<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_05_1544218</id>
	<title>Web Browser Grand Prix</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1267812420000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"After seeing Opera's claim to 'Fastest Browser on Earth' after their most recent release, Tom's Hardware put Apple Safari 4.04, Google Chrome 4.0, Microsoft Internet Explorer 8, Mozilla Firefox 3.6, and Opera 10.50 through a <a href="http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/firefox-chrome-opera,2558.html">gauntlet of speed tests</a> and time trials to find out which Web browser is truly the fastest. How does your favorite land in the rankings?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " After seeing Opera 's claim to 'Fastest Browser on Earth ' after their most recent release , Tom 's Hardware put Apple Safari 4.04 , Google Chrome 4.0 , Microsoft Internet Explorer 8 , Mozilla Firefox 3.6 , and Opera 10.50 through a gauntlet of speed tests and time trials to find out which Web browser is truly the fastest .
How does your favorite land in the rankings ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "After seeing Opera's claim to 'Fastest Browser on Earth' after their most recent release, Tom's Hardware put Apple Safari 4.04, Google Chrome 4.0, Microsoft Internet Explorer 8, Mozilla Firefox 3.6, and Opera 10.50 through a gauntlet of speed tests and time trials to find out which Web browser is truly the fastest.
How does your favorite land in the rankings?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374772</id>
	<title>Re:The winner, hands down, is ...</title>
	<author>element-o.p.</author>
	<datestamp>1267822500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Real geeks read straight html.</p></div><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...in binary.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Real geeks read straight html .
...in binary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Real geeks read straight html.
...in binary.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31376688</id>
	<title>Endless obsession</title>
	<author>Waccoon</author>
	<datestamp>1267790100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Enough about JavaScript speed!  Could we focus on security, please?</p><p>All JS scripts run in a single address space.  I'm a bit annoyed that any JavaScript coming from a 3rd party site (namely ads) have the same privileges as JS from the main site.  There should be a way to sandbox JavaScript and DOM, or at least configure access privileges.  For example, unless configured otherwise, <em>anything</em> in an iframe should be sandboxed, and there should always be some kind of end-user override.</p><p>It makes no difference whether you're a provider or an end-user.  Since when can we trust advertisers not to abuse privileges?  They already siphon usage statistics.  When will they start keylogging?  So much of the web is "2.0" that just turning JavaScript off is no longer an option.</p><p>Even the open source browsers don't seem to care.  Are we really going to rely forever on 3rd party extensions to make up for security shortcomings in software products?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Enough about JavaScript speed !
Could we focus on security , please ? All JS scripts run in a single address space .
I 'm a bit annoyed that any JavaScript coming from a 3rd party site ( namely ads ) have the same privileges as JS from the main site .
There should be a way to sandbox JavaScript and DOM , or at least configure access privileges .
For example , unless configured otherwise , anything in an iframe should be sandboxed , and there should always be some kind of end-user override.It makes no difference whether you 're a provider or an end-user .
Since when can we trust advertisers not to abuse privileges ?
They already siphon usage statistics .
When will they start keylogging ?
So much of the web is " 2.0 " that just turning JavaScript off is no longer an option.Even the open source browsers do n't seem to care .
Are we really going to rely forever on 3rd party extensions to make up for security shortcomings in software products ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Enough about JavaScript speed!
Could we focus on security, please?All JS scripts run in a single address space.
I'm a bit annoyed that any JavaScript coming from a 3rd party site (namely ads) have the same privileges as JS from the main site.
There should be a way to sandbox JavaScript and DOM, or at least configure access privileges.
For example, unless configured otherwise, anything in an iframe should be sandboxed, and there should always be some kind of end-user override.It makes no difference whether you're a provider or an end-user.
Since when can we trust advertisers not to abuse privileges?
They already siphon usage statistics.
When will they start keylogging?
So much of the web is "2.0" that just turning JavaScript off is no longer an option.Even the open source browsers don't seem to care.
Are we really going to rely forever on 3rd party extensions to make up for security shortcomings in software products?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31376850</id>
	<title>Re:Page load times...</title>
	<author>houghi</author>
	<datestamp>1267791240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure page load time is important, but is the difference enough to influence your choice of browser?<br>Graig list has a difference of 40 milliseconds. Not something a user would notice or be bothered with.<br>Facebook has a difference of 300 milliseconds.</p><p>When adding up all the numbers of the pages speed test, the time difference between 1st and second is 181.8 microseconds. Between second and third it is 386.6 and then 11.4 (Then a wopping 1054.4)<br>So the difference of all thosw pages between first and fourth is just above half a second with a total load time of 4.5 to 5 seconds.</p><p>And if you look at the load times for Tom Hardware Website itself, you start to notice that not the browsers are the real issue, but the websites. If you are so interested in browser speed, repair you site.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure page load time is important , but is the difference enough to influence your choice of browser ? Graig list has a difference of 40 milliseconds .
Not something a user would notice or be bothered with.Facebook has a difference of 300 milliseconds.When adding up all the numbers of the pages speed test , the time difference between 1st and second is 181.8 microseconds .
Between second and third it is 386.6 and then 11.4 ( Then a wopping 1054.4 ) So the difference of all thosw pages between first and fourth is just above half a second with a total load time of 4.5 to 5 seconds.And if you look at the load times for Tom Hardware Website itself , you start to notice that not the browsers are the real issue , but the websites .
If you are so interested in browser speed , repair you site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure page load time is important, but is the difference enough to influence your choice of browser?Graig list has a difference of 40 milliseconds.
Not something a user would notice or be bothered with.Facebook has a difference of 300 milliseconds.When adding up all the numbers of the pages speed test, the time difference between 1st and second is 181.8 microseconds.
Between second and third it is 386.6 and then 11.4 (Then a wopping 1054.4)So the difference of all thosw pages between first and fourth is just above half a second with a total load time of 4.5 to 5 seconds.And if you look at the load times for Tom Hardware Website itself, you start to notice that not the browsers are the real issue, but the websites.
If you are so interested in browser speed, repair you site.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374160</id>
	<title>Chrome memory usage</title>
	<author>l00sr</author>
	<datestamp>1267819680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once again, calculating Chrome's memory usage is not as simple as summing the memory usage of all its processes, because shared libraries are only loaded once.  It's unclear as to whether these benchmarks took this into account.  More info <a href="http://blog.chromium.org/2008/09/google-chrome-memory-usage-good-and-bad.html" title="chromium.org">here</a> [chromium.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once again , calculating Chrome 's memory usage is not as simple as summing the memory usage of all its processes , because shared libraries are only loaded once .
It 's unclear as to whether these benchmarks took this into account .
More info here [ chromium.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once again, calculating Chrome's memory usage is not as simple as summing the memory usage of all its processes, because shared libraries are only loaded once.
It's unclear as to whether these benchmarks took this into account.
More info here [chromium.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374552</id>
	<title>does speed matter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267821480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use FF, and havn't noticd a problem; the problems are a lot more around how they change things from version to version, which causes headaches, or around the flaky add ons that interact i n wierd ways, or the totally, still, still, FUBARED bookmark GUI, or the non abilit to handle acrobat files without frequent crashes, or<br>but speed<br>Is that even an issue for anyone ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use FF , and hav n't noticd a problem ; the problems are a lot more around how they change things from version to version , which causes headaches , or around the flaky add ons that interact i n wierd ways , or the totally , still , still , FUBARED bookmark GUI , or the non abilit to handle acrobat files without frequent crashes , orbut speedIs that even an issue for anyone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use FF, and havn't noticd a problem; the problems are a lot more around how they change things from version to version, which causes headaches, or around the flaky add ons that interact i n wierd ways, or the totally, still, still, FUBARED bookmark GUI, or the non abilit to handle acrobat files without frequent crashes, orbut speedIs that even an issue for anyone ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373370</id>
	<title>Slashdotted</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267816080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The site is Slashdotted so hard, the link was removed from the summary to give the poor guys a break.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The site is Slashdotted so hard , the link was removed from the summary to give the poor guys a break .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The site is Slashdotted so hard, the link was removed from the summary to give the poor guys a break.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31375184</id>
	<title>Re:Chrome = teh winnar!</title>
	<author>BZ</author>
	<datestamp>1267781460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Turns out, there are no good independent benchmarks, because writing a decent browser benchmark is \_hard\_.  The two sets of independent tests actually used in the article are broken beyond belief (don't measure what they think they're measuring, are easily gamed, etc).</p><p>In practice, even the dependent benchmarks aren't very good (Dromaeo measures its harness overhead more than anything else in a lot of cases, V8 tests are designed around the V8 engine, Sunspider has known bugs that cause some tests to produce random results and cause others to do different amounts of work in different browsers, that sort of thing).  But they're somewhat better than the independent ones....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Turns out , there are no good independent benchmarks , because writing a decent browser benchmark is \ _hard \ _ .
The two sets of independent tests actually used in the article are broken beyond belief ( do n't measure what they think they 're measuring , are easily gamed , etc ) .In practice , even the dependent benchmarks are n't very good ( Dromaeo measures its harness overhead more than anything else in a lot of cases , V8 tests are designed around the V8 engine , Sunspider has known bugs that cause some tests to produce random results and cause others to do different amounts of work in different browsers , that sort of thing ) .
But they 're somewhat better than the independent ones... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Turns out, there are no good independent benchmarks, because writing a decent browser benchmark is \_hard\_.
The two sets of independent tests actually used in the article are broken beyond belief (don't measure what they think they're measuring, are easily gamed, etc).In practice, even the dependent benchmarks aren't very good (Dromaeo measures its harness overhead more than anything else in a lot of cases, V8 tests are designed around the V8 engine, Sunspider has known bugs that cause some tests to produce random results and cause others to do different amounts of work in different browsers, that sort of thing).
But they're somewhat better than the independent ones....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374388</id>
	<title>Paranoia</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267820520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'll admit I'm a bit crazy, but I'm still not comfortable installing anything from google on my machine.  Their services are great, but they need to stay up in the cloud and away from my stuff.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll admit I 'm a bit crazy , but I 'm still not comfortable installing anything from google on my machine .
Their services are great , but they need to stay up in the cloud and away from my stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll admit I'm a bit crazy, but I'm still not comfortable installing anything from google on my machine.
Their services are great, but they need to stay up in the cloud and away from my stuff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373438</id>
	<title>But...but...</title>
	<author>Lunix Nutcase</author>
	<datestamp>1267816380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"After seeing Opera's claim to 'Fastest Browser on Earth' after their most recent release, Tom's Hardware put Apple Safari 4.04, Google Chrome 4.0, Microsoft Internet Explorer 8, Mozilla Firefox 3.6, and Opera 10.50 through a gauntlet of speed tests and time trials to find out which Web browser is truly the fastest. How does your favorite land in the rankings?"</p></div><p>I use Lynx you insensitive clod!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" After seeing Opera 's claim to 'Fastest Browser on Earth ' after their most recent release , Tom 's Hardware put Apple Safari 4.04 , Google Chrome 4.0 , Microsoft Internet Explorer 8 , Mozilla Firefox 3.6 , and Opera 10.50 through a gauntlet of speed tests and time trials to find out which Web browser is truly the fastest .
How does your favorite land in the rankings ?
" I use Lynx you insensitive clod !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"After seeing Opera's claim to 'Fastest Browser on Earth' after their most recent release, Tom's Hardware put Apple Safari 4.04, Google Chrome 4.0, Microsoft Internet Explorer 8, Mozilla Firefox 3.6, and Opera 10.50 through a gauntlet of speed tests and time trials to find out which Web browser is truly the fastest.
How does your favorite land in the rankings?
"I use Lynx you insensitive clod!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373772</id>
	<title>Can't be a real Grand Prix</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267817760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The American contenders turned up</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The American contenders turned up</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The American contenders turned up</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373626</id>
	<title>Wimp!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267817220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use a telnet in a terminal. Right now, it's going to be a bitch posting this comment:</p><p>First try:</p><p>telnet http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/03/05/1544218/Web-Browser-Grand-Prix?art\_pos=1:80<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..... how the fuck do I "click" on the "preview' button?? Shit! OK...</p><p>Fuck it. Where's Lynx./..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use a telnet in a terminal .
Right now , it 's going to be a bitch posting this comment : First try : telnet http : //news.slashdot.org/story/10/03/05/1544218/Web-Browser-Grand-Prix ? art \ _pos = 1 : 80 ..... how the fuck do I " click " on the " preview ' button ? ?
Shit ! OK...Fuck it .
Where 's Lynx./. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use a telnet in a terminal.
Right now, it's going to be a bitch posting this comment:First try:telnet http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/03/05/1544218/Web-Browser-Grand-Prix?art\_pos=1:80 ..... how the fuck do I "click" on the "preview' button??
Shit! OK...Fuck it.
Where's Lynx./..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31375358</id>
	<title>Tested on Windows 7... now do the same tests</title>
	<author>gosand</author>
	<datestamp>1267782360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now that they have this set of tests, do the same thing on WinXP and Vista.</p><p>But since I use Linux, I really don't care all that much about this test in the first place.  Firefox for me, Opera as a backup, Konqueror bringing up the rear, and XP/IE7 on Virtualbox for those teeth-gritting (but getting more rare) occasions when it is absolutely the last option.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now that they have this set of tests , do the same thing on WinXP and Vista.But since I use Linux , I really do n't care all that much about this test in the first place .
Firefox for me , Opera as a backup , Konqueror bringing up the rear , and XP/IE7 on Virtualbox for those teeth-gritting ( but getting more rare ) occasions when it is absolutely the last option .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now that they have this set of tests, do the same thing on WinXP and Vista.But since I use Linux, I really don't care all that much about this test in the first place.
Firefox for me, Opera as a backup, Konqueror bringing up the rear, and XP/IE7 on Virtualbox for those teeth-gritting (but getting more rare) occasions when it is absolutely the last option.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374962</id>
	<title>Did anyone actually look at the tests?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267780320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you look at the results, they are all pretty similar, except IE.  While Opera and Chrome barely win a few more times than Safari and Firefox, the reality is that the results are all largely similar and no one product really is much different than the others in performance.  If the tests were weighted differently, or if the analysis used standard deviation instead of place, you'd find no real difference in any of these, again, except IE, which clearly did not fare well in these tests.  Just my 2 cents--I don't hate any of them and even IE has people that like it, despite the fact that it is slower.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you look at the results , they are all pretty similar , except IE .
While Opera and Chrome barely win a few more times than Safari and Firefox , the reality is that the results are all largely similar and no one product really is much different than the others in performance .
If the tests were weighted differently , or if the analysis used standard deviation instead of place , you 'd find no real difference in any of these , again , except IE , which clearly did not fare well in these tests .
Just my 2 cents--I do n't hate any of them and even IE has people that like it , despite the fact that it is slower .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you look at the results, they are all pretty similar, except IE.
While Opera and Chrome barely win a few more times than Safari and Firefox, the reality is that the results are all largely similar and no one product really is much different than the others in performance.
If the tests were weighted differently, or if the analysis used standard deviation instead of place, you'd find no real difference in any of these, again, except IE, which clearly did not fare well in these tests.
Just my 2 cents--I don't hate any of them and even IE has people that like it, despite the fact that it is slower.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373412</id>
	<title>I bet if you included a link I'd find out</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267816200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really like to use Internet Explorer 3, I hope they tested it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really like to use Internet Explorer 3 , I hope they tested it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really like to use Internet Explorer 3, I hope they tested it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31375810</id>
	<title>Re:is Safari startup time really surprising?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267784820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Safari on Windows uses a lot of libraries that only get used by Safari</i></p><p>In software engineering circles, this is known as  "bad design".  Apple is good at many things, but writing software for non-Apple operating systems is not one of them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Safari on Windows uses a lot of libraries that only get used by SafariIn software engineering circles , this is known as " bad design " .
Apple is good at many things , but writing software for non-Apple operating systems is not one of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Safari on Windows uses a lot of libraries that only get used by SafariIn software engineering circles, this is known as  "bad design".
Apple is good at many things, but writing software for non-Apple operating systems is not one of them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373664</id>
	<title>I don't think mine is listed.</title>
	<author>Antony-Kyre</author>
	<datestamp>1267817340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mine being IE6. Now, the question remains. Will this comment be moderated as...<br>Troll,<br>Funny,<br>or something else?<br>I guess it depends on whether you think someone would be stupid enough to be using IE6 still. cough</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mine being IE6 .
Now , the question remains .
Will this comment be moderated as...Troll,Funny,or something else ? I guess it depends on whether you think someone would be stupid enough to be using IE6 still .
cough</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mine being IE6.
Now, the question remains.
Will this comment be moderated as...Troll,Funny,or something else?I guess it depends on whether you think someone would be stupid enough to be using IE6 still.
cough</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373678</id>
	<title>Re:Of course ...</title>
	<author>Sir\_Lewk</author>
	<datestamp>1267817400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, because chances are everyone else here knows how to properly use the word 'cynical'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , because chances are everyone else here knows how to properly use the word 'cynical' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, because chances are everyone else here knows how to properly use the word 'cynical'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31375746</id>
	<title>Re:is Safari startup time really surprising?</title>
	<author>generalhavok</author>
	<datestamp>1267784520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>On my Mac, Safari starts up a lot faster than IE.</htmltext>
<tokenext>On my Mac , Safari starts up a lot faster than IE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On my Mac, Safari starts up a lot faster than IE.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31376298</id>
	<title>Re:So?</title>
	<author>Joce640k</author>
	<datestamp>1267787760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yawn. Call me when they have 3/3.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yawn .
Call me when they have 3/3 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yawn.
Call me when they have 3/3.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31375234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374050</id>
	<title>Conclusion</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1267819200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the whole, there's really a single practical conclusion from those tests that is useful to a user:</p><p>Any browser is fast enough, so long as it's not IE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the whole , there 's really a single practical conclusion from those tests that is useful to a user : Any browser is fast enough , so long as it 's not IE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the whole, there's really a single practical conclusion from those tests that is useful to a user:Any browser is fast enough, so long as it's not IE.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373654</id>
	<title>They all win</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267817280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The competition will even make every browser better &amp; faster.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The competition will even make every browser better &amp; faster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The competition will even make every browser better &amp; faster.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373934</id>
	<title>Re:IE and Facebook...</title>
	<author>Korin43</author>
	<datestamp>1267818660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or because it's easier to render a page if you don't care about bugs. I'm guessing IE's score on the ACID tests and speed rending certain pages are related.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or because it 's easier to render a page if you do n't care about bugs .
I 'm guessing IE 's score on the ACID tests and speed rending certain pages are related .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or because it's easier to render a page if you don't care about bugs.
I'm guessing IE's score on the ACID tests and speed rending certain pages are related.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373382</id>
	<title>Unfortunately...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267816140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately for CmdrTaco he still wins the Micropenis Grand Prix though kdawson isn't far behind in 2nd.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately for CmdrTaco he still wins the Micropenis Grand Prix though kdawson is n't far behind in 2nd .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately for CmdrTaco he still wins the Micropenis Grand Prix though kdawson isn't far behind in 2nd.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31375098</id>
	<title>Can't see my current favourite there!</title>
	<author>Lemming Mark</author>
	<datestamp>1267780920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My current favourite is rekonq (http://rekonq.sourceforge.net/), a KDE-native WebKit-based browser.  The version I'm compiling from git (they're releasing 0.4.0 soon and it's shaping up well) is looking very nice indeed.  If you have the dependencies it needs (recent version of QT needed for plugin support.  I'm running with QT 4.6 and KDE 4.4) it's very nice.  KDE's web shortcuts work, integrates with KGet, Click To Flash built in, slim UI.  I've got nspluginwrapper on this system (my 64-bit Fedora installed it by default) and it isolates the browser from plugin crashes (and I can kill the plugins if they use lots of CPU).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My current favourite is rekonq ( http : //rekonq.sourceforge.net/ ) , a KDE-native WebKit-based browser .
The version I 'm compiling from git ( they 're releasing 0.4.0 soon and it 's shaping up well ) is looking very nice indeed .
If you have the dependencies it needs ( recent version of QT needed for plugin support .
I 'm running with QT 4.6 and KDE 4.4 ) it 's very nice .
KDE 's web shortcuts work , integrates with KGet , Click To Flash built in , slim UI .
I 've got nspluginwrapper on this system ( my 64-bit Fedora installed it by default ) and it isolates the browser from plugin crashes ( and I can kill the plugins if they use lots of CPU ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My current favourite is rekonq (http://rekonq.sourceforge.net/), a KDE-native WebKit-based browser.
The version I'm compiling from git (they're releasing 0.4.0 soon and it's shaping up well) is looking very nice indeed.
If you have the dependencies it needs (recent version of QT needed for plugin support.
I'm running with QT 4.6 and KDE 4.4) it's very nice.
KDE's web shortcuts work, integrates with KGet, Click To Flash built in, slim UI.
I've got nspluginwrapper on this system (my 64-bit Fedora installed it by default) and it isolates the browser from plugin crashes (and I can kill the plugins if they use lots of CPU).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373702</id>
	<title>Re:Chrome = teh winnar!</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1267817460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Chrome was the winner, but unfortunately one of the JavaScript tests was the Google benchmark. Thats a facepalm for toms hardware this time.<br>
<br>
I would love to see these tests done with only independent benchmarks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Chrome was the winner , but unfortunately one of the JavaScript tests was the Google benchmark .
Thats a facepalm for toms hardware this time .
I would love to see these tests done with only independent benchmarks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chrome was the winner, but unfortunately one of the JavaScript tests was the Google benchmark.
Thats a facepalm for toms hardware this time.
I would love to see these tests done with only independent benchmarks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373938</id>
	<title>Lynx</title>
	<author>mederbil</author>
	<datestamp>1267818720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Non graphical web browsers, like Lynx will always be the fastest. Although the content is a little "slim", it loads pages faster.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Non graphical web browsers , like Lynx will always be the fastest .
Although the content is a little " slim " , it loads pages faster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Non graphical web browsers, like Lynx will always be the fastest.
Although the content is a little "slim", it loads pages faster.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374008</id>
	<title>How much of all these numbers are practical ?</title>
	<author>parallel\_prankster</author>
	<datestamp>1267819020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How do these numbers help me choose a browser ? When on any test - speed or memory - most browsers performed differently on different benchmarks from the same category ?
I wish they also explained whether being second in a particular memory test is that bad.
Besides, I use a lot of extensions in Mozilla that blocks flash, adblocks etc, how do those affect memory consumption and speed ?
I wish there was some more details about these results, especially how the numbers translate to daily use.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How do these numbers help me choose a browser ?
When on any test - speed or memory - most browsers performed differently on different benchmarks from the same category ?
I wish they also explained whether being second in a particular memory test is that bad .
Besides , I use a lot of extensions in Mozilla that blocks flash , adblocks etc , how do those affect memory consumption and speed ?
I wish there was some more details about these results , especially how the numbers translate to daily use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do these numbers help me choose a browser ?
When on any test - speed or memory - most browsers performed differently on different benchmarks from the same category ?
I wish they also explained whether being second in a particular memory test is that bad.
Besides, I use a lot of extensions in Mozilla that blocks flash, adblocks etc, how do those affect memory consumption and speed ?
I wish there was some more details about these results, especially how the numbers translate to daily use.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31377404</id>
	<title>Re:Chrome = teh winnar!</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1267796400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sunspider is a bigger facepalm. When it first came out, it re-downloaded scripts every time it used them, and factored that into the scores. I recall trying it on ADSL, and getting amazingly better results than anyone on dialup or slow broadband.</p><p>It seems to be okay now, but back then it was a noob benchmark.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sunspider is a bigger facepalm .
When it first came out , it re-downloaded scripts every time it used them , and factored that into the scores .
I recall trying it on ADSL , and getting amazingly better results than anyone on dialup or slow broadband.It seems to be okay now , but back then it was a noob benchmark .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sunspider is a bigger facepalm.
When it first came out, it re-downloaded scripts every time it used them, and factored that into the scores.
I recall trying it on ADSL, and getting amazingly better results than anyone on dialup or slow broadband.It seems to be okay now, but back then it was a noob benchmark.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31394024</id>
	<title>Re:Chrome = teh winnar!</title>
	<author>hkmwbz</author>
	<datestamp>1267958880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Chrome is claimed to be the winner only because the author uses a strange way to count scores. If you count the average score, Opera wins.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Chrome is claimed to be the winner only because the author uses a strange way to count scores .
If you count the average score , Opera wins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chrome is claimed to be the winner only because the author uses a strange way to count scores.
If you count the average score, Opera wins.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373410</id>
	<title>Re:A link to the article would be nice.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267816200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And I thought that <a href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebook\_wants\_to\_be\_your\_one\_true\_login.php" title="readwriteweb.com" rel="nofollow">people mistaking a blog post about Facebook for Facebook</a> [readwriteweb.com] meant the end of humanity. Now articles are getting posted without links? Of course we can google everything, but what are we lazy people going to do if we don't know what a URL bar is and only use our internets to play Farmville?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And I thought that people mistaking a blog post about Facebook for Facebook [ readwriteweb.com ] meant the end of humanity .
Now articles are getting posted without links ?
Of course we can google everything , but what are we lazy people going to do if we do n't know what a URL bar is and only use our internets to play Farmville ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I thought that people mistaking a blog post about Facebook for Facebook [readwriteweb.com] meant the end of humanity.
Now articles are getting posted without links?
Of course we can google everything, but what are we lazy people going to do if we don't know what a URL bar is and only use our internets to play Farmville?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373356</id>
	<title>A link to the article would be nice.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267816080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Really, it would.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really , it would .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really, it would.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373872</id>
	<title>Re:So?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267818300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only one browser in the list has adblock/noscript/flashblock.</p><p>Without those the other browsers are automatically losers no matter how fast they start up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only one browser in the list has adblock/noscript/flashblock.Without those the other browsers are automatically losers no matter how fast they start up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only one browser in the list has adblock/noscript/flashblock.Without those the other browsers are automatically losers no matter how fast they start up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374974</id>
	<title>Re:So?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267780380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your right. Opera winds hands down... Oh? You where talking about a plug in that is only supported by Firefox and not built-in? Then all of them support t don't they? Or does Safari not have plug-ins?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your right .
Opera winds hands down... Oh ? You where talking about a plug in that is only supported by Firefox and not built-in ?
Then all of them support t do n't they ?
Or does Safari not have plug-ins ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your right.
Opera winds hands down... Oh? You where talking about a plug in that is only supported by Firefox and not built-in?
Then all of them support t don't they?
Or does Safari not have plug-ins?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31394104</id>
	<title>Re:Chrome = teh winnar!</title>
	<author>hkmwbz</author>
	<datestamp>1267959360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem is that the V8 benchmark is created to make Chrome look good. So it skips stuff Chrome is slow at. At least Safari "loses" at Sunspider, which makes it a bit more credible than the test Google made to make it appear like Chrome is much faster than the rest using trickery...</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that the V8 benchmark is created to make Chrome look good .
So it skips stuff Chrome is slow at .
At least Safari " loses " at Sunspider , which makes it a bit more credible than the test Google made to make it appear like Chrome is much faster than the rest using trickery.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that the V8 benchmark is created to make Chrome look good.
So it skips stuff Chrome is slow at.
At least Safari "loses" at Sunspider, which makes it a bit more credible than the test Google made to make it appear like Chrome is much faster than the rest using trickery...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31376826</id>
	<title>All I care about...</title>
	<author>wzzzzrd</author>
	<datestamp>1267791060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...which is the best pr0n viewer?</htmltext>
<tokenext>...which is the best pr0n viewer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...which is the best pr0n viewer?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373378</id>
	<title>Link to the story</title>
	<author>Sidn</author>
	<datestamp>1267816140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/firefox-chrome-opera,2558.html" title="tomshardware.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/firefox-chrome-opera,2558.html</a> [tomshardware.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.tomshardware.com/reviews/firefox-chrome-opera,2558.html [ tomshardware.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/firefox-chrome-opera,2558.html [tomshardware.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373690</id>
	<title>Javashit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267817460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can we please stop measuring browser speed with javascript?  Javascript is shit 99\% of the time.</p><p>And before you get any ideas, flash is shit 99.9\% of the time.</p><p>How about browser makers focus on making popular sites suck less ass?  Imagine if IE9/FF4 came with official mods for sites.  Load facebook.com?  Get it without the bullshit!</p><p>You can obviously already do this with great control with plugins for various browsers, but for it to make any difference for the average user it has to be built in, officially supported, and transparent.</p><p>If facebook doesn't like it, fine, let them get into an arms race with the browsers, just like how advertisers are starting to fight back against adblockers (who are also fighting back).</p><p>I'm sick of the shitty shitty shit on the web.<br>Measuring how fast a browser can wade through that shit is pointless.  How about you measure how well a browser power washes that shit off of the site before serving it up to me?</p><p>IGN.com as viewed by<br>- Default IE8 reference<br>- IE9's shitripper<br>- FF4's shitripper<br>- FF3.6 + ABP + NS<br>- Chrome 2's shitripper<br>- etc.</p><p>That's a comparison I'd like to see.  And if that comparison got attention, maybe, just maybe, sites would be designed with less shit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can we please stop measuring browser speed with javascript ?
Javascript is shit 99 \ % of the time.And before you get any ideas , flash is shit 99.9 \ % of the time.How about browser makers focus on making popular sites suck less ass ?
Imagine if IE9/FF4 came with official mods for sites .
Load facebook.com ?
Get it without the bullshit ! You can obviously already do this with great control with plugins for various browsers , but for it to make any difference for the average user it has to be built in , officially supported , and transparent.If facebook does n't like it , fine , let them get into an arms race with the browsers , just like how advertisers are starting to fight back against adblockers ( who are also fighting back ) .I 'm sick of the shitty shitty shit on the web.Measuring how fast a browser can wade through that shit is pointless .
How about you measure how well a browser power washes that shit off of the site before serving it up to me ? IGN.com as viewed by- Default IE8 reference- IE9 's shitripper- FF4 's shitripper- FF3.6 + ABP + NS- Chrome 2 's shitripper- etc.That 's a comparison I 'd like to see .
And if that comparison got attention , maybe , just maybe , sites would be designed with less shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can we please stop measuring browser speed with javascript?
Javascript is shit 99\% of the time.And before you get any ideas, flash is shit 99.9\% of the time.How about browser makers focus on making popular sites suck less ass?
Imagine if IE9/FF4 came with official mods for sites.
Load facebook.com?
Get it without the bullshit!You can obviously already do this with great control with plugins for various browsers, but for it to make any difference for the average user it has to be built in, officially supported, and transparent.If facebook doesn't like it, fine, let them get into an arms race with the browsers, just like how advertisers are starting to fight back against adblockers (who are also fighting back).I'm sick of the shitty shitty shit on the web.Measuring how fast a browser can wade through that shit is pointless.
How about you measure how well a browser power washes that shit off of the site before serving it up to me?IGN.com as viewed by- Default IE8 reference- IE9's shitripper- FF4's shitripper- FF3.6 + ABP + NS- Chrome 2's shitripper- etc.That's a comparison I'd like to see.
And if that comparison got attention, maybe, just maybe, sites would be designed with less shit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374440</id>
	<title>Re:won't switch to Chrome yet</title>
	<author>gregmac</author>
	<datestamp>1267820820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was in the same boat, just found <a href="https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/lfkgmnnajiljnolcgolmmgnecgldgeld" title="google.com">smooth gestures</a> [google.com] - it works quite well, though I also had to install <a href="https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/djnmanljkopakfofdpmelbccmbpbocaa" title="google.com">smooth gestures new tab</a> [google.com] because otherwise it doesn't work on the "new" tab that shows thumbnails etc.</p><p>I've started using Chrome on my laptop now, mostly because Firefox inexplicably started taking up many hundreds of megs of RAM and becoming very slow after a day or two, to the point I had to restart. I have some extensions installed (firebug, firecookie, web developer, gestures) but nothing that I don't have installed on other systems.</p><p>Anyways, it's noticeably faster than FF, and so far I like it. No real complaints for my laptop surfing so far (which is reading news, email, and random research/documentation/surfing).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was in the same boat , just found smooth gestures [ google.com ] - it works quite well , though I also had to install smooth gestures new tab [ google.com ] because otherwise it does n't work on the " new " tab that shows thumbnails etc.I 've started using Chrome on my laptop now , mostly because Firefox inexplicably started taking up many hundreds of megs of RAM and becoming very slow after a day or two , to the point I had to restart .
I have some extensions installed ( firebug , firecookie , web developer , gestures ) but nothing that I do n't have installed on other systems.Anyways , it 's noticeably faster than FF , and so far I like it .
No real complaints for my laptop surfing so far ( which is reading news , email , and random research/documentation/surfing ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was in the same boat, just found smooth gestures [google.com] - it works quite well, though I also had to install smooth gestures new tab [google.com] because otherwise it doesn't work on the "new" tab that shows thumbnails etc.I've started using Chrome on my laptop now, mostly because Firefox inexplicably started taking up many hundreds of megs of RAM and becoming very slow after a day or two, to the point I had to restart.
I have some extensions installed (firebug, firecookie, web developer, gestures) but nothing that I don't have installed on other systems.Anyways, it's noticeably faster than FF, and so far I like it.
No real complaints for my laptop surfing so far (which is reading news, email, and random research/documentation/surfing).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373468</id>
	<title>Chrome = teh winnar!</title>
	<author>ZERO1ZERO</author>
	<datestamp>1267816500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>followed by Opera, then Safari, Firefox, and IE.

<p> <a href="http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/firefox-chrome-opera,2558-10.html" title="tomshardware.com">analysis and conclusions</a> [tomshardware.com]
</p><p>I just installed Opera 10.5 and it's decently good enough for me to continue using  it .</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>followed by Opera , then Safari , Firefox , and IE .
analysis and conclusions [ tomshardware.com ] I just installed Opera 10.5 and it 's decently good enough for me to continue using it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>followed by Opera, then Safari, Firefox, and IE.
analysis and conclusions [tomshardware.com]
I just installed Opera 10.5 and it's decently good enough for me to continue using  it .</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374208</id>
	<title>Trying to read the article with the winner</title>
	<author>griffinme</author>
	<datestamp>1267819800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was trying to read the article with Chrome, the eventual winner, and these incredibly annoying ads took up a big chunk of the top left corner. This is with the AdBlock extension for Chrome. The ad was bad enough that it covered several words of the first sentences on each page. I thought that a nice experiment would be to load the page on Firefox. Hey, whadyaknow, the annoying ad is gone in Firefox. To me that says Firefox won the two most important categories. Mem usage and getting rid of annoying ads.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was trying to read the article with Chrome , the eventual winner , and these incredibly annoying ads took up a big chunk of the top left corner .
This is with the AdBlock extension for Chrome .
The ad was bad enough that it covered several words of the first sentences on each page .
I thought that a nice experiment would be to load the page on Firefox .
Hey , whadyaknow , the annoying ad is gone in Firefox .
To me that says Firefox won the two most important categories .
Mem usage and getting rid of annoying ads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was trying to read the article with Chrome, the eventual winner, and these incredibly annoying ads took up a big chunk of the top left corner.
This is with the AdBlock extension for Chrome.
The ad was bad enough that it covered several words of the first sentences on each page.
I thought that a nice experiment would be to load the page on Firefox.
Hey, whadyaknow, the annoying ad is gone in Firefox.
To me that says Firefox won the two most important categories.
Mem usage and getting rid of annoying ads.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374244</id>
	<title>Re:won't switch to Chrome yet</title>
	<author>konadelux</author>
	<datestamp>1267819980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>well I do 99\% of my surfing with my laptop trackpad, so I'm not sure how well this works, but maybe give it a shot...<br> <br>

<a href="https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/lfkgmnnajiljnolcgolmmgnecgldgeld" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">Smooth Gestures</a> [google.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>well I do 99 \ % of my surfing with my laptop trackpad , so I 'm not sure how well this works , but maybe give it a shot.. . Smooth Gestures [ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>well I do 99\% of my surfing with my laptop trackpad, so I'm not sure how well this works, but maybe give it a shot... 

Smooth Gestures [google.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374220</id>
	<title>Re:Page load times...</title>
	<author>VoiceInTheDesert</author>
	<datestamp>1267819860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Somewhat true, but I find firefoxe's memory usage and startup time to be really irritating. That and it's gotten cluttered. Chrome's sleekness was the first big reason I switched over. Only the URL bar and bookmark bar take up screen space. The rest of it is dynamially hidden (status bar) or compartimentalized (the settings and configure menus) into smaller areas so as to not take up as much space.
<br>
<br>
Page loading is well and good, but when it comes down to it, browser's physical size, resource footprint and startup time are more noticible to me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Somewhat true , but I find firefoxe 's memory usage and startup time to be really irritating .
That and it 's gotten cluttered .
Chrome 's sleekness was the first big reason I switched over .
Only the URL bar and bookmark bar take up screen space .
The rest of it is dynamially hidden ( status bar ) or compartimentalized ( the settings and configure menus ) into smaller areas so as to not take up as much space .
Page loading is well and good , but when it comes down to it , browser 's physical size , resource footprint and startup time are more noticible to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somewhat true, but I find firefoxe's memory usage and startup time to be really irritating.
That and it's gotten cluttered.
Chrome's sleekness was the first big reason I switched over.
Only the URL bar and bookmark bar take up screen space.
The rest of it is dynamially hidden (status bar) or compartimentalized (the settings and configure menus) into smaller areas so as to not take up as much space.
Page loading is well and good, but when it comes down to it, browser's physical size, resource footprint and startup time are more noticible to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373434</id>
	<title>Of course ...</title>
	<author>daveime</author>
	<datestamp>1267816380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure the loading times of all browsers would be faster if the "article" wasn't spread over 11 damn pages<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Perhaps they could run comparative tests on ad-blocked and flash-blocked vs vanilla spam versions ?</p><p>And am I the only one who finds it fucking cynical in the extreme, to force you to surrender your email address just so you can use the printable version and skip the advertising crud ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure the loading times of all browsers would be faster if the " article " was n't spread over 11 damn pages ...Perhaps they could run comparative tests on ad-blocked and flash-blocked vs vanilla spam versions ? And am I the only one who finds it fucking cynical in the extreme , to force you to surrender your email address just so you can use the printable version and skip the advertising crud ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure the loading times of all browsers would be faster if the "article" wasn't spread over 11 damn pages ...Perhaps they could run comparative tests on ad-blocked and flash-blocked vs vanilla spam versions ?And am I the only one who finds it fucking cynical in the extreme, to force you to surrender your email address just so you can use the printable version and skip the advertising crud ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373946</id>
	<title>Interesting... IE sucks... except when it counts.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267818780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IE did best or near best in the web browsing events most users will care about - page load time sfor popular sites like yahoo, facebook, or youtube.</p><p>So how does a web browser that apparently sucks at so many theoretical benchmarks, crush the competition in real world load times? Apparently it doesn't matter what you do, if major websites tailor themselves to you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IE did best or near best in the web browsing events most users will care about - page load time sfor popular sites like yahoo , facebook , or youtube.So how does a web browser that apparently sucks at so many theoretical benchmarks , crush the competition in real world load times ?
Apparently it does n't matter what you do , if major websites tailor themselves to you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IE did best or near best in the web browsing events most users will care about - page load time sfor popular sites like yahoo, facebook, or youtube.So how does a web browser that apparently sucks at so many theoretical benchmarks, crush the competition in real world load times?
Apparently it doesn't matter what you do, if major websites tailor themselves to you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373936</id>
	<title>Speed and little more</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1267818660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They included how well they ranked in the acid test, but most of the article was about raw speed. But for "best" there are more criteria to take into account. Features, availability of extensions (specially the ones you in particular need), OSs where it runs, security, matters at the moment of making a choice. But at least is a good clue that opera and chrome are usually the fastest ones, safari and firefox aren't so far, and IE is the worst choice is speed is an important factor.<br><br>The main debatable test was the specific sites benchmarks one, as it could had measured in good part how much tuned for specific browsers are those sites, but if are the kind of sites you visit more, probably could notice the difference (at least, until that sites acknowledge that worth optimizing for webkit or gecko too).</htmltext>
<tokenext>They included how well they ranked in the acid test , but most of the article was about raw speed .
But for " best " there are more criteria to take into account .
Features , availability of extensions ( specially the ones you in particular need ) , OSs where it runs , security , matters at the moment of making a choice .
But at least is a good clue that opera and chrome are usually the fastest ones , safari and firefox are n't so far , and IE is the worst choice is speed is an important factor.The main debatable test was the specific sites benchmarks one , as it could had measured in good part how much tuned for specific browsers are those sites , but if are the kind of sites you visit more , probably could notice the difference ( at least , until that sites acknowledge that worth optimizing for webkit or gecko too ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They included how well they ranked in the acid test, but most of the article was about raw speed.
But for "best" there are more criteria to take into account.
Features, availability of extensions (specially the ones you in particular need), OSs where it runs, security, matters at the moment of making a choice.
But at least is a good clue that opera and chrome are usually the fastest ones, safari and firefox aren't so far, and IE is the worst choice is speed is an important factor.The main debatable test was the specific sites benchmarks one, as it could had measured in good part how much tuned for specific browsers are those sites, but if are the kind of sites you visit more, probably could notice the difference (at least, until that sites acknowledge that worth optimizing for webkit or gecko too).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373574</id>
	<title>WebKit For The Win</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267816980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not so much the browser as it is the renderer, and, well, Safari and Chrome are naturally close because they are both using WebKit.</p><p>And WebKit is the best and fastest renderer in the world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not so much the browser as it is the renderer , and , well , Safari and Chrome are naturally close because they are both using WebKit.And WebKit is the best and fastest renderer in the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not so much the browser as it is the renderer, and, well, Safari and Chrome are naturally close because they are both using WebKit.And WebKit is the best and fastest renderer in the world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31380754</id>
	<title>Re:is Safari startup time really surprising?</title>
	<author>Goaway</author>
	<datestamp>1267891140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And re-writing an entire codebase from scratch for a secondary platform you don't care much for <em>is</em> good design?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And re-writing an entire codebase from scratch for a secondary platform you do n't care much for is good design ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And re-writing an entire codebase from scratch for a secondary platform you don't care much for is good design?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31375810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31377448</id>
	<title>Personal Experience of epSos.de</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267797000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Opera has that magic button that can switch off animated gifs and flash, so it is faster by default with no need for third party ad-ons.</p><p>Firefox is good for rich media websites and overloaded apps, because it handles them more stable. It has the easiest ad-blocker. Add some flash blocker to that and you are as good as in Opera.</p><p>Chrome is good for HTML coders, because it helps you to change HTML on the fly.</p><p>Also, Opera wins when it comes to password management and download speeds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Opera has that magic button that can switch off animated gifs and flash , so it is faster by default with no need for third party ad-ons.Firefox is good for rich media websites and overloaded apps , because it handles them more stable .
It has the easiest ad-blocker .
Add some flash blocker to that and you are as good as in Opera.Chrome is good for HTML coders , because it helps you to change HTML on the fly.Also , Opera wins when it comes to password management and download speeds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Opera has that magic button that can switch off animated gifs and flash, so it is faster by default with no need for third party ad-ons.Firefox is good for rich media websites and overloaded apps, because it handles them more stable.
It has the easiest ad-blocker.
Add some flash blocker to that and you are as good as in Opera.Chrome is good for HTML coders, because it helps you to change HTML on the fly.Also, Opera wins when it comes to password management and download speeds.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374982</id>
	<title>Something smells fishy ...</title>
	<author>richtaur</author>
	<datestamp>1267780440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Internet Explorer is fastest only on Facebook and Yahoo!'s websites (both very popular websites and partners of Microsoft)? This is probably just a coincidence, but I've heard rumors before of MS inserting special code for, say, the <a href="http://acid3.acidtests.org/" title="acidtests.org" rel="nofollow">Acid3 Test</a> [acidtests.org]. Probably just paranoia<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Internet Explorer is fastest only on Facebook and Yahoo !
's websites ( both very popular websites and partners of Microsoft ) ?
This is probably just a coincidence , but I 've heard rumors before of MS inserting special code for , say , the Acid3 Test [ acidtests.org ] .
Probably just paranoia .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Internet Explorer is fastest only on Facebook and Yahoo!
's websites (both very popular websites and partners of Microsoft)?
This is probably just a coincidence, but I've heard rumors before of MS inserting special code for, say, the Acid3 Test [acidtests.org].
Probably just paranoia ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373624</id>
	<title>If you want a fast web browser...</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1267817220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...block all ads with Privoxy and shut off Javacrap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...block all ads with Privoxy and shut off Javacrap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...block all ads with Privoxy and shut off Javacrap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374558</id>
	<title>Re:Page load times...</title>
	<author>izomiac</author>
	<datestamp>1267821540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Startup time is the most visible, and essential for when you want to quickly check a single website (e.g. googling something really quick).  Javascript speed is the limiting factor for web apps, flash speed for gaming.<br> <br>

Page load time is important, but dwarfed by network latency and speed in non-pathological cases, so I'd actually guess it's among the least important for end-users.  Also, while there was a 20\% difference between fastest and slowest, that's only about 1/26th of a second so it's approaching the limits of human perception.  That said, ignoring 40 ms here, 50 ms there will lead to users finding a program laggy but not being able to specifically point out what's slow.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Startup time is the most visible , and essential for when you want to quickly check a single website ( e.g .
googling something really quick ) .
Javascript speed is the limiting factor for web apps , flash speed for gaming .
Page load time is important , but dwarfed by network latency and speed in non-pathological cases , so I 'd actually guess it 's among the least important for end-users .
Also , while there was a 20 \ % difference between fastest and slowest , that 's only about 1/26th of a second so it 's approaching the limits of human perception .
That said , ignoring 40 ms here , 50 ms there will lead to users finding a program laggy but not being able to specifically point out what 's slow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Startup time is the most visible, and essential for when you want to quickly check a single website (e.g.
googling something really quick).
Javascript speed is the limiting factor for web apps, flash speed for gaming.
Page load time is important, but dwarfed by network latency and speed in non-pathological cases, so I'd actually guess it's among the least important for end-users.
Also, while there was a 20\% difference between fastest and slowest, that's only about 1/26th of a second so it's approaching the limits of human perception.
That said, ignoring 40 ms here, 50 ms there will lead to users finding a program laggy but not being able to specifically point out what's slow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31375466</id>
	<title>winner: users</title>
	<author>Onymous Coward</author>
	<datestamp>1267783020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We're just about at the point where's Microsoft's stranglehold on web protocols has been wrenched off.  Standards compliance and all around browser functionality and performance are available from a range of great offerings.</p><p>I feel comfortable enough with the progress that I think I'll stop flogging Firefox as the wedge to get us to this point.  I encourage you to try out whichever standards compliant browsers you're inclined to, and to use the one(s) you prefer for whatever reasons occur to you.</p><p>I might discourage using IE, however.  There's no guarantee MS won't be able to regrab a browser monopoly and start corrupting protocols again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're just about at the point where 's Microsoft 's stranglehold on web protocols has been wrenched off .
Standards compliance and all around browser functionality and performance are available from a range of great offerings.I feel comfortable enough with the progress that I think I 'll stop flogging Firefox as the wedge to get us to this point .
I encourage you to try out whichever standards compliant browsers you 're inclined to , and to use the one ( s ) you prefer for whatever reasons occur to you.I might discourage using IE , however .
There 's no guarantee MS wo n't be able to regrab a browser monopoly and start corrupting protocols again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're just about at the point where's Microsoft's stranglehold on web protocols has been wrenched off.
Standards compliance and all around browser functionality and performance are available from a range of great offerings.I feel comfortable enough with the progress that I think I'll stop flogging Firefox as the wedge to get us to this point.
I encourage you to try out whichever standards compliant browsers you're inclined to, and to use the one(s) you prefer for whatever reasons occur to you.I might discourage using IE, however.
There's no guarantee MS won't be able to regrab a browser monopoly and start corrupting protocols again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373376</id>
	<title>Link</title>
	<author>mingot</author>
	<datestamp>1267816140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/firefox-chrome-opera,2558.html" title="tomshardware.com">http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/firefox-chrome-opera,2558.html</a> [tomshardware.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.tomshardware.com/reviews/firefox-chrome-opera,2558.html [ tomshardware.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/firefox-chrome-opera,2558.html [tomshardware.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374116</id>
	<title>Re:Link</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267819440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is latch and load here. There is illicit ware being added to the browser when it visits sites.</p><p>A point needs to be contended that some of these browsers are not telep minded and have a very simple feel. In addition they do not all do exactly the same thing.</p><p>I don't think that the browsers are all visiting the same page, or even mirror of the site. Sites have more than one central now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is latch and load here .
There is illicit ware being added to the browser when it visits sites.A point needs to be contended that some of these browsers are not telep minded and have a very simple feel .
In addition they do not all do exactly the same thing.I do n't think that the browsers are all visiting the same page , or even mirror of the site .
Sites have more than one central now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is latch and load here.
There is illicit ware being added to the browser when it visits sites.A point needs to be contended that some of these browsers are not telep minded and have a very simple feel.
In addition they do not all do exactly the same thing.I don't think that the browsers are all visiting the same page, or even mirror of the site.
Sites have more than one central now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373456</id>
	<title>If you want a fast web browser...</title>
	<author>creimer</author>
	<datestamp>1267816440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>A text-based web browser like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynx\_(web\_browser)" title="wikipedia.org">Lynx</a> [wikipedia.org] is still faster than any graphical-based web browser.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A text-based web browser like Lynx [ wikipedia.org ] is still faster than any graphical-based web browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A text-based web browser like Lynx [wikipedia.org] is still faster than any graphical-based web browser.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373492</id>
	<title>IE and Facebook...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267816560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For whatever reason, Microsoft's browser loads the Facebook homepage with extreme haste. Firefox, Chrome, and Opera take second, third, and fourth (respectively). Safari takes almost twice as long as the second-place finisher Firefox, and more than four times as long as IE.</p></div><p>Probably because Facebook cuts out a lot of the functionality that IE wouldn&rsquo;t support anyway?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For whatever reason , Microsoft 's browser loads the Facebook homepage with extreme haste .
Firefox , Chrome , and Opera take second , third , and fourth ( respectively ) .
Safari takes almost twice as long as the second-place finisher Firefox , and more than four times as long as IE.Probably because Facebook cuts out a lot of the functionality that IE wouldn    t support anyway ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For whatever reason, Microsoft's browser loads the Facebook homepage with extreme haste.
Firefox, Chrome, and Opera take second, third, and fourth (respectively).
Safari takes almost twice as long as the second-place finisher Firefox, and more than four times as long as IE.Probably because Facebook cuts out a lot of the functionality that IE wouldn’t support anyway?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31375058</id>
	<title>Speed is a useless test. Try real functionality!</title>
	<author>bradbury</author>
	<datestamp>1267780800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And by "real" functionality, I mean full support for open standards for video &amp; audio w/o Flash, support for really large long term sessions (dozens of windows, hundreds of tabs, running for weeks) without consuming all the CPU (which Mozilla based browsers tend to do) or memory (which Chrome tends to do) on your machine, robust Javascript, Flash and Ad blocking (to prevent outsiders from using your computer as part of the cloud for their own purposes) and most of all "Green-ness" -- do long running browser sessions, particularly large ones, effectively "degrade" all of the tabs, windows and Javascripts (which have no "current" use because nobody is actually *looking* at them) so their CPU use is minimized and they are paged out? [Thus allowing ones OS to minimize power &amp; memory use and hopefully minimize any data transmission charges (for browsers being used over 3G/4G networks)).</p><p>And for the people who don't understand the emphasis in retaining large sessions, you have probably never tried to restart a large session (which can take 10+ minutes of maxed DSL bandwidth and 15-20 minutes of maxed CPU time -- the browser being largely unresponsive during that period).  You may have also have never tried to restart an old session only to find that the pages in which you were interested no longer existed.  (Yes there are ways around these problems but they require plugins and/or large personal save page storage areas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And by " real " functionality , I mean full support for open standards for video &amp; audio w/o Flash , support for really large long term sessions ( dozens of windows , hundreds of tabs , running for weeks ) without consuming all the CPU ( which Mozilla based browsers tend to do ) or memory ( which Chrome tends to do ) on your machine , robust Javascript , Flash and Ad blocking ( to prevent outsiders from using your computer as part of the cloud for their own purposes ) and most of all " Green-ness " -- do long running browser sessions , particularly large ones , effectively " degrade " all of the tabs , windows and Javascripts ( which have no " current " use because nobody is actually * looking * at them ) so their CPU use is minimized and they are paged out ?
[ Thus allowing ones OS to minimize power &amp; memory use and hopefully minimize any data transmission charges ( for browsers being used over 3G/4G networks ) ) .And for the people who do n't understand the emphasis in retaining large sessions , you have probably never tried to restart a large session ( which can take 10 + minutes of maxed DSL bandwidth and 15-20 minutes of maxed CPU time -- the browser being largely unresponsive during that period ) .
You may have also have never tried to restart an old session only to find that the pages in which you were interested no longer existed .
( Yes there are ways around these problems but they require plugins and/or large personal save page storage areas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And by "real" functionality, I mean full support for open standards for video &amp; audio w/o Flash, support for really large long term sessions (dozens of windows, hundreds of tabs, running for weeks) without consuming all the CPU (which Mozilla based browsers tend to do) or memory (which Chrome tends to do) on your machine, robust Javascript, Flash and Ad blocking (to prevent outsiders from using your computer as part of the cloud for their own purposes) and most of all "Green-ness" -- do long running browser sessions, particularly large ones, effectively "degrade" all of the tabs, windows and Javascripts (which have no "current" use because nobody is actually *looking* at them) so their CPU use is minimized and they are paged out?
[Thus allowing ones OS to minimize power &amp; memory use and hopefully minimize any data transmission charges (for browsers being used over 3G/4G networks)).And for the people who don't understand the emphasis in retaining large sessions, you have probably never tried to restart a large session (which can take 10+ minutes of maxed DSL bandwidth and 15-20 minutes of maxed CPU time -- the browser being largely unresponsive during that period).
You may have also have never tried to restart an old session only to find that the pages in which you were interested no longer existed.
(Yes there are ways around these problems but they require plugins and/or large personal save page storage areas.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31380142</id>
	<title>Really? 4.04?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267884120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Come on. Please tell me that Apple didn't know better than to release Safari <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP\_404" title="wikipedia.org">4.04</a> [wikipedia.org]. lol =)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Come on .
Please tell me that Apple did n't know better than to release Safari 4.04 [ wikipedia.org ] .
lol = )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come on.
Please tell me that Apple didn't know better than to release Safari 4.04 [wikipedia.org].
lol =)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374858</id>
	<title>Re:won't switch to Chrome yet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267779780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Give ChromePlus a try.  Comes with some of the niceties built in, including mouse gestures.  I'm a hardcore Opera fan, and gave Chrome a look, but stopped when I couldn't gesture.  ChromePlus has replaced Chrome on every computer I use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Give ChromePlus a try .
Comes with some of the niceties built in , including mouse gestures .
I 'm a hardcore Opera fan , and gave Chrome a look , but stopped when I could n't gesture .
ChromePlus has replaced Chrome on every computer I use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Give ChromePlus a try.
Comes with some of the niceties built in, including mouse gestures.
I'm a hardcore Opera fan, and gave Chrome a look, but stopped when I couldn't gesture.
ChromePlus has replaced Chrome on every computer I use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373698</id>
	<title>is Safari startup time really surprising?</title>
	<author>nxtw</author>
	<datestamp>1267817460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Besides the obligatory browser code, Safari on Windows uses a lot of libraries that only get used by Safari - CoreFoundation, CoreGraphics, CFNetwork, the Objective-C runtime, and its own GUI (a limited Win32 port of Cocoa?).  It also uses libraries that could be shared and/or duplicate builtin Windows functionality - such as sqlite3, zlib, libxml2, libxslt, and pthreads.  (I imagine it uses its own SSL implementation too.)</p><p>The IE startup time seems higher than it should, because it uses the most Win32 functionality.  It uses threading, SSL, XML, etc. from Win32.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Besides the obligatory browser code , Safari on Windows uses a lot of libraries that only get used by Safari - CoreFoundation , CoreGraphics , CFNetwork , the Objective-C runtime , and its own GUI ( a limited Win32 port of Cocoa ? ) .
It also uses libraries that could be shared and/or duplicate builtin Windows functionality - such as sqlite3 , zlib , libxml2 , libxslt , and pthreads .
( I imagine it uses its own SSL implementation too .
) The IE startup time seems higher than it should , because it uses the most Win32 functionality .
It uses threading , SSL , XML , etc .
from Win32 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Besides the obligatory browser code, Safari on Windows uses a lot of libraries that only get used by Safari - CoreFoundation, CoreGraphics, CFNetwork, the Objective-C runtime, and its own GUI (a limited Win32 port of Cocoa?).
It also uses libraries that could be shared and/or duplicate builtin Windows functionality - such as sqlite3, zlib, libxml2, libxslt, and pthreads.
(I imagine it uses its own SSL implementation too.
)The IE startup time seems higher than it should, because it uses the most Win32 functionality.
It uses threading, SSL, XML, etc.
from Win32.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374484</id>
	<title>WTF?!</title>
	<author>Lisandro</author>
	<datestamp>1267821120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't help to find the testing biased. With lovely tidbits like...</p><p><i>"After reviewing the JavaScript benchmarks, we've decided that Tom's has no choice but to run all of them in the future. While I personally lean toward JSBenchmark, since it isn't affiliated with any browser, its results don't reflect the outcome in Dromaeo. Until the reason for Opera's devastating Mozilla score can be explained, I believe we'll have to run all of them to get the clearest picture. If you disagree, or have an opinion on a better way to benchmark JavaScript, sound off in the comments section below."</i></p><p>Or the <a href="http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/firefox-chrome-opera,2558-10.html" title="tomshardware.com">conclusions</a> [tomshardware.com], where out out of 13 categories, Safari won 3, Opera 4, Chrome 3, Firefox 3 and IE only one (shared with FF). Yet, they proclaimed Chrome as the winner. Lovely.</p><p>Yes, i'm an Opera fan, but i also like Firefox and Chrome <b>a lot</b>. I'd just like to read fair reviews.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't help to find the testing biased .
With lovely tidbits like... " After reviewing the JavaScript benchmarks , we 've decided that Tom 's has no choice but to run all of them in the future .
While I personally lean toward JSBenchmark , since it is n't affiliated with any browser , its results do n't reflect the outcome in Dromaeo .
Until the reason for Opera 's devastating Mozilla score can be explained , I believe we 'll have to run all of them to get the clearest picture .
If you disagree , or have an opinion on a better way to benchmark JavaScript , sound off in the comments section below .
" Or the conclusions [ tomshardware.com ] , where out out of 13 categories , Safari won 3 , Opera 4 , Chrome 3 , Firefox 3 and IE only one ( shared with FF ) .
Yet , they proclaimed Chrome as the winner .
Lovely.Yes , i 'm an Opera fan , but i also like Firefox and Chrome a lot .
I 'd just like to read fair reviews .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't help to find the testing biased.
With lovely tidbits like..."After reviewing the JavaScript benchmarks, we've decided that Tom's has no choice but to run all of them in the future.
While I personally lean toward JSBenchmark, since it isn't affiliated with any browser, its results don't reflect the outcome in Dromaeo.
Until the reason for Opera's devastating Mozilla score can be explained, I believe we'll have to run all of them to get the clearest picture.
If you disagree, or have an opinion on a better way to benchmark JavaScript, sound off in the comments section below.
"Or the conclusions [tomshardware.com], where out out of 13 categories, Safari won 3, Opera 4, Chrome 3, Firefox 3 and IE only one (shared with FF).
Yet, they proclaimed Chrome as the winner.
Lovely.Yes, i'm an Opera fan, but i also like Firefox and Chrome a lot.
I'd just like to read fair reviews.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373534</id>
	<title>Re:If you want a fast web browser...</title>
	<author>Virak</author>
	<datestamp>1267816860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And netcat &gt;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/null wins over even that, but for some strange reason people are interested in browsers that have more than the bare minimum of standards support.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And netcat &gt; /dev/null wins over even that , but for some strange reason people are interested in browsers that have more than the bare minimum of standards support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And netcat &gt; /dev/null wins over even that, but for some strange reason people are interested in browsers that have more than the bare minimum of standards support.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373950</id>
	<title>can someone tell me why</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1267818780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>google ripped off simon for its chrome icon?</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon\_(game)" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon\_(game)</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>whenever i see that chrome icon, i want to start pressing the panels before i forget the sequence</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>google ripped off simon for its chrome icon ? http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon \ _ ( game ) [ wikipedia.org ] whenever i see that chrome icon , i want to start pressing the panels before i forget the sequence</tokentext>
<sentencetext>google ripped off simon for its chrome icon?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon\_(game) [wikipedia.org]whenever i see that chrome icon, i want to start pressing the panels before i forget the sequence</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373548</id>
	<title>Fuck. That. Multipage shit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267816860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look, check for noscript and ask nicely to turn it off. If you have all your stuff on one page, I will turn adblock off.</p><p>I was mildly interested in this because I had compared a lot of different browsers once and was interested to see how another site would do it.<br>Then I see the usual multipage shit, a quick glance at noscript and adblock were slightly reassuring despite the bullshit ad displayed on the side for windows 7/vista whatever.<br>So there's a print button, good enough. I click on it and it fucking wants me to subscribe. FUCK THAT MULTIPAGE SHIT.<br>Goddamn it, I close all these websites once I realise the shit they're pulling. Y'know what? Autopager shouldn't be used on these sites till you're sure you are blocking all their ads. Perhaps throw in an option to download all the images over and over to use their bandwidth while you click forward twenty times.<br>Fucking ban all stories with main links like these. Don't need that shit, they don't need the traffic if they're going to annoy the shit out of me *cough* I mean, 'people' like this.<br>Look, check for noscript and ask nicely to turn it off. If you have all your stuff on one page, I will turn adblock off. Hell I should put that at the top. Annoy the shit out of me and the site gets ignored and ad-block/noscript gets new rules to block your stupid shit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look , check for noscript and ask nicely to turn it off .
If you have all your stuff on one page , I will turn adblock off.I was mildly interested in this because I had compared a lot of different browsers once and was interested to see how another site would do it.Then I see the usual multipage shit , a quick glance at noscript and adblock were slightly reassuring despite the bullshit ad displayed on the side for windows 7/vista whatever.So there 's a print button , good enough .
I click on it and it fucking wants me to subscribe .
FUCK THAT MULTIPAGE SHIT.Goddamn it , I close all these websites once I realise the shit they 're pulling .
Y'know what ?
Autopager should n't be used on these sites till you 're sure you are blocking all their ads .
Perhaps throw in an option to download all the images over and over to use their bandwidth while you click forward twenty times.Fucking ban all stories with main links like these .
Do n't need that shit , they do n't need the traffic if they 're going to annoy the shit out of me * cough * I mean , 'people ' like this.Look , check for noscript and ask nicely to turn it off .
If you have all your stuff on one page , I will turn adblock off .
Hell I should put that at the top .
Annoy the shit out of me and the site gets ignored and ad-block/noscript gets new rules to block your stupid shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look, check for noscript and ask nicely to turn it off.
If you have all your stuff on one page, I will turn adblock off.I was mildly interested in this because I had compared a lot of different browsers once and was interested to see how another site would do it.Then I see the usual multipage shit, a quick glance at noscript and adblock were slightly reassuring despite the bullshit ad displayed on the side for windows 7/vista whatever.So there's a print button, good enough.
I click on it and it fucking wants me to subscribe.
FUCK THAT MULTIPAGE SHIT.Goddamn it, I close all these websites once I realise the shit they're pulling.
Y'know what?
Autopager shouldn't be used on these sites till you're sure you are blocking all their ads.
Perhaps throw in an option to download all the images over and over to use their bandwidth while you click forward twenty times.Fucking ban all stories with main links like these.
Don't need that shit, they don't need the traffic if they're going to annoy the shit out of me *cough* I mean, 'people' like this.Look, check for noscript and ask nicely to turn it off.
If you have all your stuff on one page, I will turn adblock off.
Hell I should put that at the top.
Annoy the shit out of me and the site gets ignored and ad-block/noscript gets new rules to block your stupid shit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373510</id>
	<title>In absolute terms, they're all slow.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267816680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure, Chrome is relatively faster than Opera, which is relatively faster than Firefox, which is relatively faster that IE.</p><p>That still doesn't change the fact that, in absolute terms, they're all horribly slow for the comparatively simple tasks that they do. And we know exactly what the problem is: JavaScript.</p><p>JavaScript is a hack. Nothing more, nothing less. It was originally meant to allow simple event handling. Unfortunately, some people took it seriously, and now it has become a "first-class" programming language, although in every single way it just plain shouldn't be.</p><p>Life would be so much better if we had better-designed and better-implemented languages available in the browser. It's not like we don't already have them; we do! Python, Perl, Ruby, Tcl, Lua, and Scheme are just a few.</p><p>We just need Google, Apple, Opera and Mozilla to realize that JavaScript needs to go. Together they can make any one of those aforementioned scripting languages widely supported. Browser performance will skyrocket, developing client-side web applications will become much more tolerable, and most importantly, nobody will have any reason to use JavaScript.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , Chrome is relatively faster than Opera , which is relatively faster than Firefox , which is relatively faster that IE.That still does n't change the fact that , in absolute terms , they 're all horribly slow for the comparatively simple tasks that they do .
And we know exactly what the problem is : JavaScript.JavaScript is a hack .
Nothing more , nothing less .
It was originally meant to allow simple event handling .
Unfortunately , some people took it seriously , and now it has become a " first-class " programming language , although in every single way it just plain should n't be.Life would be so much better if we had better-designed and better-implemented languages available in the browser .
It 's not like we do n't already have them ; we do !
Python , Perl , Ruby , Tcl , Lua , and Scheme are just a few.We just need Google , Apple , Opera and Mozilla to realize that JavaScript needs to go .
Together they can make any one of those aforementioned scripting languages widely supported .
Browser performance will skyrocket , developing client-side web applications will become much more tolerable , and most importantly , nobody will have any reason to use JavaScript .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, Chrome is relatively faster than Opera, which is relatively faster than Firefox, which is relatively faster that IE.That still doesn't change the fact that, in absolute terms, they're all horribly slow for the comparatively simple tasks that they do.
And we know exactly what the problem is: JavaScript.JavaScript is a hack.
Nothing more, nothing less.
It was originally meant to allow simple event handling.
Unfortunately, some people took it seriously, and now it has become a "first-class" programming language, although in every single way it just plain shouldn't be.Life would be so much better if we had better-designed and better-implemented languages available in the browser.
It's not like we don't already have them; we do!
Python, Perl, Ruby, Tcl, Lua, and Scheme are just a few.We just need Google, Apple, Opera and Mozilla to realize that JavaScript needs to go.
Together they can make any one of those aforementioned scripting languages widely supported.
Browser performance will skyrocket, developing client-side web applications will become much more tolerable, and most importantly, nobody will have any reason to use JavaScript.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373622</id>
	<title>Re:Link</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267817220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And the conclusions:</p><p>Category / Test: Overall Winner</p><p>Startup Times: Opera</p><p>Memory Usage: Firefox</p><p>Page Load Times: Firefox</p><p>HTML: Safari</p><p>CSS: Safari</p><p>Tables: Safari</p><p>JavaScript: Chrome</p><p>PeaceKeeper: Opera</p><p>Acid3: Chrome</p><p>DOM: Chrome</p><p>Flash: Opera</p><p>Java: Opera</p><p>SilverLight: Firefox / Internet Explorer</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And the conclusions : Category / Test : Overall WinnerStartup Times : OperaMemory Usage : FirefoxPage Load Times : FirefoxHTML : SafariCSS : SafariTables : SafariJavaScript : ChromePeaceKeeper : OperaAcid3 : ChromeDOM : ChromeFlash : OperaJava : OperaSilverLight : Firefox / Internet Explorer</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the conclusions:Category / Test: Overall WinnerStartup Times: OperaMemory Usage: FirefoxPage Load Times: FirefoxHTML: SafariCSS: SafariTables: SafariJavaScript: ChromePeaceKeeper: OperaAcid3: ChromeDOM: ChromeFlash: OperaJava: OperaSilverLight: Firefox / Internet Explorer</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373964</id>
	<title>Memory Usage Test = Hardly "Real World"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267818840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately, the memory usage benchmarks seem very VERY far from "real world". 1, 5 and 10 tabs? Right now I have ~40 open in Firefox, and that might well climb to 70 or 80. Firefox handles this just fine.<br>Chrome unfortunately chews up 30Mb or so *per tab* - presumably the downside of the process separation. I find Chrome brilliant if you want to quickly go online and look something up, and I use it now and then for this kind of thing.</p><p>But my *real* browser - the one I always have open, the one containing all the pages I'm working on, the references I'm coding from, the news sites I plan to read at lunch later, and so on - will stay as Firefox. Chrome just dies under the load, certainly with "only" 4Gb of RAM.</p><p>Aside from that, the superior customisation options of Firefox would win it for me, though Chrome is certainly improving in this area.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , the memory usage benchmarks seem very VERY far from " real world " .
1 , 5 and 10 tabs ?
Right now I have ~ 40 open in Firefox , and that might well climb to 70 or 80 .
Firefox handles this just fine.Chrome unfortunately chews up 30Mb or so * per tab * - presumably the downside of the process separation .
I find Chrome brilliant if you want to quickly go online and look something up , and I use it now and then for this kind of thing.But my * real * browser - the one I always have open , the one containing all the pages I 'm working on , the references I 'm coding from , the news sites I plan to read at lunch later , and so on - will stay as Firefox .
Chrome just dies under the load , certainly with " only " 4Gb of RAM.Aside from that , the superior customisation options of Firefox would win it for me , though Chrome is certainly improving in this area .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, the memory usage benchmarks seem very VERY far from "real world".
1, 5 and 10 tabs?
Right now I have ~40 open in Firefox, and that might well climb to 70 or 80.
Firefox handles this just fine.Chrome unfortunately chews up 30Mb or so *per tab* - presumably the downside of the process separation.
I find Chrome brilliant if you want to quickly go online and look something up, and I use it now and then for this kind of thing.But my *real* browser - the one I always have open, the one containing all the pages I'm working on, the references I'm coding from, the news sites I plan to read at lunch later, and so on - will stay as Firefox.
Chrome just dies under the load, certainly with "only" 4Gb of RAM.Aside from that, the superior customisation options of Firefox would win it for me, though Chrome is certainly improving in this area.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31380730</id>
	<title>Re:In absolute terms, they're all slow.</title>
	<author>Goaway</author>
	<datestamp>1267890900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Chrome's Javascript is much faster than Perl, Python, Ruby, Tcl or plain Lua. Only LuaJIT beats it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Chrome 's Javascript is much faster than Perl , Python , Ruby , Tcl or plain Lua .
Only LuaJIT beats it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chrome's Javascript is much faster than Perl, Python, Ruby, Tcl or plain Lua.
Only LuaJIT beats it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373636</id>
	<title>Crack Monkeys!</title>
	<author>voodoo cheesecake</author>
	<datestamp>1267817280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't care how many research monkeys on cocaine say otherwise, I'm sticking with Firefox!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't care how many research monkeys on cocaine say otherwise , I 'm sticking with Firefox !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't care how many research monkeys on cocaine say otherwise, I'm sticking with Firefox!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374168</id>
	<title>I love Chrome, but...</title>
	<author>VoiceInTheDesert</author>
	<datestamp>1267819680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It still has a lot of compatibility issues. Sites like Youtube, ESPN and others still have bugs in formating and video playback with Flash. I love the speed and it's my primary browser at this point, but if the bugs aren't fixed and a better ad-block isn't added soon, I will be disappointed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It still has a lot of compatibility issues .
Sites like Youtube , ESPN and others still have bugs in formating and video playback with Flash .
I love the speed and it 's my primary browser at this point , but if the bugs are n't fixed and a better ad-block is n't added soon , I will be disappointed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It still has a lot of compatibility issues.
Sites like Youtube, ESPN and others still have bugs in formating and video playback with Flash.
I love the speed and it's my primary browser at this point, but if the bugs aren't fixed and a better ad-block isn't added soon, I will be disappointed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374654</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox</title>
	<author>garaged</author>
	<datestamp>1267822020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that and some plug-ins that still don't have correct counterparts on chrome and  opera keeps me getting back to Firefox.</p><p>But to be honest, just the memory usage is enough to not want to change to other, I have 2 freaking GB of RAM and I have slow downs because of the memory usage of chrome and opera, thanks but I rather run a little slower javascript but keep my computer responsive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that and some plug-ins that still do n't have correct counterparts on chrome and opera keeps me getting back to Firefox.But to be honest , just the memory usage is enough to not want to change to other , I have 2 freaking GB of RAM and I have slow downs because of the memory usage of chrome and opera , thanks but I rather run a little slower javascript but keep my computer responsive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that and some plug-ins that still don't have correct counterparts on chrome and  opera keeps me getting back to Firefox.But to be honest, just the memory usage is enough to not want to change to other, I have 2 freaking GB of RAM and I have slow downs because of the memory usage of chrome and opera, thanks but I rather run a little slower javascript but keep my computer responsive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31377170</id>
	<title>Missing standard daily browsing test</title>
	<author>locopuyo</author>
	<datestamp>1267793940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What this article fails to test is standard daily browsing.  It only testing fresh loads in a clear cache.  I visit the same web pages frequently, just like everyone who browses the web.  They need to test the speed of the browsers like this.  How long does it take to load the same page a day after you went there?  How long does it take for a page to load when you hit the back button?

What they tested doesn't cover very much of real browser use.

Another fun test would be how long it takes users to physically navigate to pages they visit.  But it would be much harder to get scientific results like this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What this article fails to test is standard daily browsing .
It only testing fresh loads in a clear cache .
I visit the same web pages frequently , just like everyone who browses the web .
They need to test the speed of the browsers like this .
How long does it take to load the same page a day after you went there ?
How long does it take for a page to load when you hit the back button ?
What they tested does n't cover very much of real browser use .
Another fun test would be how long it takes users to physically navigate to pages they visit .
But it would be much harder to get scientific results like this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What this article fails to test is standard daily browsing.
It only testing fresh loads in a clear cache.
I visit the same web pages frequently, just like everyone who browses the web.
They need to test the speed of the browsers like this.
How long does it take to load the same page a day after you went there?
How long does it take for a page to load when you hit the back button?
What they tested doesn't cover very much of real browser use.
Another fun test would be how long it takes users to physically navigate to pages they visit.
But it would be much harder to get scientific results like this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31376232</id>
	<title>Opera winner in my opinion</title>
	<author>BountyX</author>
	<datestamp>1267787340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think if these tests were redone with optimized settings in Opera, it would show Opera slightly ahead of Chrome. For example, on page load, Opera is set to draw in one second intervals during load, by default. Obviously for simple sites that load under a second, Opera will preform poorly. Another example is memory usage. They called Opera memory hungry but that is ridiculous. Opera allows you to set the maximum memory limit and is capable of caching to memory. Any unused memory is allocated to cache. You can greatly adjust Opera's memory usage by disabling page caching (set to 1000 by default), lowering maximum memory usage, removing history (set to 5000 pages by default), removing tab thumbnails; however, while Opera's caching may hurt memory usage, it is amazing in the long run. The equvilent to having a local proxy in your browser. Anyways, the bottom line is Opera's default settings are NOT optimal and modifying securtiy, history, memory, caching, DNS prefetching, and the UI can improve its overall preformance. I cannot say the same for chrome where the only optimizations that can be made is DNS prefetching and some security stuff.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think if these tests were redone with optimized settings in Opera , it would show Opera slightly ahead of Chrome .
For example , on page load , Opera is set to draw in one second intervals during load , by default .
Obviously for simple sites that load under a second , Opera will preform poorly .
Another example is memory usage .
They called Opera memory hungry but that is ridiculous .
Opera allows you to set the maximum memory limit and is capable of caching to memory .
Any unused memory is allocated to cache .
You can greatly adjust Opera 's memory usage by disabling page caching ( set to 1000 by default ) , lowering maximum memory usage , removing history ( set to 5000 pages by default ) , removing tab thumbnails ; however , while Opera 's caching may hurt memory usage , it is amazing in the long run .
The equvilent to having a local proxy in your browser .
Anyways , the bottom line is Opera 's default settings are NOT optimal and modifying securtiy , history , memory , caching , DNS prefetching , and the UI can improve its overall preformance .
I can not say the same for chrome where the only optimizations that can be made is DNS prefetching and some security stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think if these tests were redone with optimized settings in Opera, it would show Opera slightly ahead of Chrome.
For example, on page load, Opera is set to draw in one second intervals during load, by default.
Obviously for simple sites that load under a second, Opera will preform poorly.
Another example is memory usage.
They called Opera memory hungry but that is ridiculous.
Opera allows you to set the maximum memory limit and is capable of caching to memory.
Any unused memory is allocated to cache.
You can greatly adjust Opera's memory usage by disabling page caching (set to 1000 by default), lowering maximum memory usage, removing history (set to 5000 pages by default), removing tab thumbnails; however, while Opera's caching may hurt memory usage, it is amazing in the long run.
The equvilent to having a local proxy in your browser.
Anyways, the bottom line is Opera's default settings are NOT optimal and modifying securtiy, history, memory, caching, DNS prefetching, and the UI can improve its overall preformance.
I cannot say the same for chrome where the only optimizations that can be made is DNS prefetching and some security stuff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373558</id>
	<title>Re:If you want a fast web browser...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267816920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does it use Flash or HTML5 for video?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does it use Flash or HTML5 for video ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does it use Flash or HTML5 for video?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31378832</id>
	<title>Re:So?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267811640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Firefox is the only web browser I have ever used that was able to reach over 1.5GB of consumed RAM while only a few pages were open. True I had left it running constantly for a week, but that is no excuse and Firefox should be able to maintain itself. All of the memory tests I see for Firefox involve loading it up and checking RAM use immediately. None of them ever show how much memory Firefox starts eating if you leave it running for some days.</p><p>I regularly leave Opera running for weeks or even months without any memory management or performance problems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox is the only web browser I have ever used that was able to reach over 1.5GB of consumed RAM while only a few pages were open .
True I had left it running constantly for a week , but that is no excuse and Firefox should be able to maintain itself .
All of the memory tests I see for Firefox involve loading it up and checking RAM use immediately .
None of them ever show how much memory Firefox starts eating if you leave it running for some days.I regularly leave Opera running for weeks or even months without any memory management or performance problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox is the only web browser I have ever used that was able to reach over 1.5GB of consumed RAM while only a few pages were open.
True I had left it running constantly for a week, but that is no excuse and Firefox should be able to maintain itself.
All of the memory tests I see for Firefox involve loading it up and checking RAM use immediately.
None of them ever show how much memory Firefox starts eating if you leave it running for some days.I regularly leave Opera running for weeks or even months without any memory management or performance problems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31376298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31375220</id>
	<title>Retard, Learn To Read - Chrome Is The Lightest</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267781580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is no surprise that the only people stupid enough to still be using that stinking pile of fail that is Firefox would make such a manifestly idiotic claim.</p><p>Now fuck off dipshit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is no surprise that the only people stupid enough to still be using that stinking pile of fail that is Firefox would make such a manifestly idiotic claim.Now fuck off dipshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is no surprise that the only people stupid enough to still be using that stinking pile of fail that is Firefox would make such a manifestly idiotic claim.Now fuck off dipshit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374410</id>
	<title>Re:Link</title>
	<author>blind biker</author>
	<datestamp>1267820640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That link is right smack in the submission!<br>This must be the most redundant post in Slashdot history, and yet it got modded up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That link is right smack in the submission ! This must be the most redundant post in Slashdot history , and yet it got modded up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That link is right smack in the submission!This must be the most redundant post in Slashdot history, and yet it got modded up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31375234</id>
	<title>Re:So?</title>
	<author>Buelldozer</author>
	<datestamp>1267781640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They didn't test FireFox? Because Chrome 4.x has Adblock, flashblock and noscript functionality is available in the Dev channel. I'm sure it'll be along for "Joe User" shortly.</p><p>You're modded to +5 insightful but 2/3rds of your list is wrong!</p><p>P.S. No need to take my word for it, see for yourself by going to <a href="https://chrome.google.com/extensions" title="google.com">https://chrome.google.com/extensions</a> [google.com] and then search on adblock or flashblock.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They did n't test FireFox ?
Because Chrome 4.x has Adblock , flashblock and noscript functionality is available in the Dev channel .
I 'm sure it 'll be along for " Joe User " shortly.You 're modded to + 5 insightful but 2/3rds of your list is wrong ! P.S .
No need to take my word for it , see for yourself by going to https : //chrome.google.com/extensions [ google.com ] and then search on adblock or flashblock .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They didn't test FireFox?
Because Chrome 4.x has Adblock, flashblock and noscript functionality is available in the Dev channel.
I'm sure it'll be along for "Joe User" shortly.You're modded to +5 insightful but 2/3rds of your list is wrong!P.S.
No need to take my word for it, see for yourself by going to https://chrome.google.com/extensions [google.com] and then search on adblock or flashblock.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373742</id>
	<title>Page load times...</title>
	<author>cplusplus</author>
	<datestamp>1267817640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>...was won by Firefox, according to the summary at the end. Isn't that what the average user cares most about? How fast a page loads?</htmltext>
<tokenext>...was won by Firefox , according to the summary at the end .
Is n't that what the average user cares most about ?
How fast a page loads ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...was won by Firefox, according to the summary at the end.
Isn't that what the average user cares most about?
How fast a page loads?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373878</id>
	<title>Firefox</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267818300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As always, Firefox ate <a href="http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/firefox-chrome-opera,2558-4.html" title="tomshardware.com">much less memory than competitors</a> [tomshardware.com]...specially against opera &amp; chrome.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As always , Firefox ate much less memory than competitors [ tomshardware.com ] ...specially against opera &amp; chrome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As always, Firefox ate much less memory than competitors [tomshardware.com]...specially against opera &amp; chrome.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373392</id>
	<title>My browser is so fast</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267816200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It doesn't even have a link to the article.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't even have a link to the article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't even have a link to the article.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374798</id>
	<title>Firefox works fastest on the iPad</title>
	<author>WillAffleckUW</author>
	<datestamp>1267822560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But only when I avoid Microsoft-centric sites and sites that try to load insecure scripts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But only when I avoid Microsoft-centric sites and sites that try to load insecure scripts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But only when I avoid Microsoft-centric sites and sites that try to load insecure scripts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374078</id>
	<title>The winner, hands down, is ...</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1267819320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... wget.
</p><p>Real geeks read straight html.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... wget . Real geeks read straight html .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... wget.
Real geeks read straight html.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31383014</id>
	<title>Re:Performance I care about is hard to measure</title>
	<author>bingoUV</author>
	<datestamp>1267866960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Memory usage isn't very significant unless the system is low on memory. Otherwise, I prefer that the browser uses as much memory as it can to cache things</p></div><p>I guess this decision should be left to the OS. The way it should be done is: instead of caching in memory, the browser should cache in filesystem. If the OS is generally experiencing an abundance of memory, the filesystem dump would remain in OS cache and this filesystem dump is as almost good as caching in memory. If OS is facing a memory-crunch, the filesystem caches will be discarded and browser doesn't take up scant memory for its own good.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Memory usage is n't very significant unless the system is low on memory .
Otherwise , I prefer that the browser uses as much memory as it can to cache thingsI guess this decision should be left to the OS .
The way it should be done is : instead of caching in memory , the browser should cache in filesystem .
If the OS is generally experiencing an abundance of memory , the filesystem dump would remain in OS cache and this filesystem dump is as almost good as caching in memory .
If OS is facing a memory-crunch , the filesystem caches will be discarded and browser does n't take up scant memory for its own good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Memory usage isn't very significant unless the system is low on memory.
Otherwise, I prefer that the browser uses as much memory as it can to cache thingsI guess this decision should be left to the OS.
The way it should be done is: instead of caching in memory, the browser should cache in filesystem.
If the OS is generally experiencing an abundance of memory, the filesystem dump would remain in OS cache and this filesystem dump is as almost good as caching in memory.
If OS is facing a memory-crunch, the filesystem caches will be discarded and browser doesn't take up scant memory for its own good.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31379832</id>
	<title>Re:The winner, hands down, is ...</title>
	<author>RAMMS+EIN</author>
	<datestamp>1267875660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is that straight HTML has become relatively rare. First, it was tag soup with rare pieces of information in between, but at least that could be filtered to find the information. Nowadays, the information often isn't even there until you execute some JavaScript code. Now, I \_can\_ execute JavaScript code in my mind, but having that interact with the server is a bit too much of a challenge. That leaves me, every text-only browser I know of, every web crawler I know of, and probably loads of other programs in the cold. And often users of browsers other than the latest Firefox or MSIE, too.</p><p>As an old-school webmaster, I am sad to see it has come to this. Flashy, interactive pages are nice, but HTML+JavaScript+HTTP is not and has never been the right way to do it. Meanwhile, the information-to-noise ratio has gone down the drain. At least more and more people are breaking away from XMLs grasp and moving to more efficient representations, such as JSON, these days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that straight HTML has become relatively rare .
First , it was tag soup with rare pieces of information in between , but at least that could be filtered to find the information .
Nowadays , the information often is n't even there until you execute some JavaScript code .
Now , I \ _can \ _ execute JavaScript code in my mind , but having that interact with the server is a bit too much of a challenge .
That leaves me , every text-only browser I know of , every web crawler I know of , and probably loads of other programs in the cold .
And often users of browsers other than the latest Firefox or MSIE , too.As an old-school webmaster , I am sad to see it has come to this .
Flashy , interactive pages are nice , but HTML + JavaScript + HTTP is not and has never been the right way to do it .
Meanwhile , the information-to-noise ratio has gone down the drain .
At least more and more people are breaking away from XMLs grasp and moving to more efficient representations , such as JSON , these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that straight HTML has become relatively rare.
First, it was tag soup with rare pieces of information in between, but at least that could be filtered to find the information.
Nowadays, the information often isn't even there until you execute some JavaScript code.
Now, I \_can\_ execute JavaScript code in my mind, but having that interact with the server is a bit too much of a challenge.
That leaves me, every text-only browser I know of, every web crawler I know of, and probably loads of other programs in the cold.
And often users of browsers other than the latest Firefox or MSIE, too.As an old-school webmaster, I am sad to see it has come to this.
Flashy, interactive pages are nice, but HTML+JavaScript+HTTP is not and has never been the right way to do it.
Meanwhile, the information-to-noise ratio has gone down the drain.
At least more and more people are breaking away from XMLs grasp and moving to more efficient representations, such as JSON, these days.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31376666</id>
	<title>Memory usage is bad?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267789980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's news for me. I have lots of RAM in my system waiting to be used as it seems a bit faster then caching everything to disk. I want browser to use as much free memory as it wants if it makes it faster....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's news for me .
I have lots of RAM in my system waiting to be used as it seems a bit faster then caching everything to disk .
I want browser to use as much free memory as it wants if it makes it faster... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's news for me.
I have lots of RAM in my system waiting to be used as it seems a bit faster then caching everything to disk.
I want browser to use as much free memory as it wants if it makes it faster....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374712</id>
	<title>Re:Page load times...</title>
	<author>element-o.p.</author>
	<datestamp>1267822320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Start-up time isn't so important to me, because I typically have a web browser open when I am using my computer.  If I only start my browser once or twice a day, that's not such a big deal.  On the other hand, that does have the effect of making <i>memory usage</i> more important.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Start-up time is n't so important to me , because I typically have a web browser open when I am using my computer .
If I only start my browser once or twice a day , that 's not such a big deal .
On the other hand , that does have the effect of making memory usage more important .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Start-up time isn't so important to me, because I typically have a web browser open when I am using my computer.
If I only start my browser once or twice a day, that's not such a big deal.
On the other hand, that does have the effect of making memory usage more important.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374342</id>
	<title>Re:Link</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267820280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As soon as I see that articles are split over more than 2 pages, I click the webpage away.<br>I won't play their advertising, slow loading, we need you hits, bullshit games.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As soon as I see that articles are split over more than 2 pages , I click the webpage away.I wo n't play their advertising , slow loading , we need you hits , bullshit games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As soon as I see that articles are split over more than 2 pages, I click the webpage away.I won't play their advertising, slow loading, we need you hits, bullshit games.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373788</id>
	<title>Functionality More Important Than Speed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267817880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Firefox may not be the fastest, but with its builtin function plus rich array of addons, it's the most useful.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox may not be the fastest , but with its builtin function plus rich array of addons , it 's the most useful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox may not be the fastest, but with its builtin function plus rich array of addons, it's the most useful.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31376828</id>
	<title>Sorry, but...</title>
	<author>Terminus32</author>
	<datestamp>1267791060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>- Kazehakase and ELinks win hands down for me!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>- Kazehakase and ELinks win hands down for me ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>- Kazehakase and ELinks win hands down for me!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31375256</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?!</title>
	<author>BZ</author>
	<datestamp>1267781760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; I can't help to find the testing biased.</p><p>It's not biased.  Just incompetent.  You can tell by the fact that they think the JSBenchmark numbers actually mean anything (which implies they've never read the source for that benchmark), for example.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; I ca n't help to find the testing biased.It 's not biased .
Just incompetent .
You can tell by the fact that they think the JSBenchmark numbers actually mean anything ( which implies they 've never read the source for that benchmark ) , for example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; I can't help to find the testing biased.It's not biased.
Just incompetent.
You can tell by the fact that they think the JSBenchmark numbers actually mean anything (which implies they've never read the source for that benchmark), for example.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374024</id>
	<title>won't switch to Chrome yet</title>
	<author>c\_jonescc</author>
	<datestamp>1267819080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I really like Chrome, and according to Tom's numbers it would probably provide a superior browsing experience, aesthetics aside.  Yet, I can't make the switch.<br><br>I'm addicted to mouse gestures for all my surfing.  I switched to Opera way back when, solely for the gestures, and liked it so much I even sent them $20 (paying for a browser!).  I switched to Firefox when I learned about the 'All-in-One Gestures' add on.<br><br>I'd really like to switch to Chrome, but simply cannot until I find a way to deal with my deep seated gesturing habit.  Right-clicking, or moving the mouse arrow to the top left of the screen both seem tedious (which feels really lazy to say), when all I want to do is go back or open a link in a new tab.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really like Chrome , and according to Tom 's numbers it would probably provide a superior browsing experience , aesthetics aside .
Yet , I ca n't make the switch.I 'm addicted to mouse gestures for all my surfing .
I switched to Opera way back when , solely for the gestures , and liked it so much I even sent them $ 20 ( paying for a browser ! ) .
I switched to Firefox when I learned about the 'All-in-One Gestures ' add on.I 'd really like to switch to Chrome , but simply can not until I find a way to deal with my deep seated gesturing habit .
Right-clicking , or moving the mouse arrow to the top left of the screen both seem tedious ( which feels really lazy to say ) , when all I want to do is go back or open a link in a new tab .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really like Chrome, and according to Tom's numbers it would probably provide a superior browsing experience, aesthetics aside.
Yet, I can't make the switch.I'm addicted to mouse gestures for all my surfing.
I switched to Opera way back when, solely for the gestures, and liked it so much I even sent them $20 (paying for a browser!).
I switched to Firefox when I learned about the 'All-in-One Gestures' add on.I'd really like to switch to Chrome, but simply cannot until I find a way to deal with my deep seated gesturing habit.
Right-clicking, or moving the mouse arrow to the top left of the screen both seem tedious (which feels really lazy to say), when all I want to do is go back or open a link in a new tab.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31375432</id>
	<title>Re:Performance I care about is hard to measure</title>
	<author>John Whitley</author>
	<datestamp>1267782780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Start-up time isn't very significant - I generally leave browsers running all the time.</p></div><p>Motion seconded.  I find this metric pointless in isolation, since the actual browser startup time is dwarfed by reloading persisted tabs across sessions.  User-facing startup time for me is effectively (app startup + time to load up needed tab(s)).  Tab persistence is an absolutely must-have feature as far as I'm concerned -- the browser can crash, I can close the browser, or even shutdown the machine without "losing my place".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Start-up time is n't very significant - I generally leave browsers running all the time.Motion seconded .
I find this metric pointless in isolation , since the actual browser startup time is dwarfed by reloading persisted tabs across sessions .
User-facing startup time for me is effectively ( app startup + time to load up needed tab ( s ) ) .
Tab persistence is an absolutely must-have feature as far as I 'm concerned -- the browser can crash , I can close the browser , or even shutdown the machine without " losing my place " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Start-up time isn't very significant - I generally leave browsers running all the time.Motion seconded.
I find this metric pointless in isolation, since the actual browser startup time is dwarfed by reloading persisted tabs across sessions.
User-facing startup time for me is effectively (app startup + time to load up needed tab(s)).
Tab persistence is an absolutely must-have feature as far as I'm concerned -- the browser can crash, I can close the browser, or even shutdown the machine without "losing my place".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31375232</id>
	<title>Re:Chrome = teh winnar!</title>
	<author>BZ</author>
	<datestamp>1267781640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did you look at the "Mozilla" benchmark?  It's basically V8 + Sunspider + some other stuff. Very heavily weighted towards the V8 + Sunspider scores.  So that number is basically just the average of the Sunspider and V8 numbers.</p><p>And the Opera number there is due to the fact that the tester stopped and restarted the test, which resets the timers involved...  Over here Opera does well on that test, but nowhere close to that far ahead of the others.</p><p>In all, this is about par for the course for benchmarking articles out there: someone who doesn't understand the (not particularly good and hard to use well) tools misusing them badly, then reporting the results.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you look at the " Mozilla " benchmark ?
It 's basically V8 + Sunspider + some other stuff .
Very heavily weighted towards the V8 + Sunspider scores .
So that number is basically just the average of the Sunspider and V8 numbers.And the Opera number there is due to the fact that the tester stopped and restarted the test , which resets the timers involved... Over here Opera does well on that test , but nowhere close to that far ahead of the others.In all , this is about par for the course for benchmarking articles out there : someone who does n't understand the ( not particularly good and hard to use well ) tools misusing them badly , then reporting the results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you look at the "Mozilla" benchmark?
It's basically V8 + Sunspider + some other stuff.
Very heavily weighted towards the V8 + Sunspider scores.
So that number is basically just the average of the Sunspider and V8 numbers.And the Opera number there is due to the fact that the tester stopped and restarted the test, which resets the timers involved...  Over here Opera does well on that test, but nowhere close to that far ahead of the others.In all, this is about par for the course for benchmarking articles out there: someone who doesn't understand the (not particularly good and hard to use well) tools misusing them badly, then reporting the results.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374422</id>
	<title>Re:Chrome = teh winnar!</title>
	<author>Steve Max</author>
	<datestamp>1267820700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another one was Mozilla's, and on that test Firefox got its ass handed to it by Opera (and Chrome/Safari, by a smaller margin). It's not Toms Hardware's fault if the people interested enough in Javascript performance to write a benchmark are usually interested in Javascript performance because they write Javascript engines.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another one was Mozilla 's , and on that test Firefox got its ass handed to it by Opera ( and Chrome/Safari , by a smaller margin ) .
It 's not Toms Hardware 's fault if the people interested enough in Javascript performance to write a benchmark are usually interested in Javascript performance because they write Javascript engines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another one was Mozilla's, and on that test Firefox got its ass handed to it by Opera (and Chrome/Safari, by a smaller margin).
It's not Toms Hardware's fault if the people interested enough in Javascript performance to write a benchmark are usually interested in Javascript performance because they write Javascript engines.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373908</id>
	<title>Performance I care about is hard to measure</title>
	<author>nxtw</author>
	<datestamp>1267818540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I care about things like responsiveness.  How long does it take to redisplay after switching tabs or adjusting zoom?  Is the UI still responsive when another tab/window is busy?  Are scrolling and window resizing smooth?  Will the browser respond well if the internet connection is lost / the system wakes up from sleep, when using AJAX applications like Gmail/Google Reader? (I had problems with one browser behaving badly with Gmail/Google Reader if the pages were open before entering sleep mode.)  Will the browser perform well over RDP, VNC, or NX?</p><p>Start-up time isn't very significant - I generally leave browsers running all the time.  Memory usage isn't very significant unless the system is low on memory.  Otherwise, I prefer that the browser uses as much memory as it can to cache things.  Rendering/script delays are not noticeable on modern systems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I care about things like responsiveness .
How long does it take to redisplay after switching tabs or adjusting zoom ?
Is the UI still responsive when another tab/window is busy ?
Are scrolling and window resizing smooth ?
Will the browser respond well if the internet connection is lost / the system wakes up from sleep , when using AJAX applications like Gmail/Google Reader ?
( I had problems with one browser behaving badly with Gmail/Google Reader if the pages were open before entering sleep mode .
) Will the browser perform well over RDP , VNC , or NX ? Start-up time is n't very significant - I generally leave browsers running all the time .
Memory usage is n't very significant unless the system is low on memory .
Otherwise , I prefer that the browser uses as much memory as it can to cache things .
Rendering/script delays are not noticeable on modern systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I care about things like responsiveness.
How long does it take to redisplay after switching tabs or adjusting zoom?
Is the UI still responsive when another tab/window is busy?
Are scrolling and window resizing smooth?
Will the browser respond well if the internet connection is lost / the system wakes up from sleep, when using AJAX applications like Gmail/Google Reader?
(I had problems with one browser behaving badly with Gmail/Google Reader if the pages were open before entering sleep mode.
)  Will the browser perform well over RDP, VNC, or NX?Start-up time isn't very significant - I generally leave browsers running all the time.
Memory usage isn't very significant unless the system is low on memory.
Otherwise, I prefer that the browser uses as much memory as it can to cache things.
Rendering/script delays are not noticeable on modern systems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31376496</id>
	<title>Re:Page load times...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267788960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>...does not describe the content of your message. Why not "Firefox had best page load speed"? Not suspenseful enough?</htmltext>
<tokenext>...does not describe the content of your message .
Why not " Firefox had best page load speed " ?
Not suspenseful enough ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...does not describe the content of your message.
Why not "Firefox had best page load speed"?
Not suspenseful enough?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373848</id>
	<title>Re:Chrome = teh winnar!</title>
	<author>ircmaxell</author>
	<datestamp>1267818180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Remove that test from the results, and Chrome still wins.  But look at the results of that test.  Chrome wins, yes.  But not by a HUGE margin (the difference between second and third is larger than 1st and 2nd).  At least it's not as bad as the Dromaeo test (Where Opera is out in front by so far, it seems more like a bug in the test than a win for Opera)...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remove that test from the results , and Chrome still wins .
But look at the results of that test .
Chrome wins , yes .
But not by a HUGE margin ( the difference between second and third is larger than 1st and 2nd ) .
At least it 's not as bad as the Dromaeo test ( Where Opera is out in front by so far , it seems more like a bug in the test than a win for Opera ) .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remove that test from the results, and Chrome still wins.
But look at the results of that test.
Chrome wins, yes.
But not by a HUGE margin (the difference between second and third is larger than 1st and 2nd).
At least it's not as bad as the Dromaeo test (Where Opera is out in front by so far, it seems more like a bug in the test than a win for Opera)...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373702</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1544218_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31378832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31376298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31375234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1544218_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31377404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1544218_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31394104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1544218_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1544218_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1544218_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1544218_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31375232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1544218_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1544218_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31375256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1544218_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1544218_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1544218_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1544218_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1544218_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31380754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31375810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1544218_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1544218_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1544218_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1544218_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31375746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1544218_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1544218_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31394024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1544218_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1544218_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31376850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1544218_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31375220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1544218_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1544218_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1544218_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1544218_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31383014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1544218_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1544218_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31380730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1544218_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1544218_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31375432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1544218_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1544218_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31379832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1544218_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1544218_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31375184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1544218_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31376496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1544218.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373574
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1544218.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374244
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1544218.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373370
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1544218.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31377448
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1544218.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31380730
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1544218.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374008
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1544218.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31380142
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1544218.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31376688
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1544218.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373382
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1544218.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31394024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373702
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373848
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31375184
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31377404
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374422
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31394104
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31375232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373872
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31375234
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31376298
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31378832
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374974
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1544218.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373626
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1544218.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373654
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1544218.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373410
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1544218.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374484
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31375256
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1544218.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373946
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1544218.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31375432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31383014
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1544218.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31375810
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31380754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31375746
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1544218.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373558
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373534
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1544218.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373690
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1544218.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31376232
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1544218.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373548
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1544218.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374116
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1544218.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374982
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1544218.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31375220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374654
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1544218.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31379832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374772
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1544218.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374388
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1544218.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373788
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1544218.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373742
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374220
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31374558
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31376496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31376850
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1544218.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373678
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1544218.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1544218.31373934
</commentlist>
</conversation>
