<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_05_1653230</id>
	<title>Microsoft Spends $9 Billion On Research, Focuses On Cloud</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1267815120000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>superapecommando writes to share that Microsoft appears to be going all-out on research in the coming year, with a great focus on the cloud.  They're supposedly planning to spend <a href="http://www.computerworlduk.com/management/it-business/sme/news/index.cfm?newsid=19216">$9.5 billion in R&amp;D</a>; that's $3 billion more than the next-closest tech company.  <i>"'Especially in light of the tough difficult macroeconomic times that we're coming out of, we chose to really lean in and double down on our innovation,' [Microsoft COO Kevin] Turner said.  Turner contended that Microsoft has more cloud services than any other company, ranging from its consumer email service to hosted enterprise products such as its Dynamics CRM (customer relationship management) system to its Azure cloud operating system. 'We're going to change and reinvent our company around leading in the cloud.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>superapecommando writes to share that Microsoft appears to be going all-out on research in the coming year , with a great focus on the cloud .
They 're supposedly planning to spend $ 9.5 billion in R&amp;D ; that 's $ 3 billion more than the next-closest tech company .
" 'Especially in light of the tough difficult macroeconomic times that we 're coming out of , we chose to really lean in and double down on our innovation, ' [ Microsoft COO Kevin ] Turner said .
Turner contended that Microsoft has more cloud services than any other company , ranging from its consumer email service to hosted enterprise products such as its Dynamics CRM ( customer relationship management ) system to its Azure cloud operating system .
'We 're going to change and reinvent our company around leading in the cloud .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>superapecommando writes to share that Microsoft appears to be going all-out on research in the coming year, with a great focus on the cloud.
They're supposedly planning to spend $9.5 billion in R&amp;D; that's $3 billion more than the next-closest tech company.
"'Especially in light of the tough difficult macroeconomic times that we're coming out of, we chose to really lean in and double down on our innovation,' [Microsoft COO Kevin] Turner said.
Turner contended that Microsoft has more cloud services than any other company, ranging from its consumer email service to hosted enterprise products such as its Dynamics CRM (customer relationship management) system to its Azure cloud operating system.
'We're going to change and reinvent our company around leading in the cloud.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374304</id>
	<title>Just another buzz?</title>
	<author>Impie</author>
	<datestamp>1267820160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... cloud computing?</p><p>Basically it is the same technology that I have used for the last 15 years within the business.</p><p>People can call the technilogy whatever they want, it is still the same technology that drives the computercentre. It always has, it always will be, the rest is just code..</p><p>I think that cloudcomputing is good, dont get me wrong. It is just what I have been doing for the last 15 years....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well ... cloud computing ? Basically it is the same technology that I have used for the last 15 years within the business.People can call the technilogy whatever they want , it is still the same technology that drives the computercentre .
It always has , it always will be , the rest is just code..I think that cloudcomputing is good , dont get me wrong .
It is just what I have been doing for the last 15 years... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well ... cloud computing?Basically it is the same technology that I have used for the last 15 years within the business.People can call the technilogy whatever they want, it is still the same technology that drives the computercentre.
It always has, it always will be, the rest is just code..I think that cloudcomputing is good, dont get me wrong.
It is just what I have been doing for the last 15 years....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31462092</id>
	<title>Cloud computing is just one part of Microsoft</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268422500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While cloud computing may not appeal to everyone and all traditional IT workloads, people who understand it and use it effectively will find very real benefits with scenarios that are ideally suited for the cloud. Microsoft sees cloud computing as one of the compelling approaches for implementing technology, and intends to be a leader in this space, and to provide cloud computing as one of the options customers can leverage on the Microsoft platform. However, making a major investment in cloud computing does not mean Microsoft intends to abandon its software business and move entirely into the cloud. In fact, cloud computing complements the on-premise software model very nicely, and supporting both means that customers can choose what's relevant and useful to them. This strategy also reflects how Windows Azure is not intended to be just someone else's data center for hosting purposes; Windows Azure is designed to support the next-generation, Internet-scale applications that need massive scalability and reliability.<br>-David [blogs.msdn.com/dachou]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While cloud computing may not appeal to everyone and all traditional IT workloads , people who understand it and use it effectively will find very real benefits with scenarios that are ideally suited for the cloud .
Microsoft sees cloud computing as one of the compelling approaches for implementing technology , and intends to be a leader in this space , and to provide cloud computing as one of the options customers can leverage on the Microsoft platform .
However , making a major investment in cloud computing does not mean Microsoft intends to abandon its software business and move entirely into the cloud .
In fact , cloud computing complements the on-premise software model very nicely , and supporting both means that customers can choose what 's relevant and useful to them .
This strategy also reflects how Windows Azure is not intended to be just someone else 's data center for hosting purposes ; Windows Azure is designed to support the next-generation , Internet-scale applications that need massive scalability and reliability.-David [ blogs.msdn.com/dachou ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While cloud computing may not appeal to everyone and all traditional IT workloads, people who understand it and use it effectively will find very real benefits with scenarios that are ideally suited for the cloud.
Microsoft sees cloud computing as one of the compelling approaches for implementing technology, and intends to be a leader in this space, and to provide cloud computing as one of the options customers can leverage on the Microsoft platform.
However, making a major investment in cloud computing does not mean Microsoft intends to abandon its software business and move entirely into the cloud.
In fact, cloud computing complements the on-premise software model very nicely, and supporting both means that customers can choose what's relevant and useful to them.
This strategy also reflects how Windows Azure is not intended to be just someone else's data center for hosting purposes; Windows Azure is designed to support the next-generation, Internet-scale applications that need massive scalability and reliability.-David [blogs.msdn.com/dachou]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31373990</id>
	<title>It's good that there are clouds in America</title>
	<author>For a Free Internet</author>
	<datestamp>1267818960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because without the internet in America we would all become Chinese people who don't speak English. I support Microsoft to rebuild America and Her Economi,</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because without the internet in America we would all become Chinese people who do n't speak English .
I support Microsoft to rebuild America and Her Economi,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because without the internet in America we would all become Chinese people who don't speak English.
I support Microsoft to rebuild America and Her Economi,</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374864</id>
	<title>As Secure As The Wind</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267779780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only difference between putting your tax returns and employee SSNs in the cloud and putting them in a wicker basket and hanging them on a telephone pole outside is that with the wicker basket, you can see when someone steals it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only difference between putting your tax returns and employee SSNs in the cloud and putting them in a wicker basket and hanging them on a telephone pole outside is that with the wicker basket , you can see when someone steals it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only difference between putting your tax returns and employee SSNs in the cloud and putting them in a wicker basket and hanging them on a telephone pole outside is that with the wicker basket, you can see when someone steals it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31375018</id>
	<title>I know it is an unpopular opinion but</title>
	<author>Raconteur</author>
	<datestamp>1267780620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>cloud computing is a very bad idea. The very same things that Ballmer spoke of as being exciting and profitable are the same ones that terrify me for lots of reasons. I'm not paranoid about privacy (that's gone) but it will get worse, and the possibilities for monopolization, piracy, and loss of data integrity increase exponentially. As a small business, it makes no sense for me to embrace the risk, and as a dinosaur in the digital world, I naturally balk at centralization disguised as convenience.</htmltext>
<tokenext>cloud computing is a very bad idea .
The very same things that Ballmer spoke of as being exciting and profitable are the same ones that terrify me for lots of reasons .
I 'm not paranoid about privacy ( that 's gone ) but it will get worse , and the possibilities for monopolization , piracy , and loss of data integrity increase exponentially .
As a small business , it makes no sense for me to embrace the risk , and as a dinosaur in the digital world , I naturally balk at centralization disguised as convenience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>cloud computing is a very bad idea.
The very same things that Ballmer spoke of as being exciting and profitable are the same ones that terrify me for lots of reasons.
I'm not paranoid about privacy (that's gone) but it will get worse, and the possibilities for monopolization, piracy, and loss of data integrity increase exponentially.
As a small business, it makes no sense for me to embrace the risk, and as a dinosaur in the digital world, I naturally balk at centralization disguised as convenience.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374354</id>
	<title>Re:I am from India.</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1267820400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>MS should set that up in Dharamsala, up in the cloudy mountains.  I can just imagine the synergy with Tibetan monks humming away.</htmltext>
<tokenext>MS should set that up in Dharamsala , up in the cloudy mountains .
I can just imagine the synergy with Tibetan monks humming away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MS should set that up in Dharamsala, up in the cloudy mountains.
I can just imagine the synergy with Tibetan monks humming away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374062</id>
	<title>It's \_research and development\_, not just research</title>
	<author>melted</author>
	<datestamp>1267819260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Research costs Microsoft about $700M a year, probably less now after the recent belt tightening and layoffs.</p><p>R&amp;D means everything that's involved in creating products, including developers, testers, program management, management, non-sales executive pay, etc, etc., and yes, research as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Research costs Microsoft about $ 700M a year , probably less now after the recent belt tightening and layoffs.R&amp;D means everything that 's involved in creating products , including developers , testers , program management , management , non-sales executive pay , etc , etc. , and yes , research as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Research costs Microsoft about $700M a year, probably less now after the recent belt tightening and layoffs.R&amp;D means everything that's involved in creating products, including developers, testers, program management, management, non-sales executive pay, etc, etc., and yes, research as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31378064</id>
	<title>Creative accounting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267803300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>9 billion is a *LOT* of research, smells more like a tax dodge to me</htmltext>
<tokenext>9 billion is a * LOT * of research , smells more like a tax dodge to me</tokentext>
<sentencetext>9 billion is a *LOT* of research, smells more like a tax dodge to me</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374236</id>
	<title>Lead or Follow?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267819920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We're going to change and reinvent our company around leading in the cloud.</p></div><p>
Going to lead in the cloud? Given that Google, Microsoft's most-direct competitor, has been "in the cloud" for quite some time, as the expertise to innovate and excel, and has the money to ensure they have everything they need, I find that to be a bold prediction founded in whimsy rather than fact. Methinks Microsoft is about four or five years too late to the cloud computing game. Sure, they have the resources to make up a lot of time but they're competing against a company that has similar resources who already has those four or five years (or more) head start.<br> <br>
That said, it is nice to see Microsoft recognizing that the world has changed and making efforts to change with it.<br> <br>
(And, no, that last part wasn't me being a smartass - I'm actually serious. It's a good thing when major corporations recognize the world has changed and adapt accordingly rather than attempting to hold on to a bygone era.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're going to change and reinvent our company around leading in the cloud .
Going to lead in the cloud ?
Given that Google , Microsoft 's most-direct competitor , has been " in the cloud " for quite some time , as the expertise to innovate and excel , and has the money to ensure they have everything they need , I find that to be a bold prediction founded in whimsy rather than fact .
Methinks Microsoft is about four or five years too late to the cloud computing game .
Sure , they have the resources to make up a lot of time but they 're competing against a company that has similar resources who already has those four or five years ( or more ) head start .
That said , it is nice to see Microsoft recognizing that the world has changed and making efforts to change with it .
( And , no , that last part was n't me being a smartass - I 'm actually serious .
It 's a good thing when major corporations recognize the world has changed and adapt accordingly rather than attempting to hold on to a bygone era .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're going to change and reinvent our company around leading in the cloud.
Going to lead in the cloud?
Given that Google, Microsoft's most-direct competitor, has been "in the cloud" for quite some time, as the expertise to innovate and excel, and has the money to ensure they have everything they need, I find that to be a bold prediction founded in whimsy rather than fact.
Methinks Microsoft is about four or five years too late to the cloud computing game.
Sure, they have the resources to make up a lot of time but they're competing against a company that has similar resources who already has those four or five years (or more) head start.
That said, it is nice to see Microsoft recognizing that the world has changed and making efforts to change with it.
(And, no, that last part wasn't me being a smartass - I'm actually serious.
It's a good thing when major corporations recognize the world has changed and adapt accordingly rather than attempting to hold on to a bygone era.
)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374920</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting turnaround</title>
	<author>alen</author>
	<datestamp>1267780080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i use a lot of Google services and it's becoming annoying.</p><p>Gmail seems to take forever doing simple things like deleting emails. 10 seconds to delete 100 emails is way too long.<br>Google Reader has this annoying habit that you can't rename folders and you can't customize the size of the different areas of the screen.<br>Google Wave other than sucking real bad is slow. and it's a RAM hog. i've had Chrome at 600MB of RAM just on Google Wave.<br>Google Voice doesn't seem to have a purpose. why would i use it to call people when my iphone does it just fine and a lot faster?<br>Google Buzz also sucks. it only pulls tweets once or twice a day and you can't send anything.</p><p>i missed the mainframe era but some of these things seem just like mainframes are back. you get your bit of computing time and thank the computing gods for the privilege. Google reminds of me of what i read here years ago. a lot of talented tech people think of a cool idea and get it to version<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.8 or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.9 and let the less talented people finish off the details while they go on to the next cool idea. same with Google. they come out with something and even for all of Apple's and Microsoft's buggy software, it's a lot more polished than Google's crap. And a lot of things Google does are done a lot easier and faster with a nice fat client and a server component.</p><p>
&nbsp; Look at Twitter as an example. The third party clients are awesome compared to the website. Tweetdeck is better than wave or Buzz. in fact i'm using Twitter a lot more for work than Google. A lot of DBA's on Twitter and they will answer a lot of questions and there is the social component of it</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i use a lot of Google services and it 's becoming annoying.Gmail seems to take forever doing simple things like deleting emails .
10 seconds to delete 100 emails is way too long.Google Reader has this annoying habit that you ca n't rename folders and you ca n't customize the size of the different areas of the screen.Google Wave other than sucking real bad is slow .
and it 's a RAM hog .
i 've had Chrome at 600MB of RAM just on Google Wave.Google Voice does n't seem to have a purpose .
why would i use it to call people when my iphone does it just fine and a lot faster ? Google Buzz also sucks .
it only pulls tweets once or twice a day and you ca n't send anything.i missed the mainframe era but some of these things seem just like mainframes are back .
you get your bit of computing time and thank the computing gods for the privilege .
Google reminds of me of what i read here years ago .
a lot of talented tech people think of a cool idea and get it to version .8 or .9 and let the less talented people finish off the details while they go on to the next cool idea .
same with Google .
they come out with something and even for all of Apple 's and Microsoft 's buggy software , it 's a lot more polished than Google 's crap .
And a lot of things Google does are done a lot easier and faster with a nice fat client and a server component .
  Look at Twitter as an example .
The third party clients are awesome compared to the website .
Tweetdeck is better than wave or Buzz .
in fact i 'm using Twitter a lot more for work than Google .
A lot of DBA 's on Twitter and they will answer a lot of questions and there is the social component of it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i use a lot of Google services and it's becoming annoying.Gmail seems to take forever doing simple things like deleting emails.
10 seconds to delete 100 emails is way too long.Google Reader has this annoying habit that you can't rename folders and you can't customize the size of the different areas of the screen.Google Wave other than sucking real bad is slow.
and it's a RAM hog.
i've had Chrome at 600MB of RAM just on Google Wave.Google Voice doesn't seem to have a purpose.
why would i use it to call people when my iphone does it just fine and a lot faster?Google Buzz also sucks.
it only pulls tweets once or twice a day and you can't send anything.i missed the mainframe era but some of these things seem just like mainframes are back.
you get your bit of computing time and thank the computing gods for the privilege.
Google reminds of me of what i read here years ago.
a lot of talented tech people think of a cool idea and get it to version .8 or .9 and let the less talented people finish off the details while they go on to the next cool idea.
same with Google.
they come out with something and even for all of Apple's and Microsoft's buggy software, it's a lot more polished than Google's crap.
And a lot of things Google does are done a lot easier and faster with a nice fat client and a server component.
  Look at Twitter as an example.
The third party clients are awesome compared to the website.
Tweetdeck is better than wave or Buzz.
in fact i'm using Twitter a lot more for work than Google.
A lot of DBA's on Twitter and they will answer a lot of questions and there is the social component of it</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31377946</id>
	<title>Microsoft Spends $9 Billion On Research, Focuses O</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267802160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What are they getting for $742,009.13 an hour?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What are they getting for $ 742,009.13 an hour ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What are they getting for $742,009.13 an hour?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374000</id>
	<title>Trendy and Incompetent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267819020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft has gotten very pathetic. They're investing billions researching a near-meaningless buzzword? Talk about grasping at straws.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft has gotten very pathetic .
They 're investing billions researching a near-meaningless buzzword ?
Talk about grasping at straws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft has gotten very pathetic.
They're investing billions researching a near-meaningless buzzword?
Talk about grasping at straws.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374046</id>
	<title>Obvious question</title>
	<author>paiute</author>
	<datestamp>1267819200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Has anyone checked to see if Microsoft has trademarked the word "Cloud"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Has anyone checked to see if Microsoft has trademarked the word " Cloud " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has anyone checked to see if Microsoft has trademarked the word "Cloud"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374652</id>
	<title>Ahh, the soft fluffy clound - a happy place</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267822020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>A perfect place to meter the use of software and data. In the cloud you absolutely know what your users are up to and how to effectively charge them.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...To fully contain the user experience and to make money from even the slightest little use of a computer. Soft fluffy clouds of money floating around, ripe for picking. Users willing to shell out cash for use of commodity hardware and software. Of course they are investing heavily, because the vision fits their plan so well. Oh, and they can use free software to pull it off--yes it is free to them, but not free to you.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...Enter the fancy dungeon. Fix your eyes on the spinning widget...and open your wallet wide.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A perfect place to meter the use of software and data .
In the cloud you absolutely know what your users are up to and how to effectively charge them .
...To fully contain the user experience and to make money from even the slightest little use of a computer .
Soft fluffy clouds of money floating around , ripe for picking .
Users willing to shell out cash for use of commodity hardware and software .
Of course they are investing heavily , because the vision fits their plan so well .
Oh , and they can use free software to pull it off--yes it is free to them , but not free to you .
...Enter the fancy dungeon .
Fix your eyes on the spinning widget...and open your wallet wide .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A perfect place to meter the use of software and data.
In the cloud you absolutely know what your users are up to and how to effectively charge them.
...To fully contain the user experience and to make money from even the slightest little use of a computer.
Soft fluffy clouds of money floating around, ripe for picking.
Users willing to shell out cash for use of commodity hardware and software.
Of course they are investing heavily, because the vision fits their plan so well.
Oh, and they can use free software to pull it off--yes it is free to them, but not free to you.
...Enter the fancy dungeon.
Fix your eyes on the spinning widget...and open your wallet wide.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31376536</id>
	<title>Re:In other words...</title>
	<author>OrwellianLurker</author>
	<datestamp>1267789200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Advertising on the internet will never die out. As long as Google can get their targeted advertisements in front of as many eyes as they can, they'll be a success.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Advertising on the internet will never die out .
As long as Google can get their targeted advertisements in front of as many eyes as they can , they 'll be a success .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Advertising on the internet will never die out.
As long as Google can get their targeted advertisements in front of as many eyes as they can, they'll be a success.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374828</id>
	<title>Step 5, Profit?</title>
	<author>CopaceticOpus</author>
	<datestamp>1267822740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is Microsoft going to make a profit in the cloud? The cloud is about the centralization and automatic configuration of vast amounts of computing resources. It will allow smaller companies to turn over their infrastructure management to cloud hosting companies.</p><p>When they were self-hosting, those smaller companies were often paying licensing fees to Microsoft because of some perceived cost benefit such as support or simplicity of administration. However, when shopping for cloud services, they don't need to worry about such details, and so they can focus much more on cost. A Windows based cloud hosting company would need thousands of licenses from Microsoft, and so they could save millions by using free software instead. These savings would lead to a huge price difference.</p><p>Microsoft could always offer special savings on bulk licenses, but they are going to have to offer major price drops. The centralization of hosting will give them far fewer direct customers. Where is the great amount of money to be made in this?</p><p>Their only hope is to offer things that can't be found in free software, or to reduce administrative costs enough to offset the cost of licenses. It will be a difficult challenge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is Microsoft going to make a profit in the cloud ?
The cloud is about the centralization and automatic configuration of vast amounts of computing resources .
It will allow smaller companies to turn over their infrastructure management to cloud hosting companies.When they were self-hosting , those smaller companies were often paying licensing fees to Microsoft because of some perceived cost benefit such as support or simplicity of administration .
However , when shopping for cloud services , they do n't need to worry about such details , and so they can focus much more on cost .
A Windows based cloud hosting company would need thousands of licenses from Microsoft , and so they could save millions by using free software instead .
These savings would lead to a huge price difference.Microsoft could always offer special savings on bulk licenses , but they are going to have to offer major price drops .
The centralization of hosting will give them far fewer direct customers .
Where is the great amount of money to be made in this ? Their only hope is to offer things that ca n't be found in free software , or to reduce administrative costs enough to offset the cost of licenses .
It will be a difficult challenge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is Microsoft going to make a profit in the cloud?
The cloud is about the centralization and automatic configuration of vast amounts of computing resources.
It will allow smaller companies to turn over their infrastructure management to cloud hosting companies.When they were self-hosting, those smaller companies were often paying licensing fees to Microsoft because of some perceived cost benefit such as support or simplicity of administration.
However, when shopping for cloud services, they don't need to worry about such details, and so they can focus much more on cost.
A Windows based cloud hosting company would need thousands of licenses from Microsoft, and so they could save millions by using free software instead.
These savings would lead to a huge price difference.Microsoft could always offer special savings on bulk licenses, but they are going to have to offer major price drops.
The centralization of hosting will give them far fewer direct customers.
Where is the great amount of money to be made in this?Their only hope is to offer things that can't be found in free software, or to reduce administrative costs enough to offset the cost of licenses.
It will be a difficult challenge.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374374</id>
	<title>Simple Math</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267820400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...we chose to really lean in and double down on our innovation...</p></div><p>And... Two times zero is?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...we chose to really lean in and double down on our innovation...And... Two times zero is ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...we chose to really lean in and double down on our innovation...And... Two times zero is?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31373988</id>
	<title>Yesssss</title>
	<author>vikingpower</author>
	<datestamp>1267818900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FIRST POST !</p><p>Ha, my Karma shall be everlastingly<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... uhm... well.. yeah... green ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FIRST POST ! Ha , my Karma shall be everlastingly ... uhm... well.. yeah... green ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FIRST POST !Ha, my Karma shall be everlastingly ... uhm... well.. yeah... green ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31379510</id>
	<title>Re:Trendy and Incompetent</title>
	<author>trickyD1ck</author>
	<datestamp>1267868340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does <a href="http://download.microsoft.com/download/e/4/3/e43bb484-3b52-4fa8-a9f9-ec60a32954bc/Azure\_Services\_Platform.pdf" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">this</a> [microsoft.com] look like a mere buzzword? I am not a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET developer, but after reading this whitepaper i seriously consider catching up on this C#/ASP.NET/VS thing. Why is this knee-jerk negative reaction every time cloud computing is mentioned on Slashdot? Is this that IT technicians are afraid they'll be soon out of servers to maintain?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this [ microsoft.com ] look like a mere buzzword ?
I am not a .NET developer , but after reading this whitepaper i seriously consider catching up on this C # /ASP.NET/VS thing .
Why is this knee-jerk negative reaction every time cloud computing is mentioned on Slashdot ?
Is this that IT technicians are afraid they 'll be soon out of servers to maintain ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this [microsoft.com] look like a mere buzzword?
I am not a .NET developer, but after reading this whitepaper i seriously consider catching up on this C#/ASP.NET/VS thing.
Why is this knee-jerk negative reaction every time cloud computing is mentioned on Slashdot?
Is this that IT technicians are afraid they'll be soon out of servers to maintain?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374104</id>
	<title>Mojave Investment, Take 2?</title>
	<author>adosch</author>
	<datestamp>1267819380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Last time Microsoft invested big into R&amp;D in the recent couple of years, we got the <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/windows/mojave-experiment" title="microsoft.com">Mojave Experiment Project</a> [microsoft.com], which was a brainwashing to non-tech people who didn't have a clue anyway.  At least they are throwing their money towards a new tech buzz like cloud computing and dumping it into convincing people Vista is great, when it wasn't.  First impressions are everything, we all know that.  We all know by now throwing money at problems that can't be solved by money doesn't work.  Maybe Microsoft will make a cloud that will float Vista away?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Last time Microsoft invested big into R&amp;D in the recent couple of years , we got the Mojave Experiment Project [ microsoft.com ] , which was a brainwashing to non-tech people who did n't have a clue anyway .
At least they are throwing their money towards a new tech buzz like cloud computing and dumping it into convincing people Vista is great , when it was n't .
First impressions are everything , we all know that .
We all know by now throwing money at problems that ca n't be solved by money does n't work .
Maybe Microsoft will make a cloud that will float Vista away ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last time Microsoft invested big into R&amp;D in the recent couple of years, we got the Mojave Experiment Project [microsoft.com], which was a brainwashing to non-tech people who didn't have a clue anyway.
At least they are throwing their money towards a new tech buzz like cloud computing and dumping it into convincing people Vista is great, when it wasn't.
First impressions are everything, we all know that.
We all know by now throwing money at problems that can't be solved by money doesn't work.
Maybe Microsoft will make a cloud that will float Vista away?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374818</id>
	<title>Re:Lead or Follow?</title>
	<author>alen</author>
	<datestamp>1267822680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i think i read that Google Apps will cost you $50 per user per year. that's about the cost of MS Exchange and Office when amortized over 5 years. why change? than you have SOX issues like backups and having backups of data from years ago available to you</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i think i read that Google Apps will cost you $ 50 per user per year .
that 's about the cost of MS Exchange and Office when amortized over 5 years .
why change ?
than you have SOX issues like backups and having backups of data from years ago available to you</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i think i read that Google Apps will cost you $50 per user per year.
that's about the cost of MS Exchange and Office when amortized over 5 years.
why change?
than you have SOX issues like backups and having backups of data from years ago available to you</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31375016</id>
	<title>Job objects..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267780620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, if they're focused on cloud computing, they better make sure Job Objects can be nestable.<br>Similar to 'process groups' in unix, it's kinda imperative for any kind of manageable distributed computing.</p><p>So far, you can only have one level of job objects, which is kinda like having a file system<br>that only supports subdirectories in the root.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , if they 're focused on cloud computing , they better make sure Job Objects can be nestable.Similar to 'process groups ' in unix , it 's kinda imperative for any kind of manageable distributed computing.So far , you can only have one level of job objects , which is kinda like having a file systemthat only supports subdirectories in the root .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, if they're focused on cloud computing, they better make sure Job Objects can be nestable.Similar to 'process groups' in unix, it's kinda imperative for any kind of manageable distributed computing.So far, you can only have one level of job objects, which is kinda like having a file systemthat only supports subdirectories in the root.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374084</id>
	<title>Re:In other words...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267819320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"...We're not sure our OS and Office monopoly will last forever, so we'd really like to see if we could actually turn a profit on something else."</p></div><p>If you aren't growing, you're dying. True for any business.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...We 're not sure our OS and Office monopoly will last forever , so we 'd really like to see if we could actually turn a profit on something else .
" If you are n't growing , you 're dying .
True for any business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...We're not sure our OS and Office monopoly will last forever, so we'd really like to see if we could actually turn a profit on something else.
"If you aren't growing, you're dying.
True for any business.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31373982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374906</id>
	<title>What are they getting for their money</title>
	<author>rssrss</author>
	<datestamp>1267780020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AT&amp;T used to have an enormous R&amp;D program. It invented transistors, UNIX, C, information theory,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... And they even won a couple of Nobel prizes. IBM wasn't AT&amp;T, but they still made enormous contributions like RISC and relational databases. Micro$oft has done nothing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AT&amp;T used to have an enormous R&amp;D program .
It invented transistors , UNIX , C , information theory , ... And they even won a couple of Nobel prizes .
IBM was n't AT&amp;T , but they still made enormous contributions like RISC and relational databases .
Micro $ oft has done nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AT&amp;T used to have an enormous R&amp;D program.
It invented transistors, UNIX, C, information theory, ... And they even won a couple of Nobel prizes.
IBM wasn't AT&amp;T, but they still made enormous contributions like RISC and relational databases.
Micro$oft has done nothing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374334</id>
	<title>Ballmer's talk on cloud computing</title>
	<author>IDIIAMOTS</author>
	<datestamp>1267820280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ballmer gave a talk at the University of Washington on Microsoft's cloud strategy:

<a href="http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/presskits/cloud/videogallery.aspx" title="microsoft.com">http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/presskits/cloud/videogallery.aspx</a> [microsoft.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ballmer gave a talk at the University of Washington on Microsoft 's cloud strategy : http : //www.microsoft.com/presspass/presskits/cloud/videogallery.aspx [ microsoft.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ballmer gave a talk at the University of Washington on Microsoft's cloud strategy:

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/presskits/cloud/videogallery.aspx [microsoft.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31375540</id>
	<title>Re:In other words...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267783320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Software is at least 10 years behind hardware.  In other words if they stopped making any progress in hardware it would be at least 10 years before software was developed to get anywhere close to the maximum benefits that the hardware is capable of accomplishing.  Microsoft should be able to offer all hardware for free with a subscription of 2 or more years of their cloud computing.  We should be able to offer enough services that even the fee would be better than free since the services should be able to save the user more money than it cost.  A service that would save energy costs would be the primary one but I can see several more in house security,  personal security, communications, and entertainment.  For instance commercial tv should be abandoned.  I see no reason for making me watch a commercial for a product I have no interest in buying.  After or before the program is viewed a list of products or services should be available with the ability to click on any of them to receive more information.  That way more products or services could sponsor the programs since people could click on those they are interested in buying in the near future.  There are plenty of ways in house security that could save more money than they cost too.  For instances shutting off electricity or gas when there is a short or leak could save a house from being destroyed.  When this has happened several times the savings in insurance would be enough to justify the cost.  I have sure hope that in the year 2020 or before they can provide this service since if I am still alive I will be 69 than.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Software is at least 10 years behind hardware .
In other words if they stopped making any progress in hardware it would be at least 10 years before software was developed to get anywhere close to the maximum benefits that the hardware is capable of accomplishing .
Microsoft should be able to offer all hardware for free with a subscription of 2 or more years of their cloud computing .
We should be able to offer enough services that even the fee would be better than free since the services should be able to save the user more money than it cost .
A service that would save energy costs would be the primary one but I can see several more in house security , personal security , communications , and entertainment .
For instance commercial tv should be abandoned .
I see no reason for making me watch a commercial for a product I have no interest in buying .
After or before the program is viewed a list of products or services should be available with the ability to click on any of them to receive more information .
That way more products or services could sponsor the programs since people could click on those they are interested in buying in the near future .
There are plenty of ways in house security that could save more money than they cost too .
For instances shutting off electricity or gas when there is a short or leak could save a house from being destroyed .
When this has happened several times the savings in insurance would be enough to justify the cost .
I have sure hope that in the year 2020 or before they can provide this service since if I am still alive I will be 69 than .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Software is at least 10 years behind hardware.
In other words if they stopped making any progress in hardware it would be at least 10 years before software was developed to get anywhere close to the maximum benefits that the hardware is capable of accomplishing.
Microsoft should be able to offer all hardware for free with a subscription of 2 or more years of their cloud computing.
We should be able to offer enough services that even the fee would be better than free since the services should be able to save the user more money than it cost.
A service that would save energy costs would be the primary one but I can see several more in house security,  personal security, communications, and entertainment.
For instance commercial tv should be abandoned.
I see no reason for making me watch a commercial for a product I have no interest in buying.
After or before the program is viewed a list of products or services should be available with the ability to click on any of them to receive more information.
That way more products or services could sponsor the programs since people could click on those they are interested in buying in the near future.
There are plenty of ways in house security that could save more money than they cost too.
For instances shutting off electricity or gas when there is a short or leak could save a house from being destroyed.
When this has happened several times the savings in insurance would be enough to justify the cost.
I have sure hope that in the year 2020 or before they can provide this service since if I am still alive I will be 69 than.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374146</id>
	<title>I am from India.</title>
	<author>Singularity42</author>
	<datestamp>1267819560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where is the place to go for cloud research job in India for Microsoft???</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where is the place to go for cloud research job in India for Microsoft ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where is the place to go for cloud research job in India for Microsoft??
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31376802</id>
	<title>The "cloud" concept is bad news...</title>
	<author>ibsteve2u</author>
	<datestamp>1267790880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...tell me your local cable company won't start metering your internet access once your computer is replaced with a - d&#233;j&#224; vu - dumb terminal.  They'll have you by the short curlies, once you cannot do diddly-squat without a connection.

</p><p>And once that happens, it will spiral out of control.  If you believe otherwise, perhaps you might consider the possibility of some genius with a greedy streak at Verizon/Comcast/Time Warner/on Wall Street thinking "Hey, since we have metered access now, then why can't I create a market for blocks of time?".</p><p>And then consider how gasoline prices respond to speculation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...tell me your local cable company wo n't start metering your internet access once your computer is replaced with a - d   j   vu - dumb terminal .
They 'll have you by the short curlies , once you can not do diddly-squat without a connection .
And once that happens , it will spiral out of control .
If you believe otherwise , perhaps you might consider the possibility of some genius with a greedy streak at Verizon/Comcast/Time Warner/on Wall Street thinking " Hey , since we have metered access now , then why ca n't I create a market for blocks of time ?
" .And then consider how gasoline prices respond to speculation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...tell me your local cable company won't start metering your internet access once your computer is replaced with a - déjà vu - dumb terminal.
They'll have you by the short curlies, once you cannot do diddly-squat without a connection.
And once that happens, it will spiral out of control.
If you believe otherwise, perhaps you might consider the possibility of some genius with a greedy streak at Verizon/Comcast/Time Warner/on Wall Street thinking "Hey, since we have metered access now, then why can't I create a market for blocks of time?
".And then consider how gasoline prices respond to speculation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374190</id>
	<title>They missed the internet rush</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267819740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back when MS missed getting in on the rise of the internet, they played catch-up for years. They didn't "get" the internet at first, and that cost them dearly for a while. To this day MS is not really known as an internet leader.</p><p>Back then it was obvious they weren't doing it right. And today they're still not doing it right because they've swung the other way, apparently, and overestimated the importance of cloud computing in the future. Oh well, it's their money and they can afford to flush it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back when MS missed getting in on the rise of the internet , they played catch-up for years .
They did n't " get " the internet at first , and that cost them dearly for a while .
To this day MS is not really known as an internet leader.Back then it was obvious they were n't doing it right .
And today they 're still not doing it right because they 've swung the other way , apparently , and overestimated the importance of cloud computing in the future .
Oh well , it 's their money and they can afford to flush it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back when MS missed getting in on the rise of the internet, they played catch-up for years.
They didn't "get" the internet at first, and that cost them dearly for a while.
To this day MS is not really known as an internet leader.Back then it was obvious they weren't doing it right.
And today they're still not doing it right because they've swung the other way, apparently, and overestimated the importance of cloud computing in the future.
Oh well, it's their money and they can afford to flush it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374300</id>
	<title>Interesting turnaround</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267820160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>From an <a href="http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,983882,00.html" title="time.com">article in Time magazine, December 29 1995</a> [time.com]:<p> <i>Gates is as fearful as he is feared, and these days he worries most about the Internet, Usenet and the World Wide Web, which threaten his software monopoly by shifting the nexus of control from stand-alone computers to the network that connects them. The Internet, by design, has no central operating system that Microsoft or anybody else can patent and license. And its libertarian culture is devoted to open--that is to say, nonproprietary--standards, none of which were set by Microsoft.

</i></p><p><i>Gates moved quickly this year to embrace the Net, although it sometimes seemed he was trying to wrap Microsoft's long arms around it.</i> </p><p>I remember reading Gates' book "The Road Ahead" something like seven years ago and being surprised at how wrong he was in his estimation of the impact that mainstream Internet connectivity would have. I wish I could get the exact quotes, but there were a few telling sentences where he comes off pretty clearly as dismissive that net connectivity would become anything more than a cute PC accessory. I'm still not sure if that was his genuine line of reasoning, or of it was just wishful thinking, but I think the point was clear that Microsoft was stacking their chips against net-based services, insisting that locally-run software was going to be the way of the future.</p><p>Now they are investing in what Google has already been doing and doing well for years, following their trend of copying other business' models instead of innovating on their own. I'm sure this will work out well for them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From an article in Time magazine , December 29 1995 [ time.com ] : Gates is as fearful as he is feared , and these days he worries most about the Internet , Usenet and the World Wide Web , which threaten his software monopoly by shifting the nexus of control from stand-alone computers to the network that connects them .
The Internet , by design , has no central operating system that Microsoft or anybody else can patent and license .
And its libertarian culture is devoted to open--that is to say , nonproprietary--standards , none of which were set by Microsoft .
Gates moved quickly this year to embrace the Net , although it sometimes seemed he was trying to wrap Microsoft 's long arms around it .
I remember reading Gates ' book " The Road Ahead " something like seven years ago and being surprised at how wrong he was in his estimation of the impact that mainstream Internet connectivity would have .
I wish I could get the exact quotes , but there were a few telling sentences where he comes off pretty clearly as dismissive that net connectivity would become anything more than a cute PC accessory .
I 'm still not sure if that was his genuine line of reasoning , or of it was just wishful thinking , but I think the point was clear that Microsoft was stacking their chips against net-based services , insisting that locally-run software was going to be the way of the future.Now they are investing in what Google has already been doing and doing well for years , following their trend of copying other business ' models instead of innovating on their own .
I 'm sure this will work out well for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From an article in Time magazine, December 29 1995 [time.com]: Gates is as fearful as he is feared, and these days he worries most about the Internet, Usenet and the World Wide Web, which threaten his software monopoly by shifting the nexus of control from stand-alone computers to the network that connects them.
The Internet, by design, has no central operating system that Microsoft or anybody else can patent and license.
And its libertarian culture is devoted to open--that is to say, nonproprietary--standards, none of which were set by Microsoft.
Gates moved quickly this year to embrace the Net, although it sometimes seemed he was trying to wrap Microsoft's long arms around it.
I remember reading Gates' book "The Road Ahead" something like seven years ago and being surprised at how wrong he was in his estimation of the impact that mainstream Internet connectivity would have.
I wish I could get the exact quotes, but there were a few telling sentences where he comes off pretty clearly as dismissive that net connectivity would become anything more than a cute PC accessory.
I'm still not sure if that was his genuine line of reasoning, or of it was just wishful thinking, but I think the point was clear that Microsoft was stacking their chips against net-based services, insisting that locally-run software was going to be the way of the future.Now they are investing in what Google has already been doing and doing well for years, following their trend of copying other business' models instead of innovating on their own.
I'm sure this will work out well for them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31373986</id>
	<title>CmdrTaco spends $9000 on penis pills</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267818900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>CmdrTaco spends $9000 on penis pills but he still has a baby penis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CmdrTaco spends $ 9000 on penis pills but he still has a baby penis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CmdrTaco spends $9000 on penis pills but he still has a baby penis.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374418</id>
	<title>Where are academia's clouds?</title>
	<author>whovian</author>
	<datestamp>1267820700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With Amazon and Microsoft being businesses, hence for-profit, I was wondering if anyone has taken a stab at cloud R&amp;D in academia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With Amazon and Microsoft being businesses , hence for-profit , I was wondering if anyone has taken a stab at cloud R&amp;D in academia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With Amazon and Microsoft being businesses, hence for-profit, I was wondering if anyone has taken a stab at cloud R&amp;D in academia.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374166</id>
	<title>Watch This</title>
	<author>Slash.Poop</author>
	<datestamp>1267819680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Watch<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. tear apart Microsoft for even mentioning the word "cloud".<br>
When just yesterday<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. was praising Ubuntu working on the "cloud".<br> <br>

<a href="http://linux.slashdot.org/story/10/03/03/1947235/Ubuntu-Desktop-In-the-Cloud" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://linux.slashdot.org/story/10/03/03/1947235/Ubuntu-Desktop-In-the-Cloud</a> [slashdot.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Watch / .
tear apart Microsoft for even mentioning the word " cloud " .
When just yesterday / .
was praising Ubuntu working on the " cloud " .
http : //linux.slashdot.org/story/10/03/03/1947235/Ubuntu-Desktop-In-the-Cloud [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Watch /.
tear apart Microsoft for even mentioning the word "cloud".
When just yesterday /.
was praising Ubuntu working on the "cloud".
http://linux.slashdot.org/story/10/03/03/1947235/Ubuntu-Desktop-In-the-Cloud [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374264</id>
	<title>Re:I am from India.</title>
	<author>vikingpower</author>
	<datestamp>1267820040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bangalore. Microsoft has a big shiny glass box of an office there. I am deeply sympathetic with your fate and hope you will survive it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bangalore .
Microsoft has a big shiny glass box of an office there .
I am deeply sympathetic with your fate and hope you will survive it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bangalore.
Microsoft has a big shiny glass box of an office there.
I am deeply sympathetic with your fate and hope you will survive it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31375782</id>
	<title>Re:Trendy and Incompetent</title>
	<author>RightSaidFred99</author>
	<datestamp>1267784700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are a retard.</p><p>Which is more credible:</p><p>a) Microsoft pays very intelligent, very educated people ridiculous sums of money to make sound business plans and they realize cloud computing is going to be a major factor in the coming years.</p><p>b) Some dipshit on SlashDot is smarter than all these people and "knows" that cloud computing is just a "near-meaningless buzzword".</p><p>Jesus Christ.  I can just see that ridiculous sneer on your fact over that unkempt, patchy bear that covers half your fat neck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are a retard.Which is more credible : a ) Microsoft pays very intelligent , very educated people ridiculous sums of money to make sound business plans and they realize cloud computing is going to be a major factor in the coming years.b ) Some dipshit on SlashDot is smarter than all these people and " knows " that cloud computing is just a " near-meaningless buzzword " .Jesus Christ .
I can just see that ridiculous sneer on your fact over that unkempt , patchy bear that covers half your fat neck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are a retard.Which is more credible:a) Microsoft pays very intelligent, very educated people ridiculous sums of money to make sound business plans and they realize cloud computing is going to be a major factor in the coming years.b) Some dipshit on SlashDot is smarter than all these people and "knows" that cloud computing is just a "near-meaningless buzzword".Jesus Christ.
I can just see that ridiculous sneer on your fact over that unkempt, patchy bear that covers half your fat neck.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374142</id>
	<title>Lots of R&amp;D $$$ yield ... nothing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267819560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the past ten years MS has probably spent $50B on R&amp;D<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... what does it have to show ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the past ten years MS has probably spent $ 50B on R&amp;D ... what does it have to show ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the past ten years MS has probably spent $50B on R&amp;D ... what does it have to show ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31376184</id>
	<title>Re:In other words...</title>
	<author>j00r0m4nc3r</author>
	<datestamp>1267786980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The "cloud" is just a buzzword.</i> <br> <br>
Tell that to Amazon.com</htmltext>
<tokenext>The " cloud " is just a buzzword .
Tell that to Amazon.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "cloud" is just a buzzword.
Tell that to Amazon.com</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374368</id>
	<title>Re:Trendy and Incompetent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267820400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Logic is out.  Buzzwords and shiny interfaces are in.  Apple proves that to you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Logic is out .
Buzzwords and shiny interfaces are in .
Apple proves that to you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Logic is out.
Buzzwords and shiny interfaces are in.
Apple proves that to you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31377496</id>
	<title>Some day the hacker party will begin w/ cloud</title>
	<author>SlappyBastard</author>
	<datestamp>1267797600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You know, poorly implemented, cloud computing has the potential to be the thing that actual does finally lay waste to the internet (many apologies to LOLcatz and ChatRoulette).  And who better to poorly implement cloud than MS?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , poorly implemented , cloud computing has the potential to be the thing that actual does finally lay waste to the internet ( many apologies to LOLcatz and ChatRoulette ) .
And who better to poorly implement cloud than MS ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, poorly implemented, cloud computing has the potential to be the thing that actual does finally lay waste to the internet (many apologies to LOLcatz and ChatRoulette).
And who better to poorly implement cloud than MS?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31377820</id>
	<title>"Drug dealer spends $9 billion on 'research',</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1267800720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>focuses on cloud."</p><p>Dealer: Shit, that&rsquo;s the best stuff you ever smoked, Bill, isn&rsquo;t it?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>focuses on cloud .
" Dealer : Shit , that    s the best stuff you ever smoked , Bill , isn    t it ?
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>focuses on cloud.
"Dealer: Shit, that’s the best stuff you ever smoked, Bill, isn’t it?
;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31376250</id>
	<title>Re:Lots of R&amp;D $$$ yield ... nothing</title>
	<author>Arthur Grumbine</author>
	<datestamp>1267787460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>$45B in gross profits <a href="http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=msft" title="yahoo.com">this last year alone</a> [yahoo.com], and growing...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 45B in gross profits this last year alone [ yahoo.com ] , and growing.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$45B in gross profits this last year alone [yahoo.com], and growing...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31375074</id>
	<title>Buzzwords are not vision</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1267780800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem Microsoft really has is a lack of vision.  They've kinda made everything they have set out to make, and now they really don't have a grasp on what's next.  Regardless of their size and resources, they aren't driving the industry the way they used to.  Office is ok, and the ribbon bar is cool, for sure, but, it took them ten years of piling stuff into toolbars and menus and chasing around competitors u/i dongles in Office that they lost site of Office as a vision. Same can be said about Win7, VStudio... it's all nice and all, but really kinda visionless and above all soulless.</p><p>Nothing the company makes excites me any more.  Even when they do do something cool, they wrap it up in so much EULA speak and corporatease, I feel like I just did a shot that went down smooth but made me throw up at the end.  "Windows Genuine Advantage"... good Lord, they may as well just rename their marketing department to be the "Ministry of Truth."</p><p>And, now, we have Cloud.</p><p>Does Microsoft really get internet based computing?  I mean, its pretty hard to argue they believe in hosted solutions when Windows costs more per ad click to run a site off than Linux ever will, and, even worse, their most consumer facing internet product, internet explorer, is so reviled that it undermines their whole brand.  Even in a 100\% Microsoft shop, everyone around here uses Chrome or Firefox and wishes Microsoft would just give up on the internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem Microsoft really has is a lack of vision .
They 've kinda made everything they have set out to make , and now they really do n't have a grasp on what 's next .
Regardless of their size and resources , they are n't driving the industry the way they used to .
Office is ok , and the ribbon bar is cool , for sure , but , it took them ten years of piling stuff into toolbars and menus and chasing around competitors u/i dongles in Office that they lost site of Office as a vision .
Same can be said about Win7 , VStudio... it 's all nice and all , but really kinda visionless and above all soulless.Nothing the company makes excites me any more .
Even when they do do something cool , they wrap it up in so much EULA speak and corporatease , I feel like I just did a shot that went down smooth but made me throw up at the end .
" Windows Genuine Advantage " ... good Lord , they may as well just rename their marketing department to be the " Ministry of Truth .
" And , now , we have Cloud.Does Microsoft really get internet based computing ?
I mean , its pretty hard to argue they believe in hosted solutions when Windows costs more per ad click to run a site off than Linux ever will , and , even worse , their most consumer facing internet product , internet explorer , is so reviled that it undermines their whole brand .
Even in a 100 \ % Microsoft shop , everyone around here uses Chrome or Firefox and wishes Microsoft would just give up on the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem Microsoft really has is a lack of vision.
They've kinda made everything they have set out to make, and now they really don't have a grasp on what's next.
Regardless of their size and resources, they aren't driving the industry the way they used to.
Office is ok, and the ribbon bar is cool, for sure, but, it took them ten years of piling stuff into toolbars and menus and chasing around competitors u/i dongles in Office that they lost site of Office as a vision.
Same can be said about Win7, VStudio... it's all nice and all, but really kinda visionless and above all soulless.Nothing the company makes excites me any more.
Even when they do do something cool, they wrap it up in so much EULA speak and corporatease, I feel like I just did a shot that went down smooth but made me throw up at the end.
"Windows Genuine Advantage"... good Lord, they may as well just rename their marketing department to be the "Ministry of Truth.
"And, now, we have Cloud.Does Microsoft really get internet based computing?
I mean, its pretty hard to argue they believe in hosted solutions when Windows costs more per ad click to run a site off than Linux ever will, and, even worse, their most consumer facing internet product, internet explorer, is so reviled that it undermines their whole brand.
Even in a 100\% Microsoft shop, everyone around here uses Chrome or Firefox and wishes Microsoft would just give up on the internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374824</id>
	<title>Clouds are just vapor.</title>
	<author>elgee</author>
	<datestamp>1267822680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just saying.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just saying.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just saying.....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31375418</id>
	<title>SharePoint</title>
	<author>adipocere</author>
	<datestamp>1267782720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Other operating systems have pulled ahead and probably will continue to do so.  Office has been nearly feature complete since Office 97 (which is perfectly serviceable for 99\% of people), and Open Office will eventually get there, if it hasn't already.  Internet Explorer continues to slip.</p><p>Microsoft continues to win in business software like Exchange and Outlook, and things that integrate with them.  My guess is that they're putting a hell of a lot of money in SharePoint, because what other CMSs integrate that well with things like Exchange and Office and Active Directory?  SharePoint will help them maintain their business dominance as they get clobbered in other areas.</p><p>I'm not sure what the cloud can do for them, there seems to be a lot of "magic happens here" in it.  This could be a way for them to move Exchange and SharePoint up to a service pool in the sky.</p><p>Microsoft usually takes a few times to get things right.  The next iteration of Xbox ought to be a monster, but I wouldn't rely on their cloud for a few more years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Other operating systems have pulled ahead and probably will continue to do so .
Office has been nearly feature complete since Office 97 ( which is perfectly serviceable for 99 \ % of people ) , and Open Office will eventually get there , if it has n't already .
Internet Explorer continues to slip.Microsoft continues to win in business software like Exchange and Outlook , and things that integrate with them .
My guess is that they 're putting a hell of a lot of money in SharePoint , because what other CMSs integrate that well with things like Exchange and Office and Active Directory ?
SharePoint will help them maintain their business dominance as they get clobbered in other areas.I 'm not sure what the cloud can do for them , there seems to be a lot of " magic happens here " in it .
This could be a way for them to move Exchange and SharePoint up to a service pool in the sky.Microsoft usually takes a few times to get things right .
The next iteration of Xbox ought to be a monster , but I would n't rely on their cloud for a few more years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Other operating systems have pulled ahead and probably will continue to do so.
Office has been nearly feature complete since Office 97 (which is perfectly serviceable for 99\% of people), and Open Office will eventually get there, if it hasn't already.
Internet Explorer continues to slip.Microsoft continues to win in business software like Exchange and Outlook, and things that integrate with them.
My guess is that they're putting a hell of a lot of money in SharePoint, because what other CMSs integrate that well with things like Exchange and Office and Active Directory?
SharePoint will help them maintain their business dominance as they get clobbered in other areas.I'm not sure what the cloud can do for them, there seems to be a lot of "magic happens here" in it.
This could be a way for them to move Exchange and SharePoint up to a service pool in the sky.Microsoft usually takes a few times to get things right.
The next iteration of Xbox ought to be a monster, but I wouldn't rely on their cloud for a few more years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31376478</id>
	<title>Yes. Sounds familiar.</title>
	<author>paxcoder</author>
	<datestamp>1267788840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Network PC anyone?<br>Well I guess someone has to spend money to prove it's not what we need. But seriously: what if MS wasn't around? That's the real question.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Network PC anyone ? Well I guess someone has to spend money to prove it 's not what we need .
But seriously : what if MS was n't around ?
That 's the real question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Network PC anyone?Well I guess someone has to spend money to prove it's not what we need.
But seriously: what if MS wasn't around?
That's the real question.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31379834</id>
	<title>Cloudy fiber.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267875720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well I've said it elsewhere but with all this cloud build-out we may soon have the same bubble that brought us dark fiber.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well I 've said it elsewhere but with all this cloud build-out we may soon have the same bubble that brought us dark fiber .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well I've said it elsewhere but with all this cloud build-out we may soon have the same bubble that brought us dark fiber.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31376304</id>
	<title>They're coming after Google Hard</title>
	<author>Cyberllama</author>
	<datestamp>1267787760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's like they JUST realized that they Google and Apple were the behemoths now and that MS is the underdog.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's like they JUST realized that they Google and Apple were the behemoths now and that MS is the underdog .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's like they JUST realized that they Google and Apple were the behemoths now and that MS is the underdog.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374588</id>
	<title>Over 9 billion dollars</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267821660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They spend over 9 billion dollars on research, and we still need to buy add-on products to protect us from virus attacks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They spend over 9 billion dollars on research , and we still need to buy add-on products to protect us from virus attacks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They spend over 9 billion dollars on research, and we still need to buy add-on products to protect us from virus attacks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31375036</id>
	<title>Great Achievement...</title>
	<author>yet-another-lobbyist</author>
	<datestamp>1267780680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... they burn billions on research money, yet a lot of their products are mocking someone else's creative inventions (MS-DOS, Windows, IE, Zune, Windows CE, Windows Mobile,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...) paired with half-assed and often user-annoying implementations. <br>
Instead (or because of that) they have to spend their time spreading FUD and threatening everyone with patent suits. Thank you, Microsoft!</htmltext>
<tokenext>... they burn billions on research money , yet a lot of their products are mocking someone else 's creative inventions ( MS-DOS , Windows , IE , Zune , Windows CE , Windows Mobile , ... ) paired with half-assed and often user-annoying implementations .
Instead ( or because of that ) they have to spend their time spreading FUD and threatening everyone with patent suits .
Thank you , Microsoft !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... they burn billions on research money, yet a lot of their products are mocking someone else's creative inventions (MS-DOS, Windows, IE, Zune, Windows CE, Windows Mobile, ...) paired with half-assed and often user-annoying implementations.
Instead (or because of that) they have to spend their time spreading FUD and threatening everyone with patent suits.
Thank you, Microsoft!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374450</id>
	<title>Re:In other words...</title>
	<author>dave562</author>
	<datestamp>1267820880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft sees the future and it is about to run them over.  A lot of organizations don't want to eat the hardware costs associated with Office upgrades every three to five years.  Microsoft is offering to host the applications online.  From what I've heard about Office 2010, they aren't doing a very good job yet.</p><p>At this point it looks like they're in a race with Google.  Google is trying to add functionality to bring Docs on par with Office.  Microsoft is trying to get Office online before Google replicates enough of the functionality to destroy Microsoft's licensing stream.</p><p>Given the perpetual beta mindset on Google's part, coupled with their absolutely abhorrent attitude toward end user support, I give Microsoft a better than 50/50 chance of getting a reasonable offering put together in time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft sees the future and it is about to run them over .
A lot of organizations do n't want to eat the hardware costs associated with Office upgrades every three to five years .
Microsoft is offering to host the applications online .
From what I 've heard about Office 2010 , they are n't doing a very good job yet.At this point it looks like they 're in a race with Google .
Google is trying to add functionality to bring Docs on par with Office .
Microsoft is trying to get Office online before Google replicates enough of the functionality to destroy Microsoft 's licensing stream.Given the perpetual beta mindset on Google 's part , coupled with their absolutely abhorrent attitude toward end user support , I give Microsoft a better than 50/50 chance of getting a reasonable offering put together in time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft sees the future and it is about to run them over.
A lot of organizations don't want to eat the hardware costs associated with Office upgrades every three to five years.
Microsoft is offering to host the applications online.
From what I've heard about Office 2010, they aren't doing a very good job yet.At this point it looks like they're in a race with Google.
Google is trying to add functionality to bring Docs on par with Office.
Microsoft is trying to get Office online before Google replicates enough of the functionality to destroy Microsoft's licensing stream.Given the perpetual beta mindset on Google's part, coupled with their absolutely abhorrent attitude toward end user support, I give Microsoft a better than 50/50 chance of getting a reasonable offering put together in time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31373982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374044</id>
	<title>It's a hedge</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1267819200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A prudent move, since "cloud" would turn the Windows/Office business model upside down.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A prudent move , since " cloud " would turn the Windows/Office business model upside down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A prudent move, since "cloud" would turn the Windows/Office business model upside down.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31375930</id>
	<title>Re:It's horseshit, not just research</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267785360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At a previous employer, I was asked by management to estimate how much time I spend doing "research", left undefined.  The explanation - it's for tax purposes, and we can get a credit for research.</p><p>I'm not going to say I read the relevant laws to find the definition, but I did follow company policy and made a best guess based on what I thought should reasonably qualify under a sane tax system.  So although I didn't claim anything that a normal person would call foul, I'm sure there were some hours that wouldn't qualify.</p><p>Hours were turned into dollars, and the results collected and turned in as "research and development" spending for tax purposes.  We met both the letter and spirit of the law, as much as was possible.  But we were not a product company, nor a major innovator in our market(s).  We did lots of research with very little to show for it.  The intended purpose of the law of course would be to encourage invention if not innovation, and have a more efficient and/or productive economy, resulting in snowballing gains as different sectors picked up on advances in other areas.  Makes sense.</p><p>I'm sure someone else will point out how many cool things MS research announces then fails to turn into a marketable product, so I won't go into that.  I'm also sure that Microsoft's obligations to its shareholders have continually been ignored as dividend payouts have been begrudgingly given, on the odd chances they are given at all.  While sitting on piles of cash.  As a shareholder, i'd like to see MS Research almost entirely dismantled, dividends you can count on, and for fuck's sake replace the entire marketing silo with a small panel of the following makeup who will say which products get to market and how:</p><p>A graphic designer<br>A soccer/hockey/whatever mom or dad<br>Someone employed in middle management of a non-technology company<br>One person of any type who has never seen an episode of survivor or american idol<br>One person who knows the words to every Lady GaGa song (artist to be updated by annual shareholder vote)<br>One person who belongs to every social network known to man and has no concept of privacy (must have an entry on <a href="http://failbooking.com/" title="failbooking.com">http://failbooking.com/</a> [failbooking.com])<br>Bill Gates<br>A rat terrier (for product testing), alternatively a young japanese man will substitute as needed<br>A 14 year old girl (preferably familiar with glitter and whose favorite color is pink, replaced annually for obvious reasons)<br>A business analyst with a marketing related education, who counts as 1/2 vote</p><p>There's your entire marketing department, and they will make better decisions and cost less money.  You can probably pay them in MacBooks, Comp tickets, maid service, fairy dust and unicorn shit, rainbowed versions of normal objects like neon beer signs and the like, permanent Bing #1 results for keyword 'smush', certificates for a discount on the next purchase of a Windows(tm)  product, used panties, arcade crane game baubles, and insurance benefits with an occasional kick to the balls, respectively.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At a previous employer , I was asked by management to estimate how much time I spend doing " research " , left undefined .
The explanation - it 's for tax purposes , and we can get a credit for research.I 'm not going to say I read the relevant laws to find the definition , but I did follow company policy and made a best guess based on what I thought should reasonably qualify under a sane tax system .
So although I did n't claim anything that a normal person would call foul , I 'm sure there were some hours that would n't qualify.Hours were turned into dollars , and the results collected and turned in as " research and development " spending for tax purposes .
We met both the letter and spirit of the law , as much as was possible .
But we were not a product company , nor a major innovator in our market ( s ) .
We did lots of research with very little to show for it .
The intended purpose of the law of course would be to encourage invention if not innovation , and have a more efficient and/or productive economy , resulting in snowballing gains as different sectors picked up on advances in other areas .
Makes sense.I 'm sure someone else will point out how many cool things MS research announces then fails to turn into a marketable product , so I wo n't go into that .
I 'm also sure that Microsoft 's obligations to its shareholders have continually been ignored as dividend payouts have been begrudgingly given , on the odd chances they are given at all .
While sitting on piles of cash .
As a shareholder , i 'd like to see MS Research almost entirely dismantled , dividends you can count on , and for fuck 's sake replace the entire marketing silo with a small panel of the following makeup who will say which products get to market and how : A graphic designerA soccer/hockey/whatever mom or dadSomeone employed in middle management of a non-technology companyOne person of any type who has never seen an episode of survivor or american idolOne person who knows the words to every Lady GaGa song ( artist to be updated by annual shareholder vote ) One person who belongs to every social network known to man and has no concept of privacy ( must have an entry on http : //failbooking.com/ [ failbooking.com ] ) Bill GatesA rat terrier ( for product testing ) , alternatively a young japanese man will substitute as neededA 14 year old girl ( preferably familiar with glitter and whose favorite color is pink , replaced annually for obvious reasons ) A business analyst with a marketing related education , who counts as 1/2 voteThere 's your entire marketing department , and they will make better decisions and cost less money .
You can probably pay them in MacBooks , Comp tickets , maid service , fairy dust and unicorn shit , rainbowed versions of normal objects like neon beer signs and the like , permanent Bing # 1 results for keyword 'smush ' , certificates for a discount on the next purchase of a Windows ( tm ) product , used panties , arcade crane game baubles , and insurance benefits with an occasional kick to the balls , respectively .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At a previous employer, I was asked by management to estimate how much time I spend doing "research", left undefined.
The explanation - it's for tax purposes, and we can get a credit for research.I'm not going to say I read the relevant laws to find the definition, but I did follow company policy and made a best guess based on what I thought should reasonably qualify under a sane tax system.
So although I didn't claim anything that a normal person would call foul, I'm sure there were some hours that wouldn't qualify.Hours were turned into dollars, and the results collected and turned in as "research and development" spending for tax purposes.
We met both the letter and spirit of the law, as much as was possible.
But we were not a product company, nor a major innovator in our market(s).
We did lots of research with very little to show for it.
The intended purpose of the law of course would be to encourage invention if not innovation, and have a more efficient and/or productive economy, resulting in snowballing gains as different sectors picked up on advances in other areas.
Makes sense.I'm sure someone else will point out how many cool things MS research announces then fails to turn into a marketable product, so I won't go into that.
I'm also sure that Microsoft's obligations to its shareholders have continually been ignored as dividend payouts have been begrudgingly given, on the odd chances they are given at all.
While sitting on piles of cash.
As a shareholder, i'd like to see MS Research almost entirely dismantled, dividends you can count on, and for fuck's sake replace the entire marketing silo with a small panel of the following makeup who will say which products get to market and how:A graphic designerA soccer/hockey/whatever mom or dadSomeone employed in middle management of a non-technology companyOne person of any type who has never seen an episode of survivor or american idolOne person who knows the words to every Lady GaGa song (artist to be updated by annual shareholder vote)One person who belongs to every social network known to man and has no concept of privacy (must have an entry on http://failbooking.com/ [failbooking.com])Bill GatesA rat terrier (for product testing), alternatively a young japanese man will substitute as neededA 14 year old girl (preferably familiar with glitter and whose favorite color is pink, replaced annually for obvious reasons)A business analyst with a marketing related education, who counts as 1/2 voteThere's your entire marketing department, and they will make better decisions and cost less money.
You can probably pay them in MacBooks, Comp tickets, maid service, fairy dust and unicorn shit, rainbowed versions of normal objects like neon beer signs and the like, permanent Bing #1 results for keyword 'smush', certificates for a discount on the next purchase of a Windows(tm)  product, used panties, arcade crane game baubles, and insurance benefits with an occasional kick to the balls, respectively.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31377092</id>
	<title>We're going to change and reinvent our company aro</title>
	<author>devent</author>
	<datestamp>1267793220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"We're going to change and reinvent our company around leading in the cloud."</p><p>Good, I hope they will stay in the cloud, far far away from my PCs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" We 're going to change and reinvent our company around leading in the cloud .
" Good , I hope they will stay in the cloud , far far away from my PCs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We're going to change and reinvent our company around leading in the cloud.
"Good, I hope they will stay in the cloud, far far away from my PCs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374658</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting turnaround</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267822020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know if you were being sarcastic or not, but it probably will work out well for them. </p><p>Look at virtulization, as an example. VMware made good products, and once a market had defined itself MS comes in and bears it's weight down making products that are just as good.</p><p>Note: This isn't about market share, this is about what companies will deploy next business cycle.</p><p>You can argue that this is all MS does, but it's a moot point if they continue to make money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know if you were being sarcastic or not , but it probably will work out well for them .
Look at virtulization , as an example .
VMware made good products , and once a market had defined itself MS comes in and bears it 's weight down making products that are just as good.Note : This is n't about market share , this is about what companies will deploy next business cycle.You can argue that this is all MS does , but it 's a moot point if they continue to make money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know if you were being sarcastic or not, but it probably will work out well for them.
Look at virtulization, as an example.
VMware made good products, and once a market had defined itself MS comes in and bears it's weight down making products that are just as good.Note: This isn't about market share, this is about what companies will deploy next business cycle.You can argue that this is all MS does, but it's a moot point if they continue to make money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31376836</id>
	<title>THe Commercial Cloud:</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1267791120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>= Perpetual micro-payments.  Just like the cell phone industry.</p><p>Evil..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>= Perpetual micro-payments .
Just like the cell phone industry.Evil. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>= Perpetual micro-payments.
Just like the cell phone industry.Evil..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31375390</id>
	<title>Re:In other words...</title>
	<author>bmajik</author>
	<datestamp>1267782480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>for larger businesses hardware is so cheap that it doesn't make sense. We're about to buy a few $15,000 servers when the new Intel CPU's come out. 2 6 core CPU's, 72GB of RAM, 500GB to 1TB of hard drive space, all kinds of monitoring capability, etc for $15,000 each</p></div></blockquote><p>Still, no matter how many computers you buy and how expensive you make them, paying humans to keep them running is going to be the largest portion of IT costs.</p><p>The question is: do you want your organization to become a lean-n-mean specialist in keeping IT infrastructure running, or would you like to buy "IT service" from someone who \_does\_ specialize in that industry?  If you have 100 servers to keep running with 5 guys, and you don't really need more than 100 servers.. how do you make your IT business more efficient?  Are you really going to push to "lose" one of your employees?</p><p>My company is a strategic competitor to google, so while "company loyalty" might dictate that I badmouth them, the scale, uptime, and efficiency of Google's IT operations speaks for itself.  They have innovated IT since day 0, from building their own server hardware, to re-thinking reliabilty, to engineering their own power and cooling -- they have innovated up and down the entire vertical stack of IT infrastructure.</p><p>"WeSellWidgets" and their IT staff of "2 dudes, mostly" is simply \_never\_ going to compete with that.  So when google or amazon or Microsoft [home team plug] or whomever says "we can give you this for this monthly dollar amount" and you honestly assess your costs of insourcing.. for a number of situations the cloud-hosted model makes sense.</p><p>At MS we try not to hire people as full time employees for tasks that don't relate to the core mission of our business.  The same lady has been the cashier in my cafeteria for years, but she doesn't work for MS - she works for an agency that MS has contracted with.  Selling Food to employees isn't something Microsoft wants to make part of its core business, and so we outsource that entire problem to a company who \_does\_ want to do that.</p><p>IT infrastructure is not the primary mission of most companies that need to consume IT.  Plumbing isn't the core mission of most companies that need to consume water, and electricity isn't the core mission of most companies that need to consume electricity.  In the latter two cases, maintenance of plumbing and electrical systems is almost universally outsourced.  People continue to disagree on when and how IT services will tend to be thought of as plumbing and electrical "always on, take them for granted" type services, but most people seem to agree that it is an eventual inevitability.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>for larger businesses hardware is so cheap that it does n't make sense .
We 're about to buy a few $ 15,000 servers when the new Intel CPU 's come out .
2 6 core CPU 's , 72GB of RAM , 500GB to 1TB of hard drive space , all kinds of monitoring capability , etc for $ 15,000 eachStill , no matter how many computers you buy and how expensive you make them , paying humans to keep them running is going to be the largest portion of IT costs.The question is : do you want your organization to become a lean-n-mean specialist in keeping IT infrastructure running , or would you like to buy " IT service " from someone who \ _does \ _ specialize in that industry ?
If you have 100 servers to keep running with 5 guys , and you do n't really need more than 100 servers.. how do you make your IT business more efficient ?
Are you really going to push to " lose " one of your employees ? My company is a strategic competitor to google , so while " company loyalty " might dictate that I badmouth them , the scale , uptime , and efficiency of Google 's IT operations speaks for itself .
They have innovated IT since day 0 , from building their own server hardware , to re-thinking reliabilty , to engineering their own power and cooling -- they have innovated up and down the entire vertical stack of IT infrastructure .
" WeSellWidgets " and their IT staff of " 2 dudes , mostly " is simply \ _never \ _ going to compete with that .
So when google or amazon or Microsoft [ home team plug ] or whomever says " we can give you this for this monthly dollar amount " and you honestly assess your costs of insourcing.. for a number of situations the cloud-hosted model makes sense.At MS we try not to hire people as full time employees for tasks that do n't relate to the core mission of our business .
The same lady has been the cashier in my cafeteria for years , but she does n't work for MS - she works for an agency that MS has contracted with .
Selling Food to employees is n't something Microsoft wants to make part of its core business , and so we outsource that entire problem to a company who \ _does \ _ want to do that.IT infrastructure is not the primary mission of most companies that need to consume IT .
Plumbing is n't the core mission of most companies that need to consume water , and electricity is n't the core mission of most companies that need to consume electricity .
In the latter two cases , maintenance of plumbing and electrical systems is almost universally outsourced .
People continue to disagree on when and how IT services will tend to be thought of as plumbing and electrical " always on , take them for granted " type services , but most people seem to agree that it is an eventual inevitability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>for larger businesses hardware is so cheap that it doesn't make sense.
We're about to buy a few $15,000 servers when the new Intel CPU's come out.
2 6 core CPU's, 72GB of RAM, 500GB to 1TB of hard drive space, all kinds of monitoring capability, etc for $15,000 eachStill, no matter how many computers you buy and how expensive you make them, paying humans to keep them running is going to be the largest portion of IT costs.The question is: do you want your organization to become a lean-n-mean specialist in keeping IT infrastructure running, or would you like to buy "IT service" from someone who \_does\_ specialize in that industry?
If you have 100 servers to keep running with 5 guys, and you don't really need more than 100 servers.. how do you make your IT business more efficient?
Are you really going to push to "lose" one of your employees?My company is a strategic competitor to google, so while "company loyalty" might dictate that I badmouth them, the scale, uptime, and efficiency of Google's IT operations speaks for itself.
They have innovated IT since day 0, from building their own server hardware, to re-thinking reliabilty, to engineering their own power and cooling -- they have innovated up and down the entire vertical stack of IT infrastructure.
"WeSellWidgets" and their IT staff of "2 dudes, mostly" is simply \_never\_ going to compete with that.
So when google or amazon or Microsoft [home team plug] or whomever says "we can give you this for this monthly dollar amount" and you honestly assess your costs of insourcing.. for a number of situations the cloud-hosted model makes sense.At MS we try not to hire people as full time employees for tasks that don't relate to the core mission of our business.
The same lady has been the cashier in my cafeteria for years, but she doesn't work for MS - she works for an agency that MS has contracted with.
Selling Food to employees isn't something Microsoft wants to make part of its core business, and so we outsource that entire problem to a company who \_does\_ want to do that.IT infrastructure is not the primary mission of most companies that need to consume IT.
Plumbing isn't the core mission of most companies that need to consume water, and electricity isn't the core mission of most companies that need to consume electricity.
In the latter two cases, maintenance of plumbing and electrical systems is almost universally outsourced.
People continue to disagree on when and how IT services will tend to be thought of as plumbing and electrical "always on, take them for granted" type services, but most people seem to agree that it is an eventual inevitability.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31373982</id>
	<title>In other words...</title>
	<author>pushing-robot</author>
	<datestamp>1267818900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"...We're not sure our OS and Office monopoly will last forever, so we'd really like to see if we could actually turn a profit on something else."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...We 're not sure our OS and Office monopoly will last forever , so we 'd really like to see if we could actually turn a profit on something else .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...We're not sure our OS and Office monopoly will last forever, so we'd really like to see if we could actually turn a profit on something else.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31375776</id>
	<title>Wasting Shareholder Money</title>
	<author>geoffrobinson</author>
	<datestamp>1267784640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How many billions of dollars have to be flushed down the toilet in Microsoft's attempt to gain new market strongholds?</p><p>It seems the best use of this money would be to give it back to the stockholers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many billions of dollars have to be flushed down the toilet in Microsoft 's attempt to gain new market strongholds ? It seems the best use of this money would be to give it back to the stockholers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many billions of dollars have to be flushed down the toilet in Microsoft's attempt to gain new market strongholds?It seems the best use of this money would be to give it back to the stockholers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31375120</id>
	<title>Why DO you need a cloud anyway?</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1267781100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When even cell phones increasingly have the compute power of what desktops did a few years ago.  The only reason you need a cloud is for data, and right now, data is still expensive to do over the internet. If longer lasting and higher capacity solid state drives become mainstream, even the data reason goes away as you can have all your data on your shelf, in the kitchen cabinet, your pocket at work, and so on, and even then, most people really don't need to store every single picture they took, forever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When even cell phones increasingly have the compute power of what desktops did a few years ago .
The only reason you need a cloud is for data , and right now , data is still expensive to do over the internet .
If longer lasting and higher capacity solid state drives become mainstream , even the data reason goes away as you can have all your data on your shelf , in the kitchen cabinet , your pocket at work , and so on , and even then , most people really do n't need to store every single picture they took , forever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When even cell phones increasingly have the compute power of what desktops did a few years ago.
The only reason you need a cloud is for data, and right now, data is still expensive to do over the internet.
If longer lasting and higher capacity solid state drives become mainstream, even the data reason goes away as you can have all your data on your shelf, in the kitchen cabinet, your pocket at work, and so on, and even then, most people really don't need to store every single picture they took, forever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31376400</id>
	<title>Re:In other words...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267788360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People that believe that probably also believe in perpetual, unbounded growth (population, profit, etc.) within a closed system (the Earth). It is not possible.</p><p>Businesses that will succeed in the future will do so without requiring unsustainable, endless growth. I don't know how to do that, but the first guy to figure it out is going to be really, really rich.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People that believe that probably also believe in perpetual , unbounded growth ( population , profit , etc .
) within a closed system ( the Earth ) .
It is not possible.Businesses that will succeed in the future will do so without requiring unsustainable , endless growth .
I do n't know how to do that , but the first guy to figure it out is going to be really , really rich .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People that believe that probably also believe in perpetual, unbounded growth (population, profit, etc.
) within a closed system (the Earth).
It is not possible.Businesses that will succeed in the future will do so without requiring unsustainable, endless growth.
I don't know how to do that, but the first guy to figure it out is going to be really, really rich.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31375292</id>
	<title>Joni Mitchell said it best</title>
	<author>ratnerstar</author>
	<datestamp>1267782000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You've looked at clouds from both sides now,<br>From up and down, and still somehow,<br>Nine billion dollars, I recall<br>You really don't know clouds, at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've looked at clouds from both sides now,From up and down , and still somehow,Nine billion dollars , I recallYou really do n't know clouds , at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've looked at clouds from both sides now,From up and down, and still somehow,Nine billion dollars, I recallYou really don't know clouds, at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374216</id>
	<title>Re:In other words...</title>
	<author>teknopurge</author>
	<datestamp>1267819860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wonder what Google is doing then as 90\% of their revenue is ads...  At least MS has a handful of significant revenue streams compared to the 1 google has...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wonder what Google is doing then as 90 \ % of their revenue is ads... At least MS has a handful of significant revenue streams compared to the 1 google has.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wonder what Google is doing then as 90\% of their revenue is ads...  At least MS has a handful of significant revenue streams compared to the 1 google has...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31373982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374092</id>
	<title>Azure looks interesting... But...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267819320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Azure is definitely interesting...  It's distributed programing model does look to have some advantages.  But I think it won't take off like Amazon's has for a few reasons...<br> <br>
First off, there are no computing containers.  What I mean by that is you can only run applications on Azure, not whole operating systems.  This does have some efficiency gains (in that you don't have an added OS layer in the middle, but it VASTLY increases the tie-in to the system, and prevents you from doing simple things like adding a server template to turn on if your site gets a lot of load.<br> <br>
Second, It requires applications to be custom written for the environment.  You can't trivially port a ready-made application from a single server to Azure...  While this is good on the efficiency side, it's not good for the weekend warrior or small businesses who want to remain portable and flexible...<br> <br>
Third, it's only on their cloud.  You have to trust MS's infrastructure.  And you need to trust MS with YOUR data...  It's not like amazon's offerings where clones have popped up that are compatible (so you could recreate your own cloud if you wanted to, or use a competitors)...  So that locks you in to their system.  My guess, is that most sizable companies won't like this at all...<br> <br>
I'm not saying people won't use it.  I'm not saying people won't like it.  What I am saying is that it is not playing in the same field as the other "Cloud" computing platforms.  IF MS opens up Azure (at least in a binary form) where you can install it on your own infrastructure, then it may have a shot.  If they allow guest operating systems, then it may have a shot.  But without both, I think there's just too much tie-in to be comfortable (and base your business around)...<br> <br>
Disclaimer:  This is based on a presentation which I attended by the lead engineer for Azure back in December of 08.  Things may have changed since then, but I haven't kept up with it specifically...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Azure is definitely interesting... It 's distributed programing model does look to have some advantages .
But I think it wo n't take off like Amazon 's has for a few reasons.. . First off , there are no computing containers .
What I mean by that is you can only run applications on Azure , not whole operating systems .
This does have some efficiency gains ( in that you do n't have an added OS layer in the middle , but it VASTLY increases the tie-in to the system , and prevents you from doing simple things like adding a server template to turn on if your site gets a lot of load .
Second , It requires applications to be custom written for the environment .
You ca n't trivially port a ready-made application from a single server to Azure... While this is good on the efficiency side , it 's not good for the weekend warrior or small businesses who want to remain portable and flexible.. . Third , it 's only on their cloud .
You have to trust MS 's infrastructure .
And you need to trust MS with YOUR data... It 's not like amazon 's offerings where clones have popped up that are compatible ( so you could recreate your own cloud if you wanted to , or use a competitors ) ... So that locks you in to their system .
My guess , is that most sizable companies wo n't like this at all.. . I 'm not saying people wo n't use it .
I 'm not saying people wo n't like it .
What I am saying is that it is not playing in the same field as the other " Cloud " computing platforms .
IF MS opens up Azure ( at least in a binary form ) where you can install it on your own infrastructure , then it may have a shot .
If they allow guest operating systems , then it may have a shot .
But without both , I think there 's just too much tie-in to be comfortable ( and base your business around ) .. . Disclaimer : This is based on a presentation which I attended by the lead engineer for Azure back in December of 08 .
Things may have changed since then , but I have n't kept up with it specifically.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Azure is definitely interesting...  It's distributed programing model does look to have some advantages.
But I think it won't take off like Amazon's has for a few reasons... 
First off, there are no computing containers.
What I mean by that is you can only run applications on Azure, not whole operating systems.
This does have some efficiency gains (in that you don't have an added OS layer in the middle, but it VASTLY increases the tie-in to the system, and prevents you from doing simple things like adding a server template to turn on if your site gets a lot of load.
Second, It requires applications to be custom written for the environment.
You can't trivially port a ready-made application from a single server to Azure...  While this is good on the efficiency side, it's not good for the weekend warrior or small businesses who want to remain portable and flexible... 
Third, it's only on their cloud.
You have to trust MS's infrastructure.
And you need to trust MS with YOUR data...  It's not like amazon's offerings where clones have popped up that are compatible (so you could recreate your own cloud if you wanted to, or use a competitors)...  So that locks you in to their system.
My guess, is that most sizable companies won't like this at all... 
I'm not saying people won't use it.
I'm not saying people won't like it.
What I am saying is that it is not playing in the same field as the other "Cloud" computing platforms.
IF MS opens up Azure (at least in a binary form) where you can install it on your own infrastructure, then it may have a shot.
If they allow guest operating systems, then it may have a shot.
But without both, I think there's just too much tie-in to be comfortable (and base your business around)... 
Disclaimer:  This is based on a presentation which I attended by the lead engineer for Azure back in December of 08.
Things may have changed since then, but I haven't kept up with it specifically...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374250</id>
	<title>Re:In other words...</title>
	<author>alen</author>
	<datestamp>1267819980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer have always said that they knew Windows and Office won't last forever. in the last 10 years they expanded into video games, business software, database servers, general IT servers for IT management, etc.The "cloud" is just a buzzword. few months ago i was reading some article about how someone was deploying servers for some internal project. and the article said they were building out a private cloud.</p><p>most of the cloud nonsense is for small businesses. i've helped a few build infrastructure and it's a waste of money buying servers, Windows Server licenses, etc. easier and cheaper to outsource it to Azure, Google or someone else.</p><p>for larger businesses hardware is so cheap that it doesn't make sense. We're about to buy a few $15,000 servers when the new Intel CPU's come out. 2 6 core CPU's, 72GB of RAM, 500GB to 1TB of hard drive space, all kinds of monitoring capability, etc for $15,000 each.</p><p>i was talking to an IT sales person the other day and he didn't even try to sell an hardware to us. he kept on pushing services. servers are a commodity made in China by little kids. just like ipods. I guess services is the next frontier to try to squeeze some profits</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer have always said that they knew Windows and Office wo n't last forever .
in the last 10 years they expanded into video games , business software , database servers , general IT servers for IT management , etc.The " cloud " is just a buzzword .
few months ago i was reading some article about how someone was deploying servers for some internal project .
and the article said they were building out a private cloud.most of the cloud nonsense is for small businesses .
i 've helped a few build infrastructure and it 's a waste of money buying servers , Windows Server licenses , etc .
easier and cheaper to outsource it to Azure , Google or someone else.for larger businesses hardware is so cheap that it does n't make sense .
We 're about to buy a few $ 15,000 servers when the new Intel CPU 's come out .
2 6 core CPU 's , 72GB of RAM , 500GB to 1TB of hard drive space , all kinds of monitoring capability , etc for $ 15,000 each.i was talking to an IT sales person the other day and he did n't even try to sell an hardware to us .
he kept on pushing services .
servers are a commodity made in China by little kids .
just like ipods .
I guess services is the next frontier to try to squeeze some profits</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer have always said that they knew Windows and Office won't last forever.
in the last 10 years they expanded into video games, business software, database servers, general IT servers for IT management, etc.The "cloud" is just a buzzword.
few months ago i was reading some article about how someone was deploying servers for some internal project.
and the article said they were building out a private cloud.most of the cloud nonsense is for small businesses.
i've helped a few build infrastructure and it's a waste of money buying servers, Windows Server licenses, etc.
easier and cheaper to outsource it to Azure, Google or someone else.for larger businesses hardware is so cheap that it doesn't make sense.
We're about to buy a few $15,000 servers when the new Intel CPU's come out.
2 6 core CPU's, 72GB of RAM, 500GB to 1TB of hard drive space, all kinds of monitoring capability, etc for $15,000 each.i was talking to an IT sales person the other day and he didn't even try to sell an hardware to us.
he kept on pushing services.
servers are a commodity made in China by little kids.
just like ipods.
I guess services is the next frontier to try to squeeze some profits</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31373982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374186</id>
	<title>"Paradigm for out-of-box enterprise synergy."</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267819740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"We're going to change and reinvent our company around leading in the cloud."</i>

<br> <br>Translation from corporate-speak: "Since the people in charge, like Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer, have little technical knowledge or interest, we want to be the leaders in cloudy thinking."

<br> <br>That's how it appears to me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" We 're going to change and reinvent our company around leading in the cloud .
" Translation from corporate-speak : " Since the people in charge , like Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer , have little technical knowledge or interest , we want to be the leaders in cloudy thinking .
" That 's how it appears to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We're going to change and reinvent our company around leading in the cloud.
"

 Translation from corporate-speak: "Since the people in charge, like Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer, have little technical knowledge or interest, we want to be the leaders in cloudy thinking.
"

 That's how it appears to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31373982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31377538</id>
	<title>Re:Lead or Follow?</title>
	<author>Powerbear</author>
	<datestamp>1267798020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ahhhh, but you forgot virus and spam software which can easily cost you $25+ per user year per user.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ahhhh , but you forgot virus and spam software which can easily cost you $ 25 + per user year per user .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ahhhh, but you forgot virus and spam software which can easily cost you $25+ per user year per user.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31377150</id>
	<title>The real challenge for Microsoft is scalability...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267793760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is going to be ugly.</p><p>Amazon's S3 ain't running on Windows. Amazon's EC2 ain't managed by Windows. Google's search engine ain't powered by Microsoft.</p><p>We're talking about scabability and amount of data beyond anything Microsoft as ever dealt with. Good luck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is going to be ugly.Amazon 's S3 ai n't running on Windows .
Amazon 's EC2 ai n't managed by Windows .
Google 's search engine ai n't powered by Microsoft.We 're talking about scabability and amount of data beyond anything Microsoft as ever dealt with .
Good luck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is going to be ugly.Amazon's S3 ain't running on Windows.
Amazon's EC2 ain't managed by Windows.
Google's search engine ain't powered by Microsoft.We're talking about scabability and amount of data beyond anything Microsoft as ever dealt with.
Good luck.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31375254</id>
	<title>$9 Billion?</title>
	<author>Millennium</author>
	<datestamp>1267781700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft gave $9 Billion to its R&amp;D department?</p><p>Geez; how'd Steve Jobs convince them to donate <i>that</i> much?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft gave $ 9 Billion to its R&amp;D department ? Geez ; how 'd Steve Jobs convince them to donate that much ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft gave $9 Billion to its R&amp;D department?Geez; how'd Steve Jobs convince them to donate that much?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374112</id>
	<title>In Praise of Microsoft R&amp;D</title>
	<author>mpapet</author>
	<datestamp>1267819440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have no doubt that Microsoft's R&amp;D is staffed with talented people.</p><p>I have my doubts that the Product Marketing and Sales side would turn any of it into anything of value though.  In the history of innovative companies, they all tend to develop such powerful resistance to risk taking that all of the market potential in their R&amp;D will just waste away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have no doubt that Microsoft 's R&amp;D is staffed with talented people.I have my doubts that the Product Marketing and Sales side would turn any of it into anything of value though .
In the history of innovative companies , they all tend to develop such powerful resistance to risk taking that all of the market potential in their R&amp;D will just waste away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have no doubt that Microsoft's R&amp;D is staffed with talented people.I have my doubts that the Product Marketing and Sales side would turn any of it into anything of value though.
In the history of innovative companies, they all tend to develop such powerful resistance to risk taking that all of the market potential in their R&amp;D will just waste away.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1653230_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31379510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1653230_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31376184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31373982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1653230_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1653230_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31377538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1653230_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31373982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1653230_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1653230_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31376400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31373982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1653230_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31373982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1653230_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31376250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1653230_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31375390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31373982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1653230_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1653230_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31375930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1653230_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31376536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31373982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1653230_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1653230_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1653230_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31375782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1653230_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31375540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31373982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1653230.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374588
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1653230.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374062
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31375930
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1653230.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31373982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374250
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31375390
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31376184
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31375540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374216
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31376536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374450
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374186
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374084
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31376400
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1653230.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374920
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1653230.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374818
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31377538
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1653230.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374828
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1653230.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374864
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1653230.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374112
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1653230.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31375018
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1653230.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374264
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374354
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1653230.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374190
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1653230.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374906
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1653230.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374304
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1653230.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374092
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1653230.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374166
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1653230.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31375782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31379510
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1653230.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31373986
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1653230.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31374142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1653230.31376250
</commentlist>
</conversation>
