browser.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358918</id>
	<title>Just what Firefox needs... More bloat !</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267723380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just what Firefox needs... More bloat !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just what Firefox needs... More bloat !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just what Firefox needs... More bloat !</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357814</id>
	<title>No love for VRML</title>
	<author>BadAnalogyGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1267717380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We've had 3D graphics for YEARS in browsers. It is called VRML and it is a standard that has been with us since the early days of graphical browsers.</p><p>But the real question is who in their right mind will develop anything as ephemeral as a web page with this complicated technology? The time investment involved to come out with even the simplest of models is enormous. Maybe not John Pinette enormous, something smaller like Louie Anderson enormous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've had 3D graphics for YEARS in browsers .
It is called VRML and it is a standard that has been with us since the early days of graphical browsers.But the real question is who in their right mind will develop anything as ephemeral as a web page with this complicated technology ?
The time investment involved to come out with even the simplest of models is enormous .
Maybe not John Pinette enormous , something smaller like Louie Anderson enormous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We've had 3D graphics for YEARS in browsers.
It is called VRML and it is a standard that has been with us since the early days of graphical browsers.But the real question is who in their right mind will develop anything as ephemeral as a web page with this complicated technology?
The time investment involved to come out with even the simplest of models is enormous.
Maybe not John Pinette enormous, something smaller like Louie Anderson enormous.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358012</id>
	<title>Re:No love for VRML</title>
	<author>Jaydee23</author>
	<datestamp>1267718700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who will use it? I'm sure that there will be somebody who develops the next big thing with it and hypes it to the stratosphere.

I'm constantly amazed by what catches on on the web (Twitter? FourSquare? Go figure)

Needless to say I never invest in web companies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who will use it ?
I 'm sure that there will be somebody who develops the next big thing with it and hypes it to the stratosphere .
I 'm constantly amazed by what catches on on the web ( Twitter ?
FourSquare ? Go figure ) Needless to say I never invest in web companies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who will use it?
I'm sure that there will be somebody who develops the next big thing with it and hypes it to the stratosphere.
I'm constantly amazed by what catches on on the web (Twitter?
FourSquare? Go figure)

Needless to say I never invest in web companies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358176</id>
	<title>Re:Gallery?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267719720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sr-LUJUxhzM" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">Ok, it's a video, not an image<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</a> [youtube.com]<br>Found, of course, with Google.<br><a href="http://www.youtube.com/results?search\_query=XML3D&amp;search\_type=&amp;aq=f" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">Searching directly on YouTube gives two further results.</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , it 's a video , not an image ... [ youtube.com ] Found , of course , with Google.Searching directly on YouTube gives two further results .
[ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, it's a video, not an image ... [youtube.com]Found, of course, with Google.Searching directly on YouTube gives two further results.
[youtube.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358138</id>
	<title>Re:oh great.</title>
	<author>timeOday</author>
	<datestamp>1267719420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>why wouldnt someone just embed a higher quality video into their site instead of rendering 3d inside of the browser?</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

Sheesh people, it's not like we're speculating about something totally new here.  There are <a href="http://www.miniclip.com/games/vector-city-racers/en/" title="miniclip.com">lots of popular 3d web apps</a> [miniclip.com] already (such as this game, which should make the point of "why render in the browser" obvious).  This is just a new language for doing it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>why wouldnt someone just embed a higher quality video into their site instead of rendering 3d inside of the browser ?
Sheesh people , it 's not like we 're speculating about something totally new here .
There are lots of popular 3d web apps [ miniclip.com ] already ( such as this game , which should make the point of " why render in the browser " obvious ) .
This is just a new language for doing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why wouldnt someone just embed a higher quality video into their site instead of rendering 3d inside of the browser?
Sheesh people, it's not like we're speculating about something totally new here.
There are lots of popular 3d web apps [miniclip.com] already (such as this game, which should make the point of "why render in the browser" obvious).
This is just a new language for doing it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31360828</id>
	<title>Re:oh great.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267731780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK...thats not 3d, or at least not what this article is talking about. Thats a 2D game with simulated 3D. its called VECTOR racers. Duh???</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK...thats not 3d , or at least not what this article is talking about .
Thats a 2D game with simulated 3D .
its called VECTOR racers .
Duh ? ? ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK...thats not 3d, or at least not what this article is talking about.
Thats a 2D game with simulated 3D.
its called VECTOR racers.
Duh???</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357990</id>
	<title>No thanks</title>
	<author>Fackamato</author>
	<datestamp>1267718580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not interested. What I want: rendering accelerated by the graphics card, in some way, better than (if) it is now. No more slow scrolling pages full of graphics.</p><p>Ahh, the day that comes...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not interested .
What I want : rendering accelerated by the graphics card , in some way , better than ( if ) it is now .
No more slow scrolling pages full of graphics.Ahh , the day that comes.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not interested.
What I want: rendering accelerated by the graphics card, in some way, better than (if) it is now.
No more slow scrolling pages full of graphics.Ahh, the day that comes...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31359014</id>
	<title>Re:Ray tracing vs. Rasterization</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1267723740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because rasterization '<i>with all kinds of ray tracing like effects</i>' is a bitch.<br>
<br>
Shadows alone are extremely complicated in a rasterizer, with special cases for self shadowing, for when the camera is within a shadow or not, when something reflective is being rendered, when something refractive is being rendered, and so on and on.<br>
<br>
Essentially nobody has EVER made general purpose rasterizer that flawlessly supports shadows in concert with all the other 'ray tracing like effects' and it is likely that nobody ever will, because the problem is more than just non-trivial. There is always another edge case. Games get away with it because they impose restrictions (explicit or implicit) which avoid most of the edge cases that the renderer can't handle.<br>
<br>
Even highly developed engines such as Valve's Source Engine still have problems with incorrect shadowing of their own (non-arbitrary) content, and thats in scenes without reflections or refractions complicating the problem. Now factor in that a renderer such as this is supposed to render arbitrary content, and you see the main problem with rasterizers as general purpose photo-realistic renderers is that nobody can do it, in spite of decades of effort.<br>
<br>
The reason to use a raytracer is because all the photo-realistic behaviors of light fall right out of it by definition. Adding yet another behavior of light is simple. Shadows, reflection, refraction, global illumination.. its all SIMPLE (tho certainly less efficient.) The problematic "quality" issues raytracers have are trivial in comparison, with the hardest probably being the inherent aliasing of sub-pixel features.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because rasterization 'with all kinds of ray tracing like effects ' is a bitch .
Shadows alone are extremely complicated in a rasterizer , with special cases for self shadowing , for when the camera is within a shadow or not , when something reflective is being rendered , when something refractive is being rendered , and so on and on .
Essentially nobody has EVER made general purpose rasterizer that flawlessly supports shadows in concert with all the other 'ray tracing like effects ' and it is likely that nobody ever will , because the problem is more than just non-trivial .
There is always another edge case .
Games get away with it because they impose restrictions ( explicit or implicit ) which avoid most of the edge cases that the renderer ca n't handle .
Even highly developed engines such as Valve 's Source Engine still have problems with incorrect shadowing of their own ( non-arbitrary ) content , and thats in scenes without reflections or refractions complicating the problem .
Now factor in that a renderer such as this is supposed to render arbitrary content , and you see the main problem with rasterizers as general purpose photo-realistic renderers is that nobody can do it , in spite of decades of effort .
The reason to use a raytracer is because all the photo-realistic behaviors of light fall right out of it by definition .
Adding yet another behavior of light is simple .
Shadows , reflection , refraction , global illumination.. its all SIMPLE ( tho certainly less efficient .
) The problematic " quality " issues raytracers have are trivial in comparison , with the hardest probably being the inherent aliasing of sub-pixel features .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because rasterization 'with all kinds of ray tracing like effects' is a bitch.
Shadows alone are extremely complicated in a rasterizer, with special cases for self shadowing, for when the camera is within a shadow or not, when something reflective is being rendered, when something refractive is being rendered, and so on and on.
Essentially nobody has EVER made general purpose rasterizer that flawlessly supports shadows in concert with all the other 'ray tracing like effects' and it is likely that nobody ever will, because the problem is more than just non-trivial.
There is always another edge case.
Games get away with it because they impose restrictions (explicit or implicit) which avoid most of the edge cases that the renderer can't handle.
Even highly developed engines such as Valve's Source Engine still have problems with incorrect shadowing of their own (non-arbitrary) content, and thats in scenes without reflections or refractions complicating the problem.
Now factor in that a renderer such as this is supposed to render arbitrary content, and you see the main problem with rasterizers as general purpose photo-realistic renderers is that nobody can do it, in spite of decades of effort.
The reason to use a raytracer is because all the photo-realistic behaviors of light fall right out of it by definition.
Adding yet another behavior of light is simple.
Shadows, reflection, refraction, global illumination.. its all SIMPLE (tho certainly less efficient.
) The problematic "quality" issues raytracers have are trivial in comparison, with the hardest probably being the inherent aliasing of sub-pixel features.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31359244</id>
	<title>Re:Calling it Firefox</title>
	<author>boxwood</author>
	<datestamp>1267724700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually I don't think Mozilla actually requested debian to change the name, debian changed it themselves because firefox was trademarked and debian want to be free of intellectual property issue.</p><p>Mozilla trademarked firefox because if they didn't, anyone could redistribute it filled with malware and destroy the firefox brand. And there wouldn't be anything mozilla could do about it since FF is open source. With the trademark, if someone tries to distribute a crappy version, mozilla can make them change the name.</p><p>Whether Mozilla allows them to use the firefox name largely depends on the quality of their changes. if this add-on makes firefox buggy or slow then they'll ask them to change the name.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually I do n't think Mozilla actually requested debian to change the name , debian changed it themselves because firefox was trademarked and debian want to be free of intellectual property issue.Mozilla trademarked firefox because if they did n't , anyone could redistribute it filled with malware and destroy the firefox brand .
And there would n't be anything mozilla could do about it since FF is open source .
With the trademark , if someone tries to distribute a crappy version , mozilla can make them change the name.Whether Mozilla allows them to use the firefox name largely depends on the quality of their changes .
if this add-on makes firefox buggy or slow then they 'll ask them to change the name .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually I don't think Mozilla actually requested debian to change the name, debian changed it themselves because firefox was trademarked and debian want to be free of intellectual property issue.Mozilla trademarked firefox because if they didn't, anyone could redistribute it filled with malware and destroy the firefox brand.
And there wouldn't be anything mozilla could do about it since FF is open source.
With the trademark, if someone tries to distribute a crappy version, mozilla can make them change the name.Whether Mozilla allows them to use the firefox name largely depends on the quality of their changes.
if this add-on makes firefox buggy or slow then they'll ask them to change the name.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31365648</id>
	<title>Re:Clarification</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267711680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKQkO7gk1Tc" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKQkO7gk1Tc</a> [youtube.com]<br>video</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = wKQkO7gk1Tc [ youtube.com ] video</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKQkO7gk1Tc [youtube.com]video</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358086</id>
	<title>Re:oh great.</title>
	<author>mr crypto</author>
	<datestamp>1267719120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm in medical software development and we desperately want a good 3D browser solution.  Not sure if this one will fill the bill though in terms of all of the other facets to software tools like standardization, reliability, stability, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm in medical software development and we desperately want a good 3D browser solution .
Not sure if this one will fill the bill though in terms of all of the other facets to software tools like standardization , reliability , stability , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm in medical software development and we desperately want a good 3D browser solution.
Not sure if this one will fill the bill though in terms of all of the other facets to software tools like standardization, reliability, stability, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358508</id>
	<title>3d browser markup extensions since 1990s</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1267721460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I remember playing with a few 15 years ago.  They wrapped OpenGL as I recall.  They did not perform very well in the pre-broadband era.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember playing with a few 15 years ago .
They wrapped OpenGL as I recall .
They did not perform very well in the pre-broadband era .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember playing with a few 15 years ago.
They wrapped OpenGL as I recall.
They did not perform very well in the pre-broadband era.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358062</id>
	<title>Re:No love for VRML</title>
	<author>davechen</author>
	<datestamp>1267719000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>VRML always sucked.  In particular that plugins that were supposed to do VRML sucked.</p><p>Who knows if it will be any different this time around.</p><p>As for who would like 3D graphics on the web, well I would.  And there are tons of 3d models out on the internet, so throwing together a simple scene shouldn't be too difficult.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>VRML always sucked .
In particular that plugins that were supposed to do VRML sucked.Who knows if it will be any different this time around.As for who would like 3D graphics on the web , well I would .
And there are tons of 3d models out on the internet , so throwing together a simple scene should n't be too difficult .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>VRML always sucked.
In particular that plugins that were supposed to do VRML sucked.Who knows if it will be any different this time around.As for who would like 3D graphics on the web, well I would.
And there are tons of 3d models out on the internet, so throwing together a simple scene shouldn't be too difficult.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358660</id>
	<title>X3DOM based on WebGL</title>
	<author>bernd\_semmel</author>
	<datestamp>1267722360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>AFAIK there is already a working HTML5 conform 3D implementation based on WebGL and the X3D standard. It's called X3DOM (<a href="http://x3dom.org/" title="x3dom.org" rel="nofollow">http://x3dom.org</a> [x3dom.org]).
<br> <br>
There's no need for a separate build of Firefox when an HTML5 conform implementation will work out of the box in Firefox 3.7 via WebGL. There's already an official bug by Sam Ruby (<a href="http://intertwingly.net/blog/2009/11/05/Web3D" title="intertwingly.net" rel="nofollow">http://intertwingly.net/blog/2009/11/05/Web3D</a> [intertwingly.net]) in the W3C bug tracker (<a href="http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show\_bug.cgi?id=8238" title="w3.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show\_bug.cgi?id=8238</a> [w3.org]).</htmltext>
<tokenext>AFAIK there is already a working HTML5 conform 3D implementation based on WebGL and the X3D standard .
It 's called X3DOM ( http : //x3dom.org [ x3dom.org ] ) .
There 's no need for a separate build of Firefox when an HTML5 conform implementation will work out of the box in Firefox 3.7 via WebGL .
There 's already an official bug by Sam Ruby ( http : //intertwingly.net/blog/2009/11/05/Web3D [ intertwingly.net ] ) in the W3C bug tracker ( http : //www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show \ _bug.cgi ? id = 8238 [ w3.org ] ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AFAIK there is already a working HTML5 conform 3D implementation based on WebGL and the X3D standard.
It's called X3DOM (http://x3dom.org [x3dom.org]).
There's no need for a separate build of Firefox when an HTML5 conform implementation will work out of the box in Firefox 3.7 via WebGL.
There's already an official bug by Sam Ruby (http://intertwingly.net/blog/2009/11/05/Web3D [intertwingly.net]) in the W3C bug tracker (http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show\_bug.cgi?id=8238 [w3.org]).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358904</id>
	<title>Real-estate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267723380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Could have its usefulness in real-estate marketing, construction, and such.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could have its usefulness in real-estate marketing , construction , and such .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could have its usefulness in real-estate marketing, construction, and such.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31367674</id>
	<title>Re:Two word</title>
	<author>FragHARD</author>
	<datestamp>1267727640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Porn 3Dography. would be a better term<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Porn 3Dography .
would be a better term ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Porn 3Dography.
would be a better term ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358450</id>
	<title>I like it</title>
	<author>Chrigi</author>
	<datestamp>1267721220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think easy to program and easily accessible 3D is good for the web. There are quite some cases, where it makes a lot of sense. The Wikipedia example they showed is actually kinda neat. Some things just work better in 3D than 2D (e.g. molecular structures). From Text to Pictures to Animations to Video to 3D; I think it's just the next step of content display and doesn't replace everything on the web but adds to it and opens the web to a whole new range of content.
Of course there are things one can see as negatives but that doesn't make it bad in principle. CPU/GPU/RAM hunger might not be as we wish and choosing ray tracing might be a rather strange choice. It's not like you'll browse the web as you would play Second Life.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think easy to program and easily accessible 3D is good for the web .
There are quite some cases , where it makes a lot of sense .
The Wikipedia example they showed is actually kinda neat .
Some things just work better in 3D than 2D ( e.g .
molecular structures ) .
From Text to Pictures to Animations to Video to 3D ; I think it 's just the next step of content display and does n't replace everything on the web but adds to it and opens the web to a whole new range of content .
Of course there are things one can see as negatives but that does n't make it bad in principle .
CPU/GPU/RAM hunger might not be as we wish and choosing ray tracing might be a rather strange choice .
It 's not like you 'll browse the web as you would play Second Life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think easy to program and easily accessible 3D is good for the web.
There are quite some cases, where it makes a lot of sense.
The Wikipedia example they showed is actually kinda neat.
Some things just work better in 3D than 2D (e.g.
molecular structures).
From Text to Pictures to Animations to Video to 3D; I think it's just the next step of content display and doesn't replace everything on the web but adds to it and opens the web to a whole new range of content.
Of course there are things one can see as negatives but that doesn't make it bad in principle.
CPU/GPU/RAM hunger might not be as we wish and choosing ray tracing might be a rather strange choice.
It's not like you'll browse the web as you would play Second Life.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357868</id>
	<title>Two word</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267717740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Porn ography.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Porn ography .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Porn ography.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358058</id>
	<title>Re:oh great.</title>
	<author>quadelirus</author>
	<datestamp>1267718940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the article they said they demoed a version of the wikipedia page for Venice and a user could walk around a scene of one of Venice's cathedrals in browser. That is pretty cool, but I agree it will go through the same thing that flash and midi music went through when they got added to the browser: there will be overuse everywhere for 5-10 years until web designers finally take back control from their clients and get back to designing good looking useful interfaces that only use 3D scenes when it really makes sense.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the article they said they demoed a version of the wikipedia page for Venice and a user could walk around a scene of one of Venice 's cathedrals in browser .
That is pretty cool , but I agree it will go through the same thing that flash and midi music went through when they got added to the browser : there will be overuse everywhere for 5-10 years until web designers finally take back control from their clients and get back to designing good looking useful interfaces that only use 3D scenes when it really makes sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the article they said they demoed a version of the wikipedia page for Venice and a user could walk around a scene of one of Venice's cathedrals in browser.
That is pretty cool, but I agree it will go through the same thing that flash and midi music went through when they got added to the browser: there will be overuse everywhere for 5-10 years until web designers finally take back control from their clients and get back to designing good looking useful interfaces that only use 3D scenes when it really makes sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31360690</id>
	<title>Google O3D?</title>
	<author>AmigaHeretic</author>
	<datestamp>1267731120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is this suppose to be like <a href="http://arstechnica.com/software/news/2009/04/google-releases-3d-graphics-plugin-for-browsers.ars" title="arstechnica.com">http://arstechnica.com/software/news/2009/04/google-releases-3d-graphics-plugin-for-browsers.ars</a> [arstechnica.com]
<br> <br>
<a href="http://code.google.com/apis/o3d/" title="google.com">http://code.google.com/apis/o3d/</a> [google.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this suppose to be like http : //arstechnica.com/software/news/2009/04/google-releases-3d-graphics-plugin-for-browsers.ars [ arstechnica.com ] http : //code.google.com/apis/o3d/ [ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this suppose to be like http://arstechnica.com/software/news/2009/04/google-releases-3d-graphics-plugin-for-browsers.ars [arstechnica.com]
 
http://code.google.com/apis/o3d/ [google.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357844</id>
	<title>CPU hungry</title>
	<author>sshock</author>
	<datestamp>1267717620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do I really want my CPU to overload while navigating the web?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do I really want my CPU to overload while navigating the web ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do I really want my CPU to overload while navigating the web?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_1351211_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_1351211_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_1351211_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_1351211_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31359014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_1351211_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_1351211_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_1351211_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_1351211_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31360110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_1351211_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_1351211_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_1351211_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_1351211_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31366684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_1351211_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31367674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_1351211_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_1351211_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_1351211_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31359474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_1351211_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31360828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_1351211_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_1351211_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31359778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_1351211_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31359088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_1351211_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31359082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_1351211_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_1351211_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31365648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_1351211_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_1351211_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31364676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_1351211_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_1351211_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_1351211_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31359244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_1351211.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31359014
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_1351211.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357990
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_1351211.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358340
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_1351211.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31365648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357860
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31360110
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_1351211.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358176
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_1351211.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31360414
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_1351211.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31359088
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_1351211.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357966
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31364676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31359244
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_1351211.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357976
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358138
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31360828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357868
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31367674
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358086
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_1351211.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31357952
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358654
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31359082
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358482
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31359474
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358316
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31366684
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358062
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358240
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358252
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_1351211.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31358514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1351211.31359778
</commentlist>
</conversation>
